Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County
Issues
Does the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) require an agency to study environmental impacts beyond those that are reasonably foreseeable results of the agency’s action and which the agency has the authority to regulate?
This case asks the Court to determine if the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) requires an agency to study environmental impacts beyond the proximate effects of the action over which the agency has regulatory authority. Seven County Infrastructure Coalition contends that NEPA only requires an agency to consider effects with a “reasonably close causal relationship” to the agency’s proposed action. Eagle County, Colorado counters that NEPA requires an agency to consider reasonably foreseeable effects of an agency’s proposed action that include effects a “prudent person” would consider when reaching a decision. This case touches upon important questions regarding the balancing act between economic and other national concerns and environmental protection.
Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties
Whether the National Environmental Policy Act requires an agency to study environmental impacts beyond the proximate effects of the action over which the agency has regulatory authority.
Congress delegated jurisdiction over railways to the Surface Transportation Board (“STB”) in 1995. Eagle County v. Surface Transportation Board at 1164. Those seeking to build railways must seek approval from the STB, which typically conducts a review and solicits public comments. Id. The board will grant the petition, oftentimes with modifications, unless it finds that building the railway would be inconsistent with the public interest.
Additional Resources
- Chase Woodruff, Eagle County, environmental groups file Supreme Court briefs opposing Utah oil train project, Colorado Newsline (Oct. 21, 2024)
- Nina Farah & Pamela King, Energy Sector Braces for Supreme Court NEPA Case, E&E News (June 25, 2024)