Report on Regulatory Changes to U.S. Environmental Policy and Their Impact on Sustainable Development Goals

Executive Summary

Recent administrative and judicial changes to the implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) have dismantled a long-standing framework for interagency and intergovernmental cooperation. This report analyzes how the erosion of this coordinated approach directly threatens the achievement of multiple Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions) and SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals). The absence of a mandated, uniform system for environmental review creates regulatory uncertainty and undermines the effective protection of environmental resources, which is central to SDG 6 (Clean Water and Sanitation), SDG 13 (Climate Action), and SDG 15 (Life on Land).

The Foundational Role of Coordinated Governance in Achieving Environmental SDGs

The NEPA framework, historically guided by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), provided a stable and predictable regulatory environment essential for long-term sustainable development. This system was instrumental in advancing key SDG principles:

• SDG 16: Strong Institutions: CEQ established uniform baseline rules for environmental reviews, creating an effective and accountable institutional process that federal agencies were required to follow.
• SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals: The framework mandated interagency cooperation and encouraged joint review processes with state, local, and tribal governments, embodying the multi-stakeholder partnerships necessary for integrated policy implementation.
• Legislative Reinforcement: The 2023 Fiscal Responsibility Act codified certain cooperative practices, such as designating lead agencies and using single review documents, further strengthening the institutional capacity for collaborative environmental governance.

Erosion of Institutional Frameworks and a Setback for SDG 16

The established system of coordinated environmental governance has been significantly weakened by recent events, representing a regression in the development of effective and accountable institutions as called for in SDG 16.

1. Judicial Rulings: In Marin Audubon Society v. Federal Aviation Administration and Iowa v. CEQ, federal courts ruled that CEQ lacked the legal authority to issue binding regulations, thereby invalidating its coordinating role.
2. Rescission of Rules: CEQ subsequently rescinded its NEPA implementation rules, removing the mandate for early and consistent interagency engagement.
3. Guidance Gap: Subsequent guidance from CEQ failed to provide directives on cross-jurisdictional cooperation, leaving a critical gap in the environmental review process and creating significant regulatory uncertainty for all stakeholders.

Consequences of Failed Partnerships: Case Studies on SDG Impacts

The failure to maintain robust partnerships (SDG 17) during environmental reviews leads to project delays, legal challenges, and substandard environmental outcomes, directly hindering progress on several SDGs.

Case Study 1: The Mountain Valley Pipeline

• Institutional Failure: The U.S. Forest Service’s adoption of another agency’s environmental impact statement without sufficient independent review was ruled a violation of NEPA, demonstrating a breakdown in accountable procedure.
• Impact on SDG 15 (Life on Land): The initial review failed to adequately address the project’s impacts on streams and forest ecosystems, requiring additional assessments and delaying the project for years. The resolution required special legislative action, bypassing standard institutional processes.

Case Study 2: Letcher County Federal Facility

• Lack of Collaboration: The Bureau of Prisons conducted its review with only informal collaboration, failing to integrate critical expertise from other agencies.
• Impact on SDG 6 (Clean Water) and SDG 15 (Life on Land): The draft environmental impact statement did not sufficiently consider impacts on water quality or from mining activity, issues typically overseen by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, respectively.
• Outcome: This failure to form effective partnerships (SDG 17) led to litigation and the eventual cancellation of the project, demonstrating how inadequate coordination undermines development.

The Critical Link Between Collaboration and Substantive SDG Outcomes

Empirical evidence confirms that interagency and intergovernmental collaboration is not merely a procedural matter but is fundamental to achieving positive environmental outcomes aligned with the SDGs.

• Enhanced Decision-Making: Research from the U.S. Forest Service indicates that collaboration leads to a more thorough understanding of environmental issues, a wider array of alternatives, and more sound resource management decisions, contributing to the goals of SDG 15.
• Improved Environmental Performance: A study from the University of California, Davis, found that well-coordinated collaborative teams produce superior environmental outcomes for infrastructure projects, directly supporting the integration of sustainability into development.

Conclusion: A Regression Threatening the 2030 Agenda

The current trend of dismantling cooperative environmental review frameworks under NEPA represents a significant step backward from the principles of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. The lack of emphasis on interagency and intergovernmental cooperation in new draft regulations from federal agencies indicates a systemic failure to uphold the values of SDG 16 (Strong Institutions) and SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals). Without a renewed commitment to strengthening these collaborative mechanisms, the United States risks diminished regulatory efficiency and a reduced capacity to protect the environmental resources that are foundational to achieving global sustainability targets.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

• SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation: The article mentions the failure to consider the effects of construction on water quality in the case of a federal facility in Letcher County, Kentucky. This directly relates to protecting water resources.
• SDG 9: Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure: The article revolves around the environmental review process for major infrastructure projects, such as the Mountain Valley Pipeline and a federal prison. It discusses how regulatory frameworks affect the efficiency and environmental soundness of these projects.
• SDG 15: Life on Land: The core of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is to assess impacts on the environment. The article provides examples like the Mountain Valley Pipeline, where “stream impacts” were a key concern, and the Letcher County project, where impacts from mining activity were overlooked, both of which relate to protecting terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems.
• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions: The central theme is the effectiveness and accountability of governmental institutions (CEQ, USFS, FERC, etc.) in implementing environmental law. The article discusses the breakdown of a uniform regulatory framework, legal challenges, regulatory uncertainty, and the importance of transparent and participatory decision-making, all of which are core to SDG 16.
• SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals: The article’s primary argument is that a “lack of coordination threatens environmental policy.” It emphasizes the critical need for “interagency and intergovernmental cooperation” to achieve effective environmental reviews and better outcomes, which is the essence of building partnerships for sustainable development.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

1. Target 6.3: By 2030, improve water quality by reducing pollution. The article’s example of the Letcher County prison project, where the initial review failed to “sufficiently consider the effects of the construction on water quality,” highlights the importance of processes that uphold this target.
2. Target 9.1: Develop quality, reliable, sustainable and resilient infrastructure. The entire NEPA process discussed is a mechanism to ensure that infrastructure development is environmentally sustainable. The article shows how flaws in this process can undermine this goal.
3. Target 15.1: By 2020, ensure the conservation, restoration and sustainable use of terrestrial and inland freshwater ecosystems. The re-evaluation of the Mountain Valley Pipeline to address “stream impacts” is a direct application of this target, ensuring freshwater ecosystems are protected.
4. Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels. The article critiques the weakening of the Council on Environmental Quality’s (CEQ) authority and the subsequent lack of a uniform framework, which undermines the effectiveness and transparency of the environmental review process.
5. Target 16.7: Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels. The NEPA process involves public input, as seen in the “comment on the draft environmental impact statement” for the Letcher County project. The article also notes that the Builder Act allowed state, local, and tribal governments to request cooperating agency status, promoting inclusive decision-making.
6. Target 17.14: Enhance policy coherence for sustainable development. The article’s main thesis is that the lack of a coordinated, coherent environmental review process across agencies leads to litigation, delays, and poor environmental outcomes. It advocates for strengthening interagency cooperation to improve policy coherence.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

• Existence of a mandated framework for interagency cooperation: The article points to the rescinding of CEQ’s uniform rules as a negative development. Therefore, the existence and enforcement of such rules serve as a key indicator of progress towards Target 17.14 (policy coherence) and 16.6 (effective institutions).
• Use of a single review document for multi-agency reviews: The article mentions that the Builder Act “encouraged the use of a single review document.” The frequency of its use can be an indicator of effective interagency collaboration.
• Duration of litigation: The article explicitly states that “NEPA litigation lasts a median duration of 23 months.” A reduction in this duration could indicate a more efficient and less adversarial regulatory process, reflecting stronger institutions (Target 16.6).
• Completeness of Environmental Impact Statements (EIS): The case of the Letcher County prison, where the EIS initially omitted key impacts on water quality and mining, implies that the thoroughness of these documents is an indicator. Measuring whether reviews encompass all relevant cross-jurisdictional impacts (e.g., from the Army Corps of Engineers) can track progress towards targets 6.3 and 15.1.
• Number of project decisions rescinded due to inadequate environmental analysis: The Bureau of Prisons rescinding its decision on the Letcher County project is a concrete example. This can serve as an indicator of the robustness of the review and appeals process.
• Level of intergovernmental participation: The ability of “state, local, and tribal governments to request cooperating agency status” is mentioned. The number of such governments participating in federal reviews would be a direct indicator of progress towards Target 16.7 (inclusive decision-making).

4. Summary Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: theregreview.org