How the Supreme Court is making it easier to build big projects

A recent Supreme Court ruling has made waves in the world of land development. The decision, which came down on a Thursday, is all about making it simpler to build large-scale projects. This includes things like railroads and other big infrastructure projects. The case in question, Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado, is about a proposed railroad line. This line would stretch 88 miles across Utah, connecting the state's oil-rich Uinta Basin to the national rail network. The goal? To make it easier to transport crude oil to refineries. The Surface Transportation Board needs to give the green light for this rail project to move forward. Under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), this board has to create an environmental impact statement. This document identifies any significant environmental effects from the rail project and suggests ways to mitigate those effects. However, the Supreme Court's ruling in Seven County puts new limits on how this law can be used to block projects. This means developers will have an easier time getting their projects approved. The court's decision is a big deal because it addresses a common issue in land development. Often, environmental groups or concerned citizens sue, claiming that the federal agency didn't do a good enough job with the environmental impact statement. This can delay or even stop projects. The court's ruling aims to change that by making it harder for these lawsuits to succeed. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who wrote the opinion, explained that NEPA doesn't impose any actual environmental restrictions. It just requires agencies to identify potential harms and then decide if the benefits of the project outweigh those harms. The Seven County case is a perfect example of how NEPA can be a burden. The Surface Transportation Board created a 3, 600-page environmental impact statement for the rail line. Despite this, a federal appeals court blocked the project. The court said the statement didn't adequately discuss the environmental impacts of increased drilling and oil refining. But the Supreme Court disagreed, saying the agency doesn't have to consider the impacts of separate projects it doesn't regulate. All eight justices who heard the case agreed that the appeals court was wrong. This shows a growing consensus that NEPA has become too much of a burden on development. Even President Joe Biden signed legislation in 2023 to limit the length and time it takes to complete environmental impact statements. The Supreme Court's ruling goes even further, telling courts to be more deferential to agencies' decisions to approve projects. The ruling is a win for land developers and those who support big infrastructure projects. It weakens a law that has long been a thorn in the side of developers. But it's also a reminder of the ongoing debate about how to balance environmental protection with the need for development. The Supreme Court's decision is a step in one direction, but the conversation is far from over.