Supporters of NEPA describe it as the Magna Carta of environmental legislation. It requires federal agencies to evaluate major projects proposed for public lands and waters, through environmental impact statements and less-comprehensive environmental assessments.
Defenders of Wildlife examined 172 court cases that were argued during 2001 and 2002 by Bush officials. The group found that 54 percent of the time, the administration presented “NEPA-hostile” arguments to the court. According to the study, administration lawyers have tried to sidestep the law by using unfounded legal arguments, by trying to assert that no NEPA review is necessary because likely impacts are not significant, and by presenting deceptive or inaccurate information to the courts.
For the full report, go to www.defenders.org/publications/nepareport.pdf.
- Kyle Klain on Enough is enough at the Glen Canyon Recreation Area
- Mary Sojourner on Rants from the Hill: Desert Insomnia
- Mary Sojourner on Solace at the end of Homer Spit
- Jennafer Waggoner-Yellowhorse on Why are Hopi rangers impounding sheep at Black Mesa?
- Emma Drew on What’s in the water in Woods Cross?