Environmental permitting delays in infrastructure projects
What Are Environmental Permitting Delays?
Environmental permitting delays occur when the process to obtain necessary environmental clearances for infrastructure projects—such as highways, pipelines, power plants, or large construction projects—is prolonged. These delays often arise due to:
Complex regulatory requirements under laws like the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Clean Water Act (CWA), Endangered Species Act (ESA), etc.
Lengthy environmental impact assessments (EIA)
Inter-agency coordination challenges
Public opposition and litigation
Changing environmental standards or policies
Why Are These Delays Significant?
Increase project costs
Postpone benefits like improved transportation, energy, or utilities
Cause economic and job impacts
Create legal uncertainty
Highlight the tension between environmental protection and development needs
Legal Framework Governing Permitting and Delays
NEPA (U.S.) requires Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) for major federal projects.
Administrative Procedure Act (APA) governs agency actions and timelines.
Courts can intervene if agencies act arbitrarily or unreasonably.
Litigation by environmental groups often challenges permits to ensure compliance with environmental laws, sometimes causing delays.
Key Case Laws on Environmental Permitting Delays in Infrastructure Projects
1. Marsh v. Oregon Natural Resources Council (1989)
Background:
The case concerned the scope and timing of environmental impact statements under NEPA related to timber sales and logging on federal lands.
Issue:
Whether courts could require agencies to complete a full environmental review before proceeding.
Decision:
The Supreme Court ruled that NEPA does not require the most detailed study at the earliest stages but mandates a “hard look” at environmental consequences.
Significance:
Set standards for the depth and timing of environmental reviews.
Balanced timely project development with environmental safeguards.
Allowed agencies some flexibility but required genuine consideration of impacts.
2. Winter v. NRDC (2008)
Background:
Dispute over the U.S. Navy’s use of sonar in training exercises and its impact on marine mammals.
Issue:
Whether the court should issue a preliminary injunction halting the project due to environmental concerns.
Decision:
The Supreme Court ruled against the injunction, emphasizing the need to balance environmental protection with national security and project interests.
Significance:
Showed courts’ caution in halting projects prematurely.
Highlighted balancing interests in permitting disputes.
3. Sierra Club v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (2018)
Background:
Sierra Club challenged permits for a pipeline project, arguing the Corps failed to adequately assess environmental impacts.
Issue:
Whether the Corps complied with NEPA and CWA in issuing permits.
Decision:
The court found the Corps’ environmental review insufficient and remanded for further analysis, delaying the project.
Significance:
Reinforced the importance of comprehensive environmental review.
Illustrated how litigation can delay infrastructure permitting.
Encouraged agencies to strengthen environmental analyses upfront.
4. Friends of the Earth v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (2017)
Background:
Environmental groups challenged a Corps permit for a large mining project affecting waterways.
Issue:
Whether the Corps violated the Clean Water Act and NEPA in issuing the permit.
Decision:
The court ordered more detailed environmental assessments, halting project progress until compliance.
Significance:
Demonstrated judicial willingness to enforce environmental laws strictly.
Showed how permitting delays result from agency failure to meet legal standards.
5. Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp. (1977)
Background:
Although primarily a civil rights case, it involved land use permitting delays based on zoning and environmental concerns.
Issue:
Whether delays in approving development permits violated equal protection.
Decision:
The court held that zoning and permitting delays must not be arbitrary or discriminatory.
Significance:
Established that permitting delays must have legitimate environmental or planning bases.
Prevented abuse of permitting processes to block projects unfairly.
Summary and Key Takeaways
Environmental permitting delays stem from the need to comply with complex laws ensuring ecological protection.
Courts require agencies to conduct thorough environmental reviews but also avoid unreasonable project halts.
Litigation is a common cause of delays but serves as a check on agency compliance.
Agencies are encouraged to balance timely infrastructure development with environmental stewardship.
Judicial review remains a critical mechanism to resolve conflicts over delays and procedural adequacy.
RELATED Blog
0 comments