An executive order is no substitute for true environmental rule reform

An executive order signed by President Trump last week could have far reaching consequences for environmental protection and the shape of the recovery. It declares that the United States is battling an economic emergency and authorizes federal agencies to waive the environmental review requirements for new infrastructure and building projects.

With tens of millions of Americans unemployed, the fact that we are in an economic emergency is hard to deny. The environmental review process in general has also long been in serious need of reform. But it would be a mistake to think that the executive order alone can solve the problem. So unless the administration follows up with real reform, the executive order risks adding an element of unfairness to an already unfair system.

To understand the need for reform, just look at the National Environmental Policy Act, one of the statutes affected by the new order. The law requires that federal agencies produce an environmental impact statement as part of the permitting process for infrastructure projects and other building or mining projects that require approval by the federal government.

These environmental impact statements were expected to be short and sweet, taking no more than a year to complete a report of no more than 150 pages. Over the subsequent decades, however, the time and effort necessary to prepare the environmental impact statement has steadily grown. The average time to prepare the environment impact statement takes about five years, and the average length is over 600 pages.

The increasing length of environmental reviews can be attributed in large measure to the threat of lawsuits, which has required ever more extensive reviews before approval. What started as a way to minimize environmental harms has become a weapon wielded to prevent otherwise viable projects from moving forward at all by burying them under costly red tape.

So the National Environmental Policy Act certainly needs reform. This is heightened by the current downturn. When weighing the economic and environmental costs and benefits of specific projects, it is reasonable to take the broader economic outlook into account. Low interest rates and the large number of Americans who need jobs could tilt any analysis of costs and benefits toward approving projects as fast as possible.

Providing temporary waivers from the National Environmental Policy Act requirements will not solve the problem and could also set a dangerous precedent. Were this approach carried over to other environmental laws, such as the Clean Air Act, companies that build using regulatory waivers will have lasting competitive advantages above other businesses. As we have seen, executive driven regulatory changes are usually fleeting and are generally reversed when another administration enters office.

To ensure that the current executive order is not a regulatory orphan, the administration must take action. It has to make a solid argument that the economic situation needs action now, while Congress sorts out what to do for the long term. It must continue to push for reasonable permanent reform of the environmental review system that balances environmental benefits with critical infrastructure and economic development.

Josiah Neeley is the Texas director and a senior fellow on the energy team at the R Street Institute, a free markets policy group based in Washington.