|
Look before you leap. It's just common sense to think ahead about the consequences of the actions we take. And right now that's what the government's required to do. Before it builds a highway near your home or trucks nuclear waste through your neighborhood, the government must tell you, ask your opinion and consider alternatives. That's how democracy - government of, by and for the people - is supposed to work. But now there's a move afoot, spearheaded by California Congressman Richard Pombo to weaken the National Environmental Policy Act, to silence our say in what the government does to our property, parks, water, wetlands and wildlife. We can't let that happen. We can't let public officials 3,000 miles away decide, without our say-so, what happens here.
What is the National Environmental Policy Act? The National Environmental Policy Act, also called NEPA, is one of the most important environmental laws in America. A landmark law that puts people before politics, values science over short-term thinking, and respects democracy more than dollars, it was signed into law in 1970 by President Nixon. NEPA requires federal agencies to study and disclose the environmental effects of major projects on the surrounding community and include the public in the decision-making process for federally funded projects. Public participation and environmental review are fundamentally important to the development of high quality projects and protection of natural resources and other community assets. They are largely responsible for the level of environmental quality Americans enjoy today. They have contributed mightily to the enhancement of road and bridge projects, toxic site clean-up, and improvement of logging and drilling projects all over the country. NEPA is a law that was designed to make sure that both the government and the local community members are aware of the major consequences of new projects, allowing more informed decisions about how to go forward. NEPA requires that if a project will lead to significant damage to the environment or to public health, alternatives to the original design must be investigated and these alternatives must be shared with the public. NEPA provides a guarantee that Americans affected by federal action will get the best information about its impacts, a choice of good alternatives, and the right to have their voice heard before the government makes a final decision. To read the actual text of the National Environmental Policy Act, click here. The Public's Voice is Under Siege There are some who blame public participation and environmental review as bureaucratic gridlock. Under the guise of speeding up projects, they want to waive environmental review requirements and shut people out of the decision-making process. In fact, such attempts are escalating. Most recently, California Congressman Richard Pombo has assembled a task force to review the National Environmental Policy Act through 6 hearings to be held across the country. While Representative Pombo claims these hearings are meant to "listen to the public" about how NEPA works, the details of the hearings are being kept secret. Only invited witnesses will be allowed to testify and no questions or comments from the public will be allowed. Recent Threats to Public Input & Environmental Review
Myths & Facts about NEPA
Fact: In most cases, environmental reviews are not the significant time-killer. In fact the biggest culprits are funding shortfalls, local controversy. While it is true that the process of producing an environmental impact statement (EIS) requires time - especially when the project is controversial - the fact is that they slow down only a very small percentage of projects every year. There are fewer and fewer such full-blown reviews. For example, the number filed in 2001 - about 500 - was less than a quarter of the approximately 2,000 statements filed in 1973. Today, a mere three percent of federally funded transportation projects require an EIS. In a 2000 study of 89 transportation projects that had been delayed at least five years, the Federal Highway Administration found that environmental impact statements were not the major cause of delay. According to the study, the most significant factors slowing down these projects were lack of funding, local controversy, low priority, and project complexity, which collectively accounted for 62 percent of the delays. The remaining 38 percent included a range of other factors, including environmental concerns. Endangered species and wetlands accounted for only seven percent and four percent of delays, respectively. For more information about highway planning and NEPA, check out Sierra Club's report on The Road to Better Transportation Projects. (PDF file)
  How has public participation and environmental review helped improve a project in your community? Send us your stories!Stay informed: sign up for our email newsletter.
Photos courtesy Phillip Greenspun; used with permission. Up to Top |
Often, we are tempted to cut corners to accomplish jobs more quickly. But cutting corners can have disastrous consequences, especially when it comes to spending taxpayer money on projects that might harm citizens or their environment. Over the past few years, there have been several significant limitations placed on the protections that NEPA provides to communities all in the name of speed:
Myth: Environmental reviews are the reason for project delays.