Shutting public out of environmental decisions is not MAGA
Many troubling things have occurred in the environmental arena following the 2016 election. Particularly troubling is President Trump’s latest effort to “improve” the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and perhaps undermine the involvement of citizens in environmental review of projects that may have serious environmental consequences for their communities. It seems not in keeping with any MAGA effort.
This country is based on involvement by us — we the people. We have recently had an opportunity to be involved in the NEPA public scoping process for two major projects that if approved would impact our county in many ways and very possibly other areas, too. All citizens had the opportunity to express their concerns about what they think should be considered as the Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services, and the Bureau of Reclamation determine the scope of the draft Environmental Impact Statements for the proposed Northern Corridor and the proposed Lake Powell Pipeline.
The administration’s effort to shortcut the process could eliminate public involvement in the future.
As I waded through the 44-page Federal Register announcement of Trump’s NEPA changes with information that merely documents at a very high level the proposed changes, I was astounded at the extent of what’s proposed.
Since NEPA was enacted, the Council on Environmental Quality — responsible for implementing NEPA — has made efforts to clarify that Presidential directives have been issued and legislation enacted to reduce delays and expedite NEPA, but council has not comprehensively updated regulations since 1978.
Apparently, none of the earlier efforts have made the process less complex. I really doubt that this latest effort will be successful either, because protecting our environment is challenging and complex but very necessary. That said, it’s important to understand what’s at stake, what the administration’s game plan is, the extent of the proposed changes, and NEPA’s effectiveness.
In 1997, under President Clinton but when the U.S. Congress was led by Republicans, the CEQ issued a report on the effectiveness of NEPA over 25 years: “Overall, what we found is that NEPA is a success — it has made agencies take a hard look at the potential environmental consequences of their actions, and it has brought the public into the agency decision-making process like no other statute.” And “NEPA directs federal agencies to open their doors, bring the public in, and offer genuine opportunities for participation and collaboration in decision-making.”
That said, they did find that agencies working under NEPA have at times engaged in consultation with necessary parties only after decisions had been made and had at times focused on producing “litigation-proof” documents that increased cost and time but not necessarily quality while not examining the full range of project alternatives. So, as with all things, NEPA and its implementation are not perfect but provide no reason to throw out the baby with the bath water.
The president’s environmental record puts his effort to improve NEPA in question. President Trump takes credit for environmental successes that have actually happened under other administrations, such as claiming credit for the country’s top scores regarding access to clean drinking water, scores based on 2016 data before he took office. He’s taken credit for Superfund hazardous waste cleanup when more was done every year between 1995 and 2001. Many of the victories Trump cites have been in the works for years or decades. He’s actually had a heavy hand in the environment with his national monument reductions and efforts to turn back the Clean Power Plan.
While trying to take credit, he has loaded agencies that are supposed to be protecting our land, water, and air with industry insiders such as EPA head and former lobbyist former coal and uranium lobbyist Andrew Wheeler; head of the Department of Interior and former oil and gas lobbyist David Bernhardt, head of BLM and critic of government regulation as “tyranny” William Pendley, head of Fish and Wildlife Services and formerly of Monsanto Aurelia Skipwith, the principal deputy head of chemical safety who formerly lobbied to weaken regulations on chemicals Nancy Beck, and the list goes on.
This latest review of NEPA is just one more element of his anti-environment game plan, much of which has had an offense led by Utah’s delegation — federal regulation opponents — in an effort to get oil, gas, and other land-ravaging projects approved quickly. There is some disagreement about whether the U.S. is a net exporter of oil, but there’s no doubt that we are producing a lot already and using more than ever.
Youngsters and apparently some oldsters need to study and learn why President Nixon and other lawmakers were clear-headed enough to support the National Environmental Policy Act in 1969. It may have just been a political decision on their part but it was at least a good one. Our history is rife with serious environmental disasters. Whether it’s lead contamination in Picher, Oklahoma in the 1920s resulting in an abandoned town; fire on Cleveland’s heavily polluted Cuyahoga River in 1969; dioxin contamination in Times Beach, Missouri in the 1970s resulting in a quarantined town; the dumping of toxic waste in Niagara Falls’ Love Canal in the 1970s resulting in high rates of birth defects and the relocation of over 800 people; or the TVA coal ash spill in 2008 — and too many more to list — there are many reasons for NEPA to help protect our citizens from those who would rush potentially-harmful projects.
Concerns about NEPA holding our nation back economically are unfounded. Since 1871, the U.S. has had the status as the world’s largest economy. Our economy makes up almost a quarter of the global economy and is backed by advanced infrastructure, technology, and to the point of NEPA an abundance of natural resources that make this country the envy of many. Trump and others may be in a race with China, but our citizens are generally not walking around in soupy air with gas masks – at least, not yet. The stock market just broke 29,000, and Trump feels that NEPA needs to be gutted? No, what’s needed are some reason and care for this wondrous land that we are so blessed to have and which deserves our respect and care for generations to come.
The proposed changes to NEPA could allow federal agencies to approve projects without considering cumulative climate and human health effects and allow environmental impact statements to not be required, eliminating public involvement.
Comments on the NEPA regulation update (docket number CEQ-2019-0003) are due March 10 through regulations.gov or by mail to Council on Environmental Quality, 730 Jackson Place NW, Washington D.C. 20503. Public hearings will be held Feb. 11 (EPA) and Feb. 25 (Dept. of Interior in Washington, D.C.)
The viewpoints expressed above are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of The Independent.
How to submit an article, guest opinion piece, or letter to the editor to The Independent
Do you have something to say? Want your voice to be heard by thousands of readers? Send The Independent your letter to the editor or guest opinion piece. All submissions will be considered for publication by our editorial staff. If your letter or editorial is accepted, it will run on suindependent.com, and we’ll promote it through all of our social media channels. We may even decide to include it in our monthly print edition. Just follow our simple submission guidelines and make your voice heard:
—Submissions should be between 300 and 1,500 words.
—Submissions must be sent to editor@infowest.com as a .doc, .docx, .txt, or .rtf file.
—The subject line of the email containing your submission should read “Letter to the editor.”
—Attach your name to both the email and the document file (we don’t run anonymous letters).
—If you have a photo or image you’d like us to use and it’s in .jpg format, at least 1200 X 754 pixels large, and your intellectual property (you own the copyright), feel free to attach it as well, though we reserve the right to choose a different image.
—If you are on Twitter and would like a shout-out when your piece or letter is published, include that in your correspondence and we’ll give you a mention at the time of publication.
Articles related to “Shutting public out of environmental decisions is not MAGA”
Trump’s new rules aren’t the greatest threat to endangered species
Very informative, could have been a bit more objective however I understand your frustrations and you did a great job not allowing your emotions to cloud your point. Well done!