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.
- Michael Welsh on Considering historical correctness in New Mexico
- Bob Laybourn on Considering historical correctness in New Mexico
- William R DeJager on Wolf pups, and the return of wild wonder
- Brad Bergstrom on Did Obama's Interior hobble the Endangered Species Act?
- Dwayne Meadows on Idaho’s sewer system is the Snake River