Rep. Ritchie Torres Urges Trump, Hochul, & Adams to Implement Supreme Court’s Pro-Abundance Decision on NEPA

Today, Congressman Ritchie Torres (NY-15) wrote to President Donald Trump, New York Governor Kathy Hochul, and New York City Mayor Eric Adams in response to the Supreme Court’s recent ruling on SEVEN COUNTY INFRASTRUCTURE COALITION ET AL. v. EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO, ET AL. The letter reads (full PDF attached here):

“The Supreme Court’s latest decision in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado represents an abundance revolution in American law. It restores NEPA (the National Environmental Policy Act) to its original procedural purpose and opens the door for all levels of government—federal, state, and local—to embrace a new public policy paradigm: not of self-inflicted scarcity but of American abundance.

“For too long, agencies have felt paralyzed by the threat of litigation—compelled to conduct endless environmental reviews that often drag on for years and run thousands of pages. But in the words of the Supreme Court, none of it is necessary under NEPA properly understood: “An EIS need not meander on for hundreds or thousands of pages.”

“The Supreme Court’s decision all but ends the litigious weaponization of NEPA against new housing, energy, and infrastructure in America. Consider the Court’s own words:

“Some courts have strayed and not applied NEPA with the level of deference demanded by the statutory text and this Court’s cases. Those decisions have instead engaged in overly intrusive (and unpredictable) review in NEPA cases. Those rulings have slowed down or blocked many projects and, in turn, caused litigation-averse agencies to take ever more time and to prepare ever longer EISs for future projects.

“The upshot: NEPA has transformed from a modest procedural requirement into a blunt and haphazard tool employed by project opponents (who may not always be entirely motivated by concern for the environment) to try to stop or at least slow down new infrastructure and construction projects.

“Some project opponents have invoked NEPA and sought to enlist the courts in blocking or delaying even those projects that otherwise comply with all relevant substantive environmental laws.

“Indeed, certain project opponents have relied on NEPA to fight even clean-energy projects—from wind farms to hydroelectric dams, from solar farms to geothermal wells.

“All of that has led to more agency analysis of separate projects, more consideration of attenuated effects, more exploration of alternatives to proposed agency action, more speculation and consultation and estimation and litigation. Delay upon delay, so much so that the process sometimes seems to ‘borde[r] on the Kafkaesque.’

“Fewer projects make it to the finish line. Indeed, fewer projects make it to the starting line. Those that survive often end up costing much more than is anticipated or necessary, both for the agency preparing the EIS and for the builder of the project.

“And that in turn means fewer and more expensive railroads, airports, wind turbines, transmission lines, dams, housing developments, highways, bridges, subways, stadiums, arenas, data centers, and the like. And that also means fewer jobs, as new projects become difficult to finance and build in a timely fashion.”

“In light of the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision, every agency at every level of government should swiftly adopt a pro-abundance policy of streamlining environmental reviews for any and all projects with a federal nexus.

“The Supreme Court held, unequivocally, that a court can no longer micromanage an agency’s environmental reviews. Judicial deference is the new rule.

“Nor can a court require an agency to consider the environmental effects of a separate project. A separate project, according to the Court, is one that is:

·       separate in time (a future project),

·       separate in place (a geographically distinct project), or

·       outside the agency’s regulatory jurisdiction.

“The Supreme Court affirms a truth that has long been forgotten: that NEPA is a purely procedural rather than a substantive statute. It is not meant to be a “Kafkaesque process” or a “game” of obstructionism. Nor is it a substitute for the political process, which is the proper forum for the airing of substantive policy differences.

“NEPA is a procedural cross-check, not a substantive roadblock. The goal of the law is to inform agency decision making, not to paralyze it.”

“NEPA does not require a result. It simply prescribes a process for environmental review. That process involves preparing an EIS that evaluates the environmental effects of the project at hand and identifies feasible alternatives. The Supreme Court could not be clearer:

“Under NEPA, an agency’s only obligation is to prepare an adequate report. NEPA requires no more.”

“The Supreme Court’s landmark decision represents a historic occasion for federal, state, and local governments to transform America into a nation defined not by what it blocks and bureaucratizes but by what it builds—boldly and for the benefit of the American people.

“I call on you all to rise to the occasion and usher in an age of American abundance.”