Permitting Reform Bill Would Be Consequential for Outdoors, Public Process

Update 9/28: Shortly before the Senate voted on whether to include the permitting reform bill in the upcoming must-pass spending bill, Senator Manchin’s office asked Senator Schumer to pull it from a vote. Instead, it is likely that lawmakers will try to include permitting reform in an October vote on another must-pass bill (the National Defense Authorization Act), which gives members more time to review and make changes to the proposed reforms.

Late last week, Senator Manchin’s office released the text of the permitting reform bill that leadership would like to attach to a must-pass bill before the end of the year (you can see the full text of the bill here). As you may remember, getting a vote on permitting reform was a condition to secure Senator Manchin’s vote on the Inflation Reduction Act, a historic climate package.

Until last week, however, few had seen the text of the proposed reforms. And leaders in the Senate have been negotiating the text of the bill even up to late yesterday evening.

The consequences for permitting reform are significant—permitting reform has the potential to speed up renewable energy development which would improve the lives of Americans, but also to expedite potentially destructive projects or circumvent the environmental reviews and public process that protect all of us, and it is critical that we get it right. As it is currently proposed, many of the provisions of the bill could have serious implications for public lands and waters and the public processes related to their conservation and management.

Because of how consequential these reforms would be, it is critical that Congress not try to rush it. To this end, we believe permitting reform should be publicly vetted by stakeholders, including communities affected by resource development projects, through hearings and the normal legislative process.

It is also significant to note that the White House Council on Environmental Quality has been working for almost two years to improve and update how the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is implemented.

Below are some of the most significant proposed changes and how they might affect the outdoor recreation community, the public process, and public lands. You can read our full comment letter to leadership by clicking here or on the letter at right.

CHANGES TO NEPA THAT CURTAIL THE PUBLIC PROCESS

One of the main sections of the bill makes changes to how NEPA is implemented, specifically around public comment periods and expediting environmental reviews. One key way to speed up NEPA reviews is to ensure the agencies have adequate staff and resources to conduct reviews. This bill, however, shortens public comment periods, requires much faster turnaround on reviews, and limits the timeframe for lawsuits. What does this mean in practice?

Imagine a developer proposed a mine on BLM land outside your community. You and your neighbors might not have the time you need to review the project and comment on it. And when the BLM conducts its environmental review, it will have to complete it under a much shorter timeframe, meaning they will have to cut corners. If the mine is then approved and too late, you realized that it was polluting your town’s water, you would only have a few months to be allowed to file a lawsuit.

While we need predictability in environmental reviews, it’s critical that we don’t sacrifice safety for speed. As a reminder, solid public comment periods were what gave us time to protect Slickrock from oil and gas development.

ACCELERATING ENERGY PROJECTS

One piece of the bill requires the President to identify and fast-track 25 energy projects within 90 days that have “strategic national importance.” Most of these projects would advance renewable energy goals, but the list also includes at least five fossil fuel projects and three new mining projects, plus two projects “to capture, transport, or store carbon dioxide,” and one “to produce, transport, or store clean hydrogen.” Speeding through these projects, with limited consultation and review from the local communities that may be affected, could have significant consequences for frontline and marginalized communities.

An earlier version of the bill contained changes to the Clean Water Act, which were dropped late yesterday. While permitting reform could help facilitate implementing the investments in renewable energy included in the Inflation Reduction Act, these changes will have long-lasting consequences and cannot come at the expense of communities and families’ safety, public comment periods, and long-term environmental protections.

Changes this significant should come with an opportunity for review, hearings, feedback from the public, and a vote (not along with a must-pass funding bill) in Congress. Pushing to develop major projects without reviews could have consequences—reviews have been crucial to protect important landscapes to the recreation community over the last ten years, including Oak Flat and Slickrock. Research has shown that the primary roadblocks to expediting reviews are a lack of resources and staffing at federal agencies, not NEPA itself. The IRA contains funding so that agencies will have more resources to manage NEPA reviews, and there are other things we can do to improve the review process and expedite renewable energy projects.

However, the proposed legislation has too many problems, which would have generational consequences, to pass in a rush by the end of the week. We are asking Congress to take time and get permitting reform right. This is an important moment for you to weigh in, as both Democrats and Republicans will be key to getting this effort right.

We’ve made it easy to send a message to your Senators asking them to get permitting reform right and not to rush through the proposed legislation at the expense of public comment periods, clean water, and safe communities.