Trump Controversially Revamps NEPA- What Is At Stake?

Must Read

The Right to Information and its Working of 15 years

On 12th October 2020, RTI finished fifteen years since its commencement. The question remains whether the legislation stands up to...

An Insight into Custodial Death in India

“The occurrence of Custodial deaths in the world’s greatest democracy has raised the eyebrows of every citizen and shaken...

Implications in Travel Insurance in Light of the COVID-19 Crisis

As the world, today is crippled by this once in a century pandemic and as of date more than...

Second-Round Effects of Rent Control Laws: The Argentine Case

Introduction In colonial India, a city had an issue with its cobra population, which was a problem clearly in need...

Why Are the Big Techs of Silicon Valley Accused of Anti-Competitive Behaviours?

The big tech giants of the Silicon Valley are facing major challenges with relation to their monopolistic powers after...

KSK announces Sanjay Kumar as a Partner for Pharma & Life Sciences Practice

New Partner for KSK's Pharma & Life Sciences Practice King Stubb & Kasiva recently announced that Mr Sanjay Kumar has...

Follow us

On July 15, Donald Trump, in Atlanta, announced a “top to bottom overhaul” of the regulations that implement NEPA.


The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) gave a notice of proposed rule-making. This was on January 1, 2020. The proposition was to update the rules implementing NEPA. The proposed rule aspired to modernize and clarify the regulations. It was to give way to a more powerful, effective and timely NEPA reviews by Federal agencies. The amendments would further the original intent of the CEQ regulations. That is, reduce paperwork or delays and promote better decisions. It hinted at a consistency. One with the environmental policy envisaged under Section 101 of NEPA.

In 1978, there was a promulgation of these regulations. They were never updated since. Thus, upon conclusion, the update would make them more comprehensible and coherent. CEQ had invited comments on the proposed revision.

The Trump administration and Mary Neumayr branded this as an effort to modernize the environmental review process. Trump announced the proposed rules at the White House. He wanted to regularize what he called an “outrageously slow and burdensome federal approval process”. But the response to the same has been otherwise.

Mary Neumayr holds the chair to the CEQ.

What is NEPA?

NEPA stands for the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. President Richard M. Nixon, on January 1, 1970, brought the legislation into force. NEPA is popular as the Magna Carta of the United States Environmental law. The act encourages “productive and enjoyable harmony between man and his environment”. It promotes efforts which are not damaging to the environment. The act vouches for a “continuing policy” of the U.S. government. It visualizes circumstances where man and nature can co-exist.

The act requires all federal agencies to prepare an “environmental impact statement (EIS)”. The agencies need to do this before any major Federal action is undertaken. Action that could affect the quality of the human environment. Touted as “essentially procedural”, is the mandate. It doesn’t dictate how the agencies should act. Rather, they are only required to disclose the environmental impacts of their actions.

The Overhaul

Trump announced the overhaul so that major projects could speed up. For instance, pipelines and highways. But, the reaction to this announcement has not been very positive. Critics have commented that it could actually put the needs of the poor on the back burner. 

Trump denounced the “mountains of bureaucratic red tape in Washington, D.C.”. Once the regulations streamline, a freeway south of Atlanta would expand, Trump said. He also called it a reclamation of America’s proud heritage as a nation of builders. America is nation that can and will get things done. He further added in complete disregard to the impact on climate change.

These new rules are set to cause a fall in the types and number of projects that can be under review under the NEPA. It will also mitigate the timeline for reviews. In fact, it will decimate the mandate. One that agencies need to consider the cumulative environmental effects of projects. In short, climate change won’t be a determinant in the materialization of a project.

Trump’s agenda of “energy dominance” which the law curtailed could be given a freeway now. Two weeks ago, the environmental reviews side-tracked. This was due to a series of controversial oil and gas pipelines projects. These included the Keystone XL, the Dakota Access and the Atlantic Coast pipelines. These could now gain momentum, “gutting” the regulations. Sharon Buccino, a senior attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council said.

The Aftermath 

NEPA gave a voice to the marginalized communities in America. Those who had been afflicted by pollution from highways, pipelines and chemical plants. The move by the government aims to put those voices to quiet. Trump’s efforts to speed up delayed projects are at the cost of environmental damage. As well as cause an impact to the community.

Agencies will now have to issue EI statements within a stringent 2-year period. This is the half of what has been the 4.5 year time limit. The comments that are invited from the public will now have to be submitted. The topics and the subjects of review under the act will be very limited.

But, several environmental lawyers have declared the new regulations to be illegal. They have said that they will challenge them in the court. Moreover, Joe Biden has promised to keep the frontline and the fence-line communities at the forefront. Joe Bidden is the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee. is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgements from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe for our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Punjab Woman Evokes Petition for Protection Fearing Honour Killing

In the case of Divya Mattu and another vs State of Punjab and others, the petitioner, Divya, fearing honour killing against her by her...

Punjab Woman Accuses Punjab Police of Keeping Husband in Illegal Custody and Framing Him in a False Case

In the case of Geeta v the State of Punjab, the petitioner evoked a writ petition of habeas corpus as she claimed that her...

Addition of Words as Prefixes or Suffixes Is an Infringement of a Registered Trademark: Delhi High Court

Justice Jayanth Nath allowed the Times Group to use its registered trademark “Newshour”, in the case of Bennett Coleman and Co. Ltd v. ARG Outlier...

Just Because the Deceased Did Not Have License, Does Not Imply He Was Negligent: Chhattisgarh High Court

In the case of Hemlal & Others v. Dayaram & Others, a Single Bench of Chhattisgarh High Court consisting of Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal annunciated various...

Hoardings Are Movable Property Under Section 2(3) of DMC Act Subject To the Twin Test: Delhi High Court

Delhi High Court in the case of Delhi International Airport v South Delhi Metropolitan Corporation discussed in detail the provision under Section 2(3) of the DMC...

State Cannot Issue Directions on Rate of Charge of Non-COVID Patients in Private Hospitals: Bombay High Court

On 23rd October 2020, the Nagpur Bench of Bombay High court at Nagpur, consisting of Justice R.K. Deshpande and Justice Pushpa V. Ganediwala gave...

UAPA Cannot Be Used When the Accused Does Not Have an Active Knowledge of the Offence: Delhi High Court

Justice Suresh Kumar Kait held that the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act cannot be charged on the accused when he does not have any knowledge...

US Court Orders Iran To Pay $1.4 BN in Damages To Missing Former FBI Agent’s Family

The United States District Court for the District of Columbia ordered Iran to pay in total $1.45 bn to the Levinson family in punitive...

Onus on Petitioner To Show Unassailable Facts: Delhi High Court

In the case of Rhythm Jain v National Testing Agency, the Delhi High Court mentioned that in such petitions the onus to prove the facts...

Under-Trial/Convicted Persons Do Not Have Absolute Right To Parole in Light of Coronavirus : Bombay High Court

An important judgment was given by the Division Bench of the Nagpur bench of Bombay High Court concerning the constitutionality of Rule 19 of...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -