Although I cetainly don't support the Bush administration's efforts to
undermine NEPA, we should not regard NEPA asa the savior of the environment.
I think the law needs to be stronger.

NEPA only requires a federal agency to undertake an environmental review. For
most agencies this simply amounts to putting together a bunch of paper. After
some NEPA victories in the early 1970s, agencies have now learned how to
finesse their way around the law and federal judges are more reluctant to
question the agency's actions.

Not does NEPA require that the agency take the least environmentally
destructive alternative. It just requires that the agency examine the
alternatives. Also, the question arises as to what alternatives they must
consider. As one former Iowa DOT official put it, reagarding the Eddyville
Bypass EIS, "NEPA doesn't require us to make the right decision, only an
informed one."

NEPA needs to be amended to require the agency to use the least
environmentally destructive alternative.

Wally Taylor

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To get off the IOWA-TOPICS list, send any message to:
[log in to unmask]