“Streamlining” is a loaded term. “Cutting public accountability and oversight” is a more apt, less rhetorically lofty term to describe what some in Congress—particularly some in the House GOP—propose.

In reality, with the potential streamlining measures, we are entering dangerous territory with great potential for harmful consequences.

NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) has been one of the most successful and respected bills in US history. Versions of it have been adopted in countries around the world as well as in many state governments.

NEPA's main goal is to ensure that, in the course of carrying out their large million or billion dollar project, organizations have "looked before they leaped,” and done a thorough job of it. As a society, we don't want large organizations to build with blinders on. We want them to actually look around at the places and people where they are building. This way, they consider the effects and alternatives before spending that money and impacting local schools, communities, and families.

Proposed hard deadlines and fines mean that transportation agencies—particularly state and federal highway agencies that try to be and successfully are excluded from environmental reviews as often as possible (more than 90% of projects are “categorically excluded” from NEPA review)—can merely pretend that they are looking around, but in reality have their heads in the sand until the deadline. Then, after the deadline, they will be given an automatic OK to continue on with their original plan while ignoring local context.

Many highly successful US projects owe much to these reviews. Their outcomes would have been worse without the consideration and oversight of NEPA policies.

I-70 in Colorado is a beautiful highway that weaves through the Rockies, passes by beautiful landmarks, and is a popular tourist attraction. However, this was not the original plan in place by the Colorado Dept of Highways (CDH). They had instead preferred a plan that involved cutting through the Colorado River and the Glenwood Canyon. The NEPA process allowed them to consider the alternatives, hear local input, and come up with what became an award-winning revision.

Another successful project is one that NEPA prevented from being wasteful. The Michigan Department of Transportation wanted to address congestion and safety on a 2-lane road. In their 50,000 ft view from their state office, they felt the best plan was to build a new 4-lane highway parallel to this road. This would be a large and expensive undertaking. However, through NEPA, they considered alternatives and transparently showed them to the public. There, they discovered that the locals strongly preferred the alternative of renovating the existing road rather than build an entire new highway.

Turns out the locals knew better than the large state DOT; the road renovations have turned out to be a great success! This highlights the best of a democratic society. While the anti-review lobby urges us for more and more speed to get their constituents’s projects funded, in Michigan’s case, it was actually unwise to rush into the behemoth project that some claimed "necessary" before actually considering alternatives and local expertise.

--

Of course, while NEPA is great, I recognize that some of the rules promulgated since its enactment 40 years ago aren’t perfect. Improvements are possible, but via more effective administrative management of the parties involved in planning, not with the planning process itself.

When people criticize NEPA for delays, they’re often merely scapegoating. I’ve worked for a state government bureaucracy and know that finger-pointing is often preferable to a close self-examination. State highway agencies don’t necessarily have their own houses in order when it comes to project development and delivery; some candor about that would be a nice change of pace in this debate.

In fact, an extensive study by the FHWA has shown that inter-agency communication and coordination are key for a speedy project decision-making. Additionally, when consultants are involved, they have an incentive to push for large, more complex reports that earn them more money. Even the Center for Environmental Quality (CEQ) has recognized these large reports as wasteful and unnecessary. Finally, some project delays might have more to do with a project being a boondoggle that can’t be paid for, but lives on as a kind of zombie due to bureaucratic momentum or political axe-grinding.
--
Ultimately, NEPA is about being thoughtful about spending taxpayer money and aware of local expertise. And, we need to avoid leaping before we look, especially in these incredibly tight fiscal times.

One way to compromise is to appoint "Moderate" delegates.

Is that what the Senate Democrtes have done for the transportatioin negotiations?