Fact Sheet from Democrats on the Natural Resource Committee about Budget Agreement and NEPA.

[PufPuf23]

The link below is to a PDF Fact Sheet to the permanent weakening of permitting under NEPA in the Budget Agreement.

My Congress Critter Jared Huffman CA District 2 (Northcoast) sent out a press release opposing the Budget Agreement with a link to the Fact Sheet from Natural Resource Committee Democrats.

https://democrats-naturalresources.house.gov/imo/media/doc/2023.05.29_Div.%20C_Title%20III_Permitting%20reform.pdf

The press release and opposition is a surprise to me but so are the details of proposed changes to NEPA. Does not look good.

Hoping others pick up this discussion. Thoughts?

[2naSalit]

1. Litigation?

[PufPuf23]

3. Not sure what you mean by "Litigation?".

On the basis of the Fact Sheet (not having read the legislation itself), the NEPA process would be less robust and permitting projects would be faster and less inclusive.

Was thinking an expert might jump in with some thoughts.

[2naSalit]

5. Litigation is a tool.

So they pass the bill with that particular abomination in it. Opposition entities can then file suit against that element of the bill/law with arguments made by Sen. Kane on MSNBC a little bit ago. This element of the bill/law was negotiated without the stakeholders' knowledge or input which is sketchy at best and flat out undemocratic in any other context.

The remedy for bad legislation is litigation. A serious harm has been done by allowing only some of the interests to be heard. That's not how policy is composed. So this was a big platform to bring litigation. The president agreed to this but he left big holes for corrective action, some of which is litigation.

Stakeholders have standing.

So you take this to court, then what? The court can decide on the element and rule it unconstitutional which strikes if from the legislation. In other words the court, if it saw fit, could execute a line item veto.

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, please.

[PufPuf23]

6. Thank you. Makes sense. What a mess.

Far from having contemporary working knowledge, but there a number of related environmental laws integrated with NEPA that would or could be violated by the changes.

[2naSalit]

7. True.

I haven't read it yet but I am sure it isn't pretty. I did hear a summary on some NPR program but I forgot most of it at the moment. What I do know is that at least half the NGOs and some politicians will be filing before the ink is dry on the president's signature.

[PufPuf23]

8. California Dems are angry over these three concessions as House approves debt limit deal

California Dems are angry over these three concessions as House approves debt limit deal

SF Chronicle, Shira Stein, May 31, 2023

excerpt about


>>Environmental assessments

The deal could also have serious consequences for federal environmental policy.

The bill would no longer require environmental assessments for certain types of federal actions, including interstate projects like the Keystone XL Pipeline.

“By reducing environmental reviews to two years, it sets the stage for increased energy production, new water storage and forest management, highway construction — in fact, every infrastructure project now delayed by endlessly time-consuming and ultimately cost-prohibitive environmental reviews,” McClintock said.

White House officials told reporters on the condition they not be named that the environmental changes were made “without curtailing the substantive scope” of the law requiring those assessments, the National Environmental Policy Act.

Rep. Jared Huffman, D-San Rafael, disagrees. “There are some very substantive changes to NEPA that Republicans and the fossil fuel industry have been gunning for as long as I’ve been in Congress,” he told The Chronicle. He called the rollbacks “one of the major giveaways on this deal.”

California has stringent environmental protections, Huffman said, but its laws don’t address interstate projects. “In return for a temporary release of the hostage, we made permanent changes to a really important environmental law,” Huffman said.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/debt-limit-democrats-concessions-18127743.php

[2naSalit]

9. As I said...

Won't be long for the litigation to start. Not just the NEPA part but the pipeline part, that will be slow-walked for a little longer because that is a serious case where the stakeholders have a good case and could still stop it.

Biden didn't give up anything for which there is no work around.

[Alpeduez21]

2. Yeah, just screw the environment

Fucking Jesus H Christ Democrats won this my fucking ass. Corporations get to fuck the country which is EXACTLY what repukes want. We are fucked. If only ANYONE could've prevented dept ceiling hostage taking. Oh yeah, Dems wanted to but BIDEN was against it so now the earth is fucked. Fucking short sighted fucking corporate ass licking. This is bullshit.

[PufPuf23]

4. Disturbed me as in a gut punch too.

There are many laws linked to NEPA that are inconsistent with the listed changes.

Pretty much as observer now because of illness.