{"id":40097,"date":"2025-11-03T00:01:50","date_gmt":"2025-11-03T05:01:50","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/beyondpesticides.org\/dailynewsblog\/?p=40097"},"modified":"2025-11-03T14:51:58","modified_gmt":"2025-11-03T19:51:58","slug":"foundational-national-environmental-policy-act-under-threat-again","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/beyondpesticides.org\/dailynewsblog\/2025\/11\/foundational-national-environmental-policy-act-under-threat-again\/","title":{"rendered":"Foundational National Environmental Policy Act Under Threat. . .Again"},"content":{"rendered":"\r\n

(Beyond Pesticides<\/em>, November 3, 2025) After a series of legal setbacks for the nation\u2019s cornerstone law of environmental protection, the National Environmental Policy Act<\/em><\/a> (NEPA), Beyond Pesticides has joined a call for members of the U.S. Congress to oppose weakening amendments to the statute\u2014H.R. 4776, the Standardizing Permitting and Expediting Economic Development<\/em>\u00a0(SPEED)\u00a0Act<\/a>. Environmental advocates say the bill, introduced by U.S. Representatives Bruce Westerman (R-AR) and Jared Golden (D-ME) in July 2025, is a fossil fuel and agriculture industry wish list<\/a> that will weaken NEPA protections. In recognition of \u201cthe profound impact of man’s activity on the interrelations of all components of the natural environment,\u201d\u00a0NEPA’s statement of purpose\u00a0\u201cdeclare[s] a national policy which will encourage productive and enjoyable harmony between man and his environment.\u201d\u00a0By requiring environmental assessments (EAs) or environmental impact statements (EISs) for federal actions, it creates a procedural barrier to environmentally damaging proposals.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\r\n

The requirements of NEPA go beyond the production of reports.\u00a0In the process of producing\u00a0EAs and EISs, NEPA requires the agency to define the purpose and need for the project and examine all reasonable alternatives.\u00a0This\u00a0alternatives\u00a0assessment is a model for environmental policy that should be adopted by agencies regardless of whether it is considering actions that meet NEPA’s thresholds. Imagine what agriculture might look like if pesticide registration required a statement of the purpose and need\u2014not to kill \u201cpests,\u201d but to produce healthful food! And if the\u00a0U.S.\u00a0Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had to consider alternatives to chemical-intensive production! It might look like organic agriculture.\u00a0<\/p>\r\n

NEPA’s force has already been weakened by two court decisions. In Marin Audubon Society v. Federal Aviation Administration<\/a> (November 2024), U.S. Court of Appeals, November 2024, (District of Columbia) found that, \u201cThe CEQ [Council of Environmental Quality] regulations, which purport to govern how all federal agencies must comply with the National Environmental Policy Act, are ultra vires [beyond its legal authority],\u201d\u00a0 meaning that CEQ does not have rulemaking authority. In Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado<\/a>, the Supreme Court, May 2025, \u00a0found that NEPA\u2019s scope is limited to \u201cthe agency\u2019s regulatory authority\u201d when affecting a separate project outside its jurisdiction.<\/p>\r\n

In January 2025, President Trump issued\u00a0Executive Order 14154<\/a>, Unleashing American Energy, which requires the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) to rescind its regulations and\u00a0change priorities and analysis<\/a>. A CEQ memorandum<\/a> on the implementation of NEPA was issued in September 2025. Instead of CEQ regulations, agencies must develop their own guidance for implementing NEPA, eliminating the consistent application of NEPA policy goals.\u00a0<\/p>\r\n

The underlying purpose of NEPA was expressed in Calvert Cliffs’ Coordinated Committee v. Atomic Energy Commission<\/a>, 449 F.2d 1109 (D.C. Cir. 1971), cert. denied<\/em>, 404 U.S. 942 (1972), in which the court found: \u201cNEPA, first of all, makes environmental protection a part of the mandate of every federal agency and department. The Atomic Energy Commission, for example, had continually asserted, prior to NEPA, that it had no statutory authority to concern itself with the adverse environmental effects of its actions.\u00a0 Now, however, its hands are no longer tied. It is not only permitted, but compelled, to take environmental values into account. Perhaps the greatest importance of NEPA is to require the Atomic Energy Commission and other agencies to consider<\/em>\u00a0environmental issues just as they consider other matters within their mandates.\u201c<\/p>\r\n

Changes to NEPA in the SPEED Act could drastically limit public participation, government transparency, and access to legal recourse for affected communities. Some impacts could be:\u202f\u00a0<\/p>\r\n