The U.S. Supreme Court has handed down an opinion that argues excessive regulation of land development has made it too difficult to build housing in the U.S.
As per the case of Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado, a proposed railroad project would run nearly 90 miles through the state Utah, connecting a remote region rich in oil to a more central rail network to simplify the transport of crude oil.
The Supreme Court held that the Surface Transportation Board (STB) was not required to consider certain environmental effects of the operation and construction of a proposed railway route. The Supreme Court determined the D.C. Circuit failed to provide appropriate deference to the STB under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and had “incorrectly interpreted NEPA to require the STB to consider the environmental effects of upstream and downstream projects that are separate in time or place” (specifically oil drilling in Utah and oil production in the Gulf region) that might result from construction of the railway. NEPA is an environmental law designed to promote the enhancement of the environment, signed by President Richard Nixon, and considered one of the foundational environmental laws formed at the beginning of the modern environmental movement.
The Supreme Court’s decision is a setback for environmentalists, and President Donald Trump has criticized the government’s environmental review process as too cumbersome.
Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh explained in the Court’s opinion, “NEPA imposes no substantive environmental obligations or restrictions” on the board or on any other federal agency.
NEPA often hinders land development, as environmental groups or citizens opposing projects have the ability to sue, claiming that the STB that must approve the project did not prepare an adequate environmental impact statement.
“Under NEPA, agencies must consider the environmental impacts for which their decisions would be responsible,” wrote Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, in the Court’s opinion. “Here, the board correctly determined it would not be responsible for the consequences of oil production upstream or downstream from the railway because it could not lawfully consider those consequences as part of the approval process.”
In terms of future rural land development, the decision handed down in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado could impact the future of the U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development (HUD) and U.S. Department of the Interior’s (DOI) Joint Task Force on Federal Land for Housing. The Joint Task Force is an initiative that identifies underutilized federal lands for residential development, streamlines land transfer processes, and promotes policies that increase the availability of affordable housing.
“This partnership will identify underutilized federal land suitable for residential development and streamline the land transfer process,” explained DOI Secretary Doug Burgum in a March announcement. “It will also promote policies to increase the availability of affordable housing, while balancing important environmental and land use considerations.”
The Joint Task Force on Federal Land for Housing will streamline regulatory processes so building on federal lands is not held up by environmental reviews, transfer protocols and other priorities.
“This is about more than building houses,” wrote the Secretaries in the Wall Street Journal. “We want to build hope. Overlooked rural and tribal communities will be a focus of this joint agreement. We are going to invest in America’s many forgotten communities. As we enter the Golden Age promised by President Trump, this partnership will change how we use public resources. A brighter future, with more affordable housing, is on its way.”
Click here for more on the Supreme Court’s ruling on the case of Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado.
