Congress Watch: The Responsibly And Professionally Invigorating Development Act Cuts Red Tape & Bureaucracy

(Joe Jansen has a decade and a half of experience working as a staff member on Capitol Hill.  He has worked in almost every legislative capacity in both the House and Senate. Joe will be a frequent contributor to TPA’s blog.) Progress on most issues does not occur by leaps and bounds.  It is often a series of small steps.  The steps are not sexy and most major news outlets do not really consider them all that newsworthy.  But, these small steps can make a big difference.  By passing the Responsibly And Professionally Invigorating Development Act (RAPID), the House took a small step forward in cutting government red tape and bureaucracy that frustrates and delays many construction projects.

The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) declared that the Federal government cares about the environment.  And, because it cares, anytime it is involved in a project, it will work with state and local governments to assess the project’s environmental impact.  When federal money is provided for a project or a federal permit or license is required, an agency must review the project (a “NEPA Review”) and produce one of three documents.  The most problematic is the environmental impact statement (EIS).

Among other things, the EIS requires the “lead agency” to “scope” out a project, identifying all stakeholders and significant issues that will arise.  It then requires the agency to consider and evaluate alternatives.  Each alternative must be explored in detail and the EIS must explain why one alternative is better than the other.  Before finalizing the EIS, the agency must seek comments from stakeholders and other agencies and respond to these comments in the final document.

According to the Judiciary Committee’s report accompanying the RAPID Act, a study was conducted between 1998 and 2006 of publicly available EIS documents.  It found that “the time to prepare an EIS . . . ranged from 51 days to . . .18.4 years.  The average time for all Federal entities was 3.4 years” and “EIS completion time increased by 37 days each year.”  Delays in construction projects cost more than time.  These delays can add significant costs to projects and sometimes kill projects altogether.  Most importantly, these delays slow economic growth and cost jobs.

The RAPID Act is not the first federal legislation that addresses the NEPA review process.  Past transportation bills have made some improvements on transportation projects.  The President’s Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) has also suggested changes to the process and President Obama, too, has been helpful in speeding some projects along.  RAPID builds on these bipartisan efforts.

Among the bill’s major provisions, it would streamline the entire NEPA review process to weed out some redundancy and duplication.  The bill would impose strict deadlines on agencies reviewing projects.  These deadlines include two years to complete an Environmental Impact Statement and issue a decision.  And, finally, it would set a 180 day deadline for filing a lawsuit challenging the review process.  It does not leave citizens affected by a construction project without a voice.  As House Judiciary Chairman Goodlatte said, it strikes a balance between “economic progress and the proper level of analysis.”

The RAPID Act is not a cure for all the delays and frustrations that occur in obtaining approval and permits for construction projects across the United States.  But, it is a step in the right direction.  And, a bill that the Senate should consider to help grow the economy.