The proposed Uinta Basin Railway in Utah has been a topic of controversy and debate for years. The railway, which would transport up to 350,000 barrels of waxy crude oil from the remote Uinta Basin region to refineries on the Gulf Coast, is a massive infrastructure project that has faced numerous challenges.
One of the main obstacles to the construction of the Uinta Basin Railway is the rugged terrain of the Uinta Basin region. The area is surrounded by mountains, including the Wasatch Mountains to the west and the Uinta Mountains to the north. Building a railway through these mountains would be both dangerous and costly, making it unlikely that the project will ever come to fruition.
Despite the challenges facing the railway, its promoters, including the state’s congressional delegation, have continued to push for its construction. In doing so, they have inadvertently provided an opportunity for the Supreme Court to weigh in on the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), one of the nation’s oldest environmental laws.
NEPA, enacted in 1970, requires federal agencies to consider the environmental and public health effects of projects such as highway construction, oil drilling, and pipeline construction on public lands. Industries, particularly oil and gas companies, have long been critical of NEPA, viewing it as a hindrance to development projects. The Supreme Court recently heard oral arguments in a case that could impact the application of NEPA to infrastructure projects like the Uinta Basin Railway.
While NEPA has been a target for industries seeking to streamline the approval process for development projects, its role in the potential construction of the Uinta Basin Railway is minimal. Environmental groups, represented by Earthjustice, argue that the Supreme Court’s involvement in the case is a sign of judicial overreach and a departure from its traditional role of interpreting existing laws.
The Uinta Basin region is home to significant oil and gas reserves, but challenges such as the waxy nature of the crude oil and the mountainous terrain have prevented full exploitation of these resources. The proposed railway project aims to overcome these obstacles by providing a transportation route for the oil to reach refineries.
Despite receiving approval from the Surface Transportation Board in 2021, the Uinta Basin Railway project faces significant environmental and safety concerns. The hazards of tunneling through the mountains, including the presence of explosive gases, pose risks to both construction workers and future railway operations.
In conclusion, the Uinta Basin Railway project remains a contentious issue in Utah, with challenges related to terrain, environmental impact, and safety. While the project’s future is uncertain, its significance extends beyond the transportation of oil, raising broader questions about environmental laws and the balance between economic development and environmental protection. Geoengineering studies are becoming increasingly important as the effects of climate change become more pronounced. The idea of manipulating the Earth’s climate to counteract the impacts of global warming is a controversial one, but it may be necessary in the face of rapidly changing conditions. One group that has been urged to conduct such studies is the coalition responsible for approving a railway project in Colorado.
The coalition had approved a project that would add 18 miles of oil train cars to the Union Pacific line running through Colorado, including Eagle County. This decision raised concerns about the risk of wildfires and oil spills, especially given that the trains would run near the Colorado River, a crucial water source for millions of people. Environmentalists and local officials challenged the approval, citing flaws in the coalition’s environmental impact statement.
In August 2023, the appeals court invalidated the coalition’s approval of the railway project, citing a failure to consider the financial viability of the project. A feasibility study commissioned by the coalition itself had estimated that the railway would be costly, require government funding, and lack private sector interest. The appeals court raised doubts about the project’s future, given these financial concerns.
The coalition’s plan claimed that a private investor would fund the $2 billion railway construction, but so far, only public money has been used. The private investor, DHIP Group, has a limited track record in infrastructure projects and faces challenges in securing the necessary funding for the railway. The appeals court’s decision highlighted the project’s unfeasibility and the lack of financial backing from the private sector.
Despite these challenges, the coalition appealed the decision to the Supreme Court, arguing that the appeals court had overstepped its authority in requiring additional studies. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, raising broader questions about environmental regulation and the scope of impact assessments. The outcome of the case could have significant implications for future projects and the role of agencies in assessing environmental impacts.
As the Supreme Court deliberates on the case, the issue of geoengineering studies remains unresolved. The need to consider the wider impacts of climate change and human activities on the environment is increasingly urgent. Conducting thorough studies and assessments, including those related to geoengineering, is essential in making informed decisions about projects that could have far-reaching consequences for the planet and future generations. Justice Neil Gorsuch’s recusal from the case due to his former patron, Denver-based billionaire Philip Anschutz, has brought attention to the potential financial interests at play in the Supreme Court. Anschutz, who owns the oil and gas company Anschutz Exploration Corporation, has federal drilling leases in Utah and other states, making the outcome of the case of particular interest to him.
The case in question involves the Seven County Infrastructure Coalition’s efforts to build a railway in Utah, a project that has faced legal challenges regarding compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). While Gorsuch’s recusal may have raised eyebrows, it is essential to note that the case has implications beyond his involvement. The appeals court had already identified multiple reasons why the Surface Transportation Board’s approval of the railway was unlawful, independent of the NEPA issue.
Despite Gorsuch’s absence, the Supreme Court’s ruling on NEPA could have far-reaching consequences. A decision that limits the scope of environmental review required for infrastructure projects could benefit companies in the fossil fuel industry and other sectors. By reducing the level of scrutiny on projects like oil and gas wells and pipelines, the public may find it harder to hold the government accountable for considering environmental and health impacts.
Earthjustice’s attorney Sankar emphasized the broader significance of the case, highlighting the industry’s attempts to weaken environmental protections. The outcome of the case could set a precedent for how future projects are evaluated, potentially disregarding crucial health and environmental considerations. With a decision expected by June, the stakes are high for both the environment and the interests of powerful corporations.
In conclusion, while Gorsuch’s recusal may have brought attention to the case, the real impact lies in the Supreme Court’s potential ruling on NEPA. The implications extend beyond the Utah railway project, shaping the future of environmental regulations and public oversight of large-scale infrastructure developments. The outcome will undoubtedly have lasting effects on how environmental concerns are addressed in government decisions.
