An interesting read in general, and I appreciate the detailed look at how NEPA works. I do take a bit of exception with the author's final conclusions. While he claims that NEPA doesn't advocate...
An interesting read in general, and I appreciate the detailed look at how NEPA works. I do take a bit of exception with the author's final conclusions. While he claims that NEPA doesn't advocate for better environmental outcomes, the existence of the mitigated FONSI specifically pushes for better environmental outcomes by letting people trade environmental impacts with other environmental benefits elsewhere, using the threat of a full EIS to bring organizations to the table to negotiate those mitigating factors. Similarly, while he claims that NEPA lowers predictability, his own data shows that Categorical Exclusions have grown over time, with the Highway Administration recording 91% of all projects as CE as far back as 2001.
It's an interesting view into a bit of governmental regulation, but I don't necessarily agree wholeheartedly with the overall mildly negative tone of the piece. There's definitely tradeoffs involved, but as compared to the cost of its absence (or, even more awful to consider, a complete rewrite of the laws) it still seems to be fulfilling its purpose.
I think the delays due to litigation might be an example of something that's fairly unpredictable? It all depends on who objects and what their legal argument is.
I think the delays due to litigation might be an example of something that's fairly unpredictable? It all depends on who objects and what their legal argument is.
An interesting read in general, and I appreciate the detailed look at how NEPA works. I do take a bit of exception with the author's final conclusions. While he claims that NEPA doesn't advocate for better environmental outcomes, the existence of the mitigated FONSI specifically pushes for better environmental outcomes by letting people trade environmental impacts with other environmental benefits elsewhere, using the threat of a full EIS to bring organizations to the table to negotiate those mitigating factors. Similarly, while he claims that NEPA lowers predictability, his own data shows that Categorical Exclusions have grown over time, with the Highway Administration recording 91% of all projects as CE as far back as 2001.
It's an interesting view into a bit of governmental regulation, but I don't necessarily agree wholeheartedly with the overall mildly negative tone of the piece. There's definitely tradeoffs involved, but as compared to the cost of its absence (or, even more awful to consider, a complete rewrite of the laws) it still seems to be fulfilling its purpose.
I think the delays due to litigation might be an example of something that's fairly unpredictable? It all depends on who objects and what their legal argument is.