The temptation is to embrace a cliché. Maybe the one about too many cooks spoiling the broth. Or perhaps the one that says a camel is a horse designed by committee.
Indeed, excessive input and stifling bureaucracy can be detrimental. But in putting together a multibillion-dollar project that will transform our region and serve as a conduit for some 200,000 people per day, due diligence is necessary.
That is the thought surrounding the Interstate Bridge Replacement Program and news that a draft supplemental environmental impact statement is expected this month. The 10,000-page document initially was planned for late 2023 and has been delayed several times since then.
“We are quickly coming to the point of where we’re going to have that key document released,” Program Administrator Greg Johnson said last week. “This is going to be a very, very busy time period as we are transferring from the (National Environmental Policy Act) process into construction.”
The National Environmental Policy Act was passed by Congress in 1969, after being introduced by Sen. Henry Jackson of Washington. It was signed into law by President Richard Nixon and since then has dictated that environmental interests be considered in large construction projects. As the preamble to the law states, in part, the goal is “to promote efforts which will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere and stimulate the health and welfare of man.”
The act followed decades of rapid construction that included little concern about environmental damage. The result of that, by the late 1960s, was American cities shrouded in smog, irreparable damage to waterways and wetlands, and sprawling freeway systems that paved over green spaces and delivered increasing pollution to the suburbs.
The act has been upheld in numerous court rulings, with one U.S. District Court writing: “No agency possesses discretion whether to comply with procedural requirements such as NEPA. The relevant information provided by a NEPA analysis needs to be available to the public and the people who play a role in the decision-making process.”
At the same time, the need for an environmental impact study has slowed the wheels of what could be viewed as progress. Studies show that construction projects typically take longer and are more expensive in the United States than in Western Europe or democratic Asian nations, and bureaucracy is one reason for that. As a University of California professor who has studied the issue told the New York Times: “It is a lot harder to build projects here, and we are not as skilled at doing it.”
Debates over the efficacy of the National Environmental Policy Act have expanded in recent years with the growing threat of climate change. The Trump administration worked to remove concerns about increased emissions from consideration; the Biden administration has reinstated some of those considerations, allowing climate change to be weighed during development.
For a project with the scope of a new Interstate 5 Bridge, environmental issues play a broad role. The proposal involves two states, two counties, two cities and the federal government. Because it crosses a major waterway, the bridge also concerns the U.S. Coast Guard.
All of that adds up to a complex, time-consuming process — and a 10,000-page environmental report that then must be approved by multiple governments and agencies. The hope is that it also will add up to a project that meets the needs of our region.
