Blog

Since our last update (March 18), we have seen some small changes regarding CRA resolutions. There have been no new resolutions signed into law (only two so far), and there are now seven resolutions that have passed one chamber. This means that in addition to the six resolutions that had already cleared one chamber (you can see our previous update for a detailed description of those resolutions), there have been votes on four other resolutions.

On February 25, the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) issued an interim final rule (IFR) rescinding the CEQ regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). On March 27, we submitted a comment, along with 25 other professors, identifying the severe challenges this rescission will create for critical infrastructure projects and other important federal activities.

While President Trump finds “tariff” one of the most beautiful words in the English language, I myself prefer “anti-backsliding.” Back in January, Trump told the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to roll back efficiency standards on everything from light bulbs to shower heads. Some news outlets viewed this as an accomplished task, with headlines like “Trump Rolls Back Energy Standard.” But, as it turned out, not only was it not a done deal, it was also legally impossible. The reason: an anti-backsliding provision.

The second Trump administration’s disastrous early-term actions do nothing to address the economic inequality that our political classes have long ignored. In its first two weeks, the administration has withdrawn from the Paris Climate Accords, reversed federal initiatives on environmental justice, withheld public health information, frozen spending on environmental and climate mitigation programs, threatened to withhold federal disaster aid, and just recently threatened to fire more than 1,000 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) workers who focus on climate and environmental enforcement.

A sleeper provision in one of President Donald Trump’s executive orders attempts to revolutionize the way the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) operates and cut environmental review to a minimum.

The U.S. Congress is back and the U.S. House of Representatives is already roiling, as exemplified by the lobbyists and pundits who trail members and staff through the halls and into their offices. Republicans are already desperate to regain momentum after tripping out of the starting gate, even astride their newly minted control of both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue—a “trifecta” in Washington lexicon. Many backroom negotiations are inevitable, and the idea that a massive legislative package will be easier to pass could run into the reality that members will want innumerable concessions to take tough votes. The process will bog down, and Republicans must find something else to do. Senator Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has already fingered the most promising possibility—killing Biden Administration rules under the Congressional Review Act (CRA). The CRA allows narrow majorities in Congress to pass “resolutions of disapproval” for recently issued final rules.

Widely available clean drinking water is something that we usually take for granted. One of the main reasons is that the vast majority of the U.S. population has access to public water systems, which are in charge of providing safe drinking water to their users. However, in many parts of the country, particularly rural communities, people rely on private wells for sourcing their drinking water, which broadly lack regulatory safeguards for public health and well-being. This is particularly striking in Virginia, where 22 percent of the population relies on water supplied by a private well, with the share of private well use reaching upwards of 80 percent of the population in the Commonwealth’s most rural counties. As we explore in a new report, there is little comprehensive information on the distribution and severity of nitrate contamination in private well systems in Virginia.

They say that history never repeats itself, but it often rhymes. As in many sequels, there will be many things we’ve seen before. Much of that consisted of an all-out attack on environmental law. If you hated the original, you won’t enjoy watching the same thing the second time around. But there are a few additions to the cast and some new backdrops on the set. Today, I’m going to talk about some areas of continuity.

In what could turn out to be another loss for environmental protection in the Supreme Court, the Court is about to decide a major case about the scope of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). The case, Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, has important implications for issues such as whether NEPA covers climate change impacts. The same groups that succeeded in drastically cutting back on federal wetlands jurisdiction a few years ago are hoping to do the same thing to environmental impact statements. This post will provide the key background on the case.