Environmental Impact Statement | Research & Encyclopedia Articles

About 4 pages (1,319 words)

Environmental impact statement Summary

Environmental Impact Statement

The National Environmental Policy Act (1969) made all federal agencies responsible for analyzing any activity of theirs "significantly affecting the quality of the human environment." Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) are the assessments stipulated by this act, and these reports are required for all large projects initiated, financed, or permitted by the federal government. In addition to examining the damage a particular project might have on the environment, federal agencies are also expected to review ways of minimizing or alleviating these adverse effects a review which can include consideration of the environmental benefits of abandoning the project altogether. The agency compiling an EIS is required to hold public hearings; it is also required to submit a draft to public review, and it is forbidden from proceeding until it releases a final version of the statement.

The NEPA has been called "the first comprehensive commitment of any modern state toward the responsible custody of its environment," and the EIS is considered one of the most important mechanisms for its enforcement. It is often difficult to identify environmental damages with remedies that can be pursued in court, but the filing of an EIS and the standards the document must meet are clear and definite requirements for which federal agencies can be held accountable. These requirements have allowed environmental groups to focus legal challenges on the adequacy of the report, contesting the way an EIS was prepared or identifying environmental effects that were not taken into account. The expense and the delays involved in defending against these challenges have often given these groups powerful leverage for convincing a company or an agency to change or omit particular elements of a project. Many environmental organizations have taken advantage of these opportunities; between 1974 and 1983, over 100 such suits were filed every year.

Although litigation over impact statements can have a decisive influence on a wide range of decisions in government and business, the legal status of these reports and the legal force of the NEPA itself are not as strong as many environmentalists believe they should be. The act does not require agencies to limit or prevent the potential environmental damage identified in an EIS. The Supreme Court upheld this interpretation in 1989, deciding that agencies are "not constrained by NEPA from deciding that other values outweigh the environmental costs." The government, in other words, is required only to identify and evaluate the adverse impacts of proposed projects; it is not required, at least by NEPA, to do anything about them. Environmentalists have long argued that environmental protection needs a stronger legal grounding than this act provides; some such as Lynton Caldwell, who was originally involved in the drafting of the NEPA, maintain that only a constitutional amendment will serve this purpose.

In addition to the controversies over what should be included in these reports and what should be done about the information, there have also been a number of debates over who is required to file them. Environmental groups have filed suit in the Pacific Northwest alleging that the government should require logging companies to file impact statements. And many people have observed that an EIS is not actually required of all government agencies; the U. S. Department of Agriculture, for instance, is not required to file such reports on its commodity support programs.

Impact statements have been opposed by business and industrial groups since they were first introduced. An EIS can be extremely costly to compile, and the process of filing and defending them can take years. Businesses can be left in limbo over projects in which they have already invested large amounts of money, and the uncertainties of the process itself have often stopped development before it has begun. In the debate about these statements, many advocates for business interests have pointed out that environmental regulation accounts for 23% of the 400 billion dollars the federal government spends on regulation each year. They argue that impact statements restrict the ability of the United States to compete in international markets by forcing American businesses to spend money on compliance that could be invested in research or capital improvements. Many people believe that impact statements seriously delay many aspects of economic growth, and business leaders have questioned the priorities of many environmental groups, who seem to value conservation over social benefits such as high-levels of employment.

In July of 1993, a judge in a federal district court ruled that the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) could not be submitted to Congress for approval until the Clinton Administration had filed an EIS on the treaty. The controversy over whether an EIS should be required for NAFTA is a good example of the battle between those who want to extend the range of the EIS and those who want to limit it, as well as the practical problems with positions held by both sides.

Environmentalists fear the consequences of free trade in North America, particularly free trade with Mexico. They believe that most industries would not take any precautions about the environment unless they were forced to observe them. Environmental protection in Mexico, when it exists, is corrupt and inefficient; if NAFTA is approved by Congress, many believe that businesses in the United States will move south of the border to escape environmental regulations. This could have devastating consequences for the environment in Mexico, as well as an adverse impact on the United States economy. It is also possible that an extensive economic downturn, if perceived to be the result of such relocations, could affect the future of environmental regulation in this country as the United States begins to compete with Mexico over the incentives it can offer industry.

Opponents of the decision to require an EIS for NAFTA insist that such a document would be almost impossible to compile. The statement would have to be enormously complex; it would have to consider a range of economic as well as environmental factors, projecting the course of economic development in Mexico before predicting the impact on the environment. Extending the range of impact statements and the NEPA would cause the same expensive delays for this treaty that these statutes have caused for projects within the United States, and critics have focused mainly on the effect such an extension would have on our international competitiveness. They argue that this decision, if upheld, could have broad ramifications for American foreign policy. An EIS could be required for every treaty the government signs with another country, including negotiations over fishing rights, arms control treaties, and other trade agreements. Foreign policy decisions could then be subject to extensive litigation over the adequacy of the EIS filed by the appropriate agency. Many environmentalists would view this as a positive development, but others believe it could prevent us from assuming a leadership role in international affairs.

Carol Browner, the former chief administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), announced that the agency was determined to reduce some of the difficulties of complying with environmental regulations. She was especially concerned with increasing efficiency and limiting the delays and uncertainties for business. But whatever changes she was able to make, the process of compiling an EIS will never seem cost effective to business, at least in the short term, and the controversy over these statements continues.