By JOHN BARTLIT
New Mexico Citizens
for Clean Air & Water

Last month’s column delved into the vast contrasts between the “free speech” heard on the street or the news versus the speech usable in courtrooms that is screened for relevance by the Rules of Evidence. Take one example: On the street, “Nazi” phrases fill the air for millions of people. Yet, the use of “Nazi” in court would rarely, if ever, pass muster in any current case. So, the familiar term has little use before any judge.  

This month’s column aims to help fill a growing void. We can look anew at strengths and weak points in managing the environment, which in times past would boost understanding. The means used herein are not the politicized slogans (i.e., free speech) of today, but rather more like discussing pros and cons seen from all angles. 

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) was passed by Congress late in 1969 and was signed into law on New Year’s Day of 1970 by President Nixon. In the last few months, NEPA has been in varieties of the news.  

The scope of NEPA is very broad and general, which makes it hard to sketch out. To say its purpose is to “think” about the environment sounds more sarcastic than comprehensive. To say NEPA directs federal decision makers to “pay attention” to nature is no bigger help. 

Even so, NEPA has its methods. NEPA prescribes analyses, concerns, and calculations for categories of projects that must be widely reported in detailed documents. Two major kinds of reports are  Environmental Assessments (EAs) and Environmental Impact Statements (EISs). Each kind has legal rules and guidelines as to what must be included. Such reports must be issued as the first step before any new federally funded project can begin. Further, NEPA in 1970 established a Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) within the Executive Office of the President to provide ongoing guidance on environmental policy.

The policy includes sections that urge practicable steps to reduce environmental harm. Other portions allow for public comments on big government projects waiting to get started.  

As promised, what follows herein is not compiled from slogans filling the air. Slogans about NEPA badly shrink public awareness of NEPA’s merits and demerits. Rather, I write about my own experiences working with EISs.

The early years of NEPA were my early years of advocating for clean air and water. I spent countless hours poring through EIS’s and drafting comments to submit as a citizen. In the process, I learned plenty of useful factors. My comments often received responses, but no comments of mine ever led to a change that reduced harm. Yet, more than once the data gleaned from EISs was brought to state pollution hearings and used to our advantage. (But that’s another story….) 

Times change. Change can be as large in scope as the mix of energy sources — oil, gas, solar, wind, nuclear, and other. Each energy form has pros and cons, good points and bad. Partisan slogans have to keep up as times change. That’s a hard sell when the slogan has to change our logic without changing our logic. 

We have little data on how much harm to the environment has been saved by NEPA. We do have good data on the delays in project schedules caused by the dynamics of NEPA. For all projects under NEPA, the average time added to do the paperwork is 4.5 years. Much of this time is in lawsuits over what NEPA requires. New changes in NEPA have been proposed, such as a time limit of two years to complete the process.

Slogans from the right will call these changes “streamlining.” The left’s slogans match that with cries of “fast-tracked harms.” Which brand of catchline most clearly depicts the energy stories? 

Might we better debate the array of pros and cons that pertain to options? Might the pulse of democracy rise again?