House Natural Resources Committee Hearing Highlights Risks of Permitting Reform Bill
A recent hearing before the House Natural Resources committee focused on a proposed permitting reform bill that experts warn could significantly weaken environmental protections. Justin Pidot, Ashby Lohse Chair in Water & Natural Resources and co-director of the environmental law program at the University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law, argues the bill’s approach would incentivize development in areas with insufficient environmental understanding and promote the use of unproven technologies.
Pidot, who previously served as general counsel at the White House Council on Environmental Quality from January 2021 too June 2024, explains that thorough environmental review often requires gathering new data. He cites a real-world example where an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process – completed in 2006 – necessitated drilling over 50 bore holes to understand the geochemistry of a disposal site and its impact on local streams, rivers, and groundwater. This research directly led to a revised, more environmentally sound alternative for the site, which was ultimately adopted.
This scenario, Pidot emphasizes, is not uncommon. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process frequently involves research into crucial areas such as:
Natural resource assessment
Air pollution impacts and public health
Fate and containment of accidental releases of oil or chemicals
Natural disaster risks (wildfire, flood, earthquake)
* Hydrological impacts on drinking water and water supply.
Pidot contends that the proposed legislation, by limiting analysis to only pre-existing data, would allow agencies to ignore potentially harmful environmental consequences. “By calcifying scientific and technical information at the moment an agency receives an application, or publishes an NOI, the SPEED Act would enable the government to turn a willfully blind eye to inconvenient information about harms to human health, air and water quality, biodiversity, and other aspects of the human surroundings,” he writes. He concludes that this approach would lead to “ill-conceived decisions, not better government.”
