U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

32–511 PDF WASHINGTON : 2018

PERMITTING: FINDING A PATH FORWARD 

JOINT HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

AND THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

THE INTERIOR, ENERGY, AND ENVIRONMENT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT 

AND GOVERNMENT REFORM 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

SEPTEMBER 6, 2018 

Serial No. 115–102 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov 

http://oversight.house.gov 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

Trey Gowdy, South Carolina, Chairman 

John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee 

Darrell E. Issa, California 

Jim Jordan, Ohio 

Mark Sanford, South Carolina 

Justin Amash, Michigan 

Paul A. Gosar, Arizona 

Scott DesJarlais, Tennessee 

Virginia Foxx, North Carolina 

Thomas Massie, Kentucky 

Mark Meadows, North Carolina 

Ron DeSantis, Florida 

Dennis A. Ross, Florida 

Mark Walker, North Carolina 

Rod Blum, Iowa 

Jody B. Hice, Georgia 

Steve Russell, Oklahoma 

Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin 

Will Hurd, Texas 

Gary J. Palmer, Alabama 

James Comer, Kentucky 

Paul Mitchell, Michigan 

Greg Gianforte, Montana 

Michael Cloud, Texas 

Elijah E. Cummings, Maryland, Ranking 

Minority Member 

Carolyn B. Maloney, New York 

Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of Columbia 

Wm. Lacy Clay, Missouri 

Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts 

Jim Cooper, Tennessee 

Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia 

Robin L. Kelly, Illinois 

Brenda L. Lawrence, Michigan 

Bonnie Watson Coleman, New Jersey 

Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois 

Jamie Raskin, Maryland 

Jimmy Gomez, Maryland 

Peter Welch, Vermont 

Matt Cartwright, Pennsylvania 

Mark DeSaulnier, California 

Stacey E. Plaskett, Virgin Islands 

John P. Sarbanes, Maryland 

SHERIA CLARKE, Staff Director 

WILLIAM MCKENNA, General Counsel 

EMILY WONG, Counsel 

KILEY BIDELMAN, Clerk 

DAVID RAPALLO, Minority Staff Director 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
(III) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

Gary Palmer, Alabama, Chairman 

Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin, Vice Chair 

John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee 

Virginia Foxx, North Carolina 

Thomas Massie, Kentucky 

Mark Walker, North Carolina 

Mark Sanford, South Carolina 

Jamie Raskin, Maryland, Ranking Minority 

Member 

Mark DeSaulnier, California 

Matt Cartwright, Pennsylvania 

Wm. Lacy Clay, Missouri 

(Vacancy) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE INTERIOR, ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT

GREG GIANFORTE, MONTANA, Chairman 

Paul A. Gosar, Arizona, Vice Chair 

Dennis Ross, Florida 

Gary J. Palmer, Alabama 

James Comer, Kentucky 

Michael Cloud, Texas 

Stacey E. Plaskett, Virgin Islands 

Jamie Raskin, Maryland 

Jimmy Gomez, California 

(Vacancy) 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
(V) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on September 6, 2018 ....................................................................... 1 

WITNESSES 

Mr. Frank Rusco, Director, Natural Resources and Environment Issues, U.S. 

Government Accountability Office 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 7 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 10 

Mr. Philip K. Howard, Founder and Chair, Common Good 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 24 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 26 

Ms. Christy Goldfuss, Senior Vice President, Energy and Environment Policy, 

Center for American Progress 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 35 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 37 

Mr. Daren Bakst, Senior Research Fellow, The Heritage Foundation 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 42 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 44 

APPENDIX 

Letter for the Record from Ms. Plaskett regarding Limetree Bay Terminals, 

submitted by Ms. Plaskett ................................................................................... 78 

Letter for the Record from Earthjustice, submitted by Mr. Raskin .................... 80 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
(1) 

PERMITTING: FINDING A PATH FORWARD 

Thursday, September 6, 2018 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, JOINT

WITH THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE INTERIOR, ENERGY, 

AND ENVIRONMENT

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM, 

Washington, D.C. 

The subcommittees met, pursuant to call, at 10:02 a.m., in Room 

2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Greg Gianforte [chairman of the subcommittee on Interior, Energy, and Environment] 

presiding. 

Present: Representatives Gianforte, Palmer, Grothman, Duncan, 

Comer, Plaskett, and Raskin. 

Mr. GIANFORTE. The Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Affairs 

and the Committee on the Interior, Energy and Environment will 

come to order. Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare 

a recess at any time. 

Good morning. Today the committee on the Interior, Energy and 

the Environment and the Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Affairs will examine permitting and environmental review process for 

infrastructure projects. 

This is the third permitting hearing this committee has held this 

Congress. Previously we have heard from many witnesses about 

the ways in which convoluted requirements and lengthy application 

periods for Federal environmental permits negatively affect infrastructure projects. 

Today we will continue to explore this important topic and discuss how delaying infrastructure projects hurts the economy and 

communities in need of modernize improved infrastructure. 

Environmental protection statutes like the Clean Air Act, the 

Clean Water Act, and the National Environmental Protection Act 

were passed with noble intentions years ago. And no one disputes 

the need for a healthy environment. In recent years, however, Federal agencies have taken it upon themselves to broaden their interpretations of these statutes and made too many rules and regulations that stretch the bounds of the authority that Congress has 

provided. As a result, permitting workloads and associated delays 

have increased. For example, the EPA lowered the national ambient air quality standards for ozone in 2015. Under the new lower 

standard, 209 counties in 22 States are designated as nonattainment areas subjecting all projects in those counties that could 

produce emissions to more rigorous permitting requirements. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
2 

Similarly, the Obama administration’s EPA, along with the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers finalized the Waters of the United States 

Rule which vastly expanded their jurisdiction to issue permits 

under the Clean Water Act. These Federal power grabs have increased the number of project applicants, lengthened wait times, 

and caused the cost of projects to balloon. 

Under President Trump, the administration has prioritized infrastructure modernization and Federal permitting reform. The President’s management agenda and the one Federal decision policy implemented by executive order direct Federal agencies with permitting responsibilities to reduce permit application processing times 

by instituting a number of best practices. 

Some of our witnesses today will discuss how these proposals can 

move the ball forward to address well-known problems with the 

Federal permitting and environmental review status quo. We will 

also hear from the Government Accountability Office. GAO has 

done extensive research into Federal agencies’ management of their 

permitting responsibilities and, in the process, has observed both 

common problems and best practices. 

One major issue GAO has identified across Federal agencies is 

the lack of quality data on permitting milestones. Many agencies 

with permitting responsibilities are simply not tracking when applications are submitted or approved. While the administration’s 

proposals are a step in the right direction, their success relies 

heavily upon the ability to hold agencies accountable. GAO’s work 

suggests the data necessary to do so may not be readily available. 

To that end, my subcommittee has initiated conversations with 

GAO about creating a permitting scorecard that can be used as a 

tool to measure agencies’ progress as they begin to implement 

these necessary reforms. The scorecard would determine a letter 

grade, A through F, for each agency based on their adoption of 

agreed-to permitting best practices. 

Last month I sent a letter to GAO requesting a review of efforts 

to streamline the Federal permitting process including an assessment of key permitting related indicators from monitoring agency 

progress. 

As we discuss permitting reforms and recommendations today, I 

hope the conversation will contribute to developing a scorecard that 

can be used now and in the future to promote best practices and 

incentivize agencies to improve their permitting processes. 

Today’s hearing will provide an opportunity to discuss how we 

can ensure our future where Federal permitting functions are more 

efficiently achieved and better serves the American people. I look 

forward to hearing, our witnesses’ recommendations. 

And I now recognize the ranking member of Interior, Energy and 

Environment subcommittee, Ms. Plaskett, for her opening statement. 

Ms. PLASKETT. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And thank 

our witnesses for being here, and my colleagues for coming to this 

important hearing. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for calling today’s hearing concerning 

the Federal permitting process and how it relates to infrastructure 

development. The idea that environmental protection, not just of 

the natural environment but also the human environment, goes 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
3 

hand-in-hand with infrastructure development is now an old one. 

It goes back nearly 50 years to the passage of the National Environmental Protection Act, commonly known as NEPA. And the call 

that the environmental review and permitting process become more 

efficient and streamlined is nearly as old. The Virgin Islands sees 

both sides of this coin. With tourism and travel accounting for 

nearly 30 percent of the island’s GDP right now, we are highly 

aware of the need for environmental protection. But because of our 

higher cost of living, anything that potentially slows our economy, 

including unnecessary delays to infrastructure and responsible development, must be addressed. 

Delays to some projects are ongoing, and that is an impediment 

to our economic health. The need to fast track projects in the Virgin Islands is especially urgent as the economy recovers from the 

2017 hurricane season. Today marks 1 year that Hurricane Irma 

hit the Islands of St. John and St. Thomas. 

My office has provided assistance with numerous projects that 

have been delayed in the permitting progress. In some instances, 

these delays go back as far as 12 years or more. That is outrageous. 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to have included in the record a letter I recently wrote to Rear Admiral Tim Gallaudet, assistant secretary of commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere, and Mr. Chris Oliver, assistant administrator for Fisheries for assistance with the 

Federal permitting of an energy infrastructure on St. Croix. 

The permit application to install a single—— 

Mr. GIANFORTE. Without objection. 

Ms. PLASKETT. Thank you. 

The permit application to install a single point mooring buoy system to allow the Limetree Bay terminal facility to receive shipments from very large bulk fuel carriers has now been pending for 

a year. This is just one example of the list of projects that I have 

been asked to assist with the permitting application. Applicants 

incur extraordinary costs as a result of the delays in the process, 

and developers are thwarted and sometimes discouraged from 

bringing projects out because of this. 

In 2017, President Trump issued two executive orders with the 

aim of streamlining the environmental review and permitting process. But it turns out that these executive orders are mostly redundant, a superfluous to bipartisan laws already on the books. 

Since 2012, Congress has passed three major laws designed to 

streamlined NEPA. Each one refined some permitting requirements and provided the Federal Government with new tools to 

speed up environmental reviews. The FAST Act in particular created the Federal permitting improvement steering council which 

answers to the President. Compromising members from 13 agencies, it is designed to coordinate and expedite the permitting process. But President Trump has yet to appoint a permanent executive 

director of the council. And a fee structure to collect money from 

project sponsors so the council can facilitate faster reviews has yet 

to be established. 

So we have all the tools we need to expedite the permitting process if we fully fund them. But this is where President Trump’s proposed budget for fiscal year 2019 fell short, a call for a staggering 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
4 

one-third cut in the budget of the Environmental Protection Agency 

and a 16 percent cut from the Department of the Interior. It’s hard 

to see how we can speed up the permitting process when the President is calling for drastic cuts to the agencies that oversee much 

of that process. We know what the answers are. We just need to— 

find to fund them. 

I thank the witnesses for their appearance today and look forward to their testimony. 

Mr. GIANFORTE. Thank you. 

I now recognize the ranking member of the Intergovernmental 

Affairs Committee, Mr. Raskin, for his opening comments. 

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. And thanks 

for calling this hearing on how we can develop our infrastructure 

without sacrificing the environment and the rules that protect it. 

Welcome to our witnesses today. 

I wanted to start, Mr. Chairman, by introducing a very thoughtful letter that we received from Earth Justice to the committee, if 

that is—— 

Mr. GIANFORTE. Without objection. 

Mr. RASKIN. Great. Thanks so much. 

Mr. Chairman, NEPA was signed into law nearly a half century 

ago when experience showed the dangers of not examining the environmental implications of development before building took place. 

And those dangers involved the creation of perilous environmental 

harms and also dealing with environmental problems that came up 

through the litigation process which was obviously divisive and polarizing and took years to get through. 

And so NEPA was established so that the environmental questions could be considered first before the building process took 

place. Leap before you look was the old way of doing things, and 

this was look before you leap so we wouldn’t destroy neighborhoods 

and environments unnecessarily before projects took place. 

So the rules arising out of NEPA and other environmental statutes like the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act were designed 

to enable planners to build environmental planning into the development process. 

Now, President Trump, of course, is in the real estate development business, and declared himself the number one champion of 

the eminent domain process which has trampled so many Americans’ property rights and environmental quality of life, has been, 

you know, full-blown offensive against the permitting process 

under NEPA. And the suggestion, of course, from the very beginning of this administration has been, as Steve Band put it, to dismantle the regulatory state, and obviously the permitting process 

is an important part of the regulatory process that has grown up 

under our environmental laws. 

As I noted in July, the Office of Management and Budget every 

year issues a congressionally mandated report that identifies the 

cost of government rules on the private sector and then the estimated financial benefits of the rules for the American public. The 

most recent report found that Federal rules imposed just under $5 

billion in costs on business but resulted in more than $27 billion 

in benefits to the American public. That is a benefit-to-cost ratio 

of more than 5 to 1. So instead of permitting rules being some kind 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
5 

of staggering burden on the American people, they actually help everyone across the board. 

Now, blaming environmental permitting rules is a way to flatten 

out and demolish the regulatory process to benefit specific corporations and developers. The BP oil spill is a good example of why environmental enforcement and permits are so essential. In the wake 

of the oil spill, which created 11 human deaths and the deaths of 

a million sea birds and contamination of an entire ecosystem, the 

Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement was established 

to oversee offshore oil drilling. But President Trump’s proposed 

2019 budget called for slashing, by 43 percent, environmental enforcement by this bureau. This is obviously the wrong way to go. 

Permitting is not the problem. It should be seen as part of the solution. 

Studies have shown that project funding, developing a local community census, and dealing with residences and businesses in the 

path of a proposed development are far greater sources of delay 

than the permitting process. 

So let’s focus on what the real problems might be. Everybody is 

for simplifying government and reducing red tape where we can do 

it, but certainly not at the expense of maintaining the environmental safeguards that the American people have established. 

I thank all of the witnesses in advance for sharing their insights 

today. I look forward to continuing this important discussion. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back to you. 

Mr. GIANFORTE. Okay. Thank you. 

I now recognize chairman of the Intergovernmental Affairs Subcommittee, Mr. Palmer, for his opening statement. 

Mr. PALMER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the witnesses 

for being here. 

I think it goes without saying that infrastructure is a critical 

issue that directly affects the quality of our life and our communities, and I think we can have good infrastructure without compromising environmental quality. The issue is have we gone overboard to the degree that we now have infrastructure that basically 

gets a D grade. We have got a deteriorating infrastructure that is 

having a significant impact on the economy. We have got congestion on the highways that cost us $160 million a year in lost time 

and wasted fuel, which, by the way, when you have that kind of 

congestion, increases some of the air quality issues that we are all 

trying to deal with. We have got power outages that have an additional impact of $150 million a year. All these costs, by the way, 

get passed on to the consumer in one form or another. 

In 2017, the American Society of Civil Engineers analyzed the 

state of the Nation’s infrastructure and estimated that American 

families lose upwards to $3,400 each year because of it. And they 

further scored our country’s infrastructure, as I said before, and 

gave it a grade of D. 

Fixing failing infrastructure should be a top priority. It is certainly a top priority with me. And not only just fixing the failing 

infrastructure but improving the quality of what we have and expanding it as our economy grows, and it’s growing as the Atlanta 

Fed announced just last week, that they expect GDP to be 4.6 perVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:00 Nov 16, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\32511.TXT APRIL

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
6 

cent for this quarter, which is a huge improvement over the economic conditions of the country over the last few years. 

We are going to need higher quality, better infrastructure, but 

only if the permitting process and multiagency approvals and the 

tens of thousands of pages of environmental impact assessments 

are causing all kind of delays, and they have been for decades. The 

cost to rebuild infrastructure will dramatically increase due to inflation and prolonged construction cost. 

Having worked for two engineering construction companies, I 

know the time and money it takes to get a project off the ground. 

And I’ve used this example in a couple other hearings of what happened down in Texas where you had a State road, a U.S. highway, 

and an infrastructure. The State road was delayed 33 1/2 months. 

It added over $5 million to the cost of the project. The State road was the delayed 5 years. That added almost $18 

million to the cost of the project. And the interstate, it’s a mile and 

a half adding an interchange, was delayed for 11 months. And it 

cost about $447,000 a month in delay costs. That added almost $4 

million to the project, which all of that is infrastructure money. 

Contractors and project developers are forced to comply with dozens of permitting requirements spread across multiple agencies. 

They’re subject to reviews and often duplicative and redundant, 

and then they wait. They wait for responses and approvals from 

Federal agencies. Waiting cost money. Delays cost money. 

We see it—as I just gave those examples from Texas, when a 

project started and then they have to delay, these contractors are 

forced—you have to pay the contractors for their people being onsite and their equipment on-site. And if you shut it down, a 5-year 

delay, they got to move off-site and then restage. People are hired, 

and they’re ready to work, and they expect to get paid regardless 

of whether or not the Federal Government is meeting the deadlines. As I said, moving equipment around, compliance, administrative tasks, updating contracts, they’re grown out-of-date, delays, 

these are all delays that cost money. And it adds up over years. 

These delay costs take away the resources that could be put to 

other critical projects. And my home State of Alabama has experienced infrastructure projects delay firsthand. We’ve been trying to 

get the Northern Beltline, I–459, built. And the funding for that 

was first approved in 1989. We’ve built 2 miles of road. 

The project would create a six-lane beltway around the City of 

Birmingham. We’re the largest city in the country without a complete belt line. So 30 years later, 2 miles of road. The Federal Highway Administration recently predicted that construction of the remaining 50 miles will take another 35 years. I’ll be 100 years old. 

And, Mr. Chairman, I promise, if they take that long, I’m going to 

drive on it, so—we’re literally throwing our infrastructure dollars 

down the drain with these delays. 

The current administration is working to modernize the Nation’s 

infrastructure and cure the permitting inefficiencies. In August of 

last year, the President issued Executive Order 13807 to streamline the environmental review and permitting process. The executive order established a one Federal decision when it comes to 

major infrastructure projects. This gives a single agency the authority to navigate the project through the permit authorization 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
7 

process as well as the Federal environmental review. The President 

also encouraged cooperation between the executive branch and 

Congress to shorten the time consuming environmental review 

process to 2 years. 

I look forward to hearing from today’s witnesses about the Federal permitting process including how it contributes to a backlog of 

needed improvements and how reform proposals can address these 

problems. 

I thank the witnesses for being here, and I yield back. 

Mr. GIANFORTE. Okay. Thank you. 

And I’m pleased to introduce our witnesses at this time. Mr. 

Frank Rusco, director of natural resources and environmental 

issues at the U.S. Government Accountability Office. Thank you for 

being here. 

Mr. Philip K. Howard, founder and chair of Common Good. Ms. 

Christy Goldfuss, senior vice president of energy and environmental policy at the Center for American Progress. And last, but 

not least, Mr. Daren Bakst, senior research fellow at the Heritage 

Foundation. 

Welcome to all of you. Thank you for being here. 

Pursuant to committee rules, all witnesses will be sworn in before they testify. 

Please stand and raise your right hand. 

Do you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony you’re about to 

give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so 

help you God? 

Please be seated. 

The record will reflect the witnesses have answered in the affirmative. 

In order to allow time for discussion, I would ask the witnesses 

to please limit your testimony to 5 minutes. Your entire written 

statement will be made part of the record. As a reminder, the clock 

in front of you shows your remaining time. The light will turn yellow when you have 30 seconds left and red when your time is up. 

Please also remember to press the button to turn your microphone 

on before speaking. 

And at this time I recognize Mr. Rusco from GAO for 5 minutes. 

WITNESS STATEMENTS 

STATEMENT OF FRANK RUSCO 

Mr. RUSCO. Thank you. 

Chairman Gianforte and Palmer, Ranking Members Plaskett and 

Raskin, and members of the subcommittees, I’m pleased to be here 

today to discuss GAO’s work evaluating Federal agencies’ permitting processes for energy infrastructure. While my testimony focuses on energy infrastructure permitting, GAO has done work 

looking at many other infrastructure projects, and many of the 

issues around permitting are broadly applicable. 

It is essential to understand that permitting large infrastructure 

projects is a complex process involving adherence to Federal, State, 

and local laws and regulations. As such, it is often the case that 

multiple Federal, State agencies as well as other stakeholders will 

be involved. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
8 

Our work on energy infrastructure permitting has identified five 

broad categories of factors that can affect the timeliness of the permitting progress. First, coordination and communication are essential. In particular, having a lead Federal agency to coordinate the 

efforts of other Federal, State, and local stakeholders can be beneficial to expedite permitting processes. For example, the Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission takes a lead role in coordinating 

environmental reviews with other Federal agencies and stakeholders in pipeline permitting. 

As such, FERC and nine other agencies have signed interagency 

agreements for early coordination of environmental and historic 

preservation reviews in order to encourage timely development of 

pipeline projects. Both industry representatives and public interest 

groups have told us that having FERC as a lead agency has made 

the process for permitting interstate pipelines more efficient than 

that of intrastate pipelines where FERC is not involved. 

A second factor involves human capital, or more simply, having 

the right Federal employees with the right skills in the right places 

to perform environmental reviews and other required actions for 

permit approval. For example, in 2016, we reported that the bureau of Indian Affairs longstanding workforce challenges had contributed to lengthy and unpredictable permit reviews, that it hindered Indian energy projects and, therefore, cost tribes and their 

members significant time and money in lost or delayed opportunities. 

We recommended that BIA assess critical skills and competencies 

needed to effectively perform permit reviews. And BIA has begun 

developing a workforce plan to address these skill and competency 

gaps. 

Federal agencies must also set reasonable timeframes for completing permit reviews and measure their performance using reliable data. Only then can agencies identify and address inefficiencies in their processes. We have often found that while agencies 

may have guidelines for how long permit reviews should take, they 

often do not record key dates such as when a permit application 

was first received, when it was deemed to be complete, and when 

the agency began conducting its review. Without such simple measures, we have sometimes found it impossible to know whether or 

not the agency is meeting its timelines. 

Another recurring issue in our work has been the agency’s report 

that applications are sometimes incomplete when submitted and 

cannot be reviewed until applicants provide additional information. 

Sometimes this appears to be the result of a lack of experience of 

some applicants, but other times it seems that the requirements for 

having a complete application may be unclear or that different 

agency offices have different standards for completeness or for 

when to start the review. 

Lastly, changes to laws, regulations, or policies can cause longer 

permitting times. For example, after the 2010 Deepwater Horizon 

oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, Interior reviewed and revised decades-old safety requirements for offshore drilling. We found that 

permit review times increased after these new requirements were 

adopted as applicants and agency officials became familiar with the 

new process. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
9 

To help make permitting processes more efficient, we have made 

numerous recommendations over the years, and agencies have generally been in agreement and taken steps to improve their performance. As always, more can be done. We look forward to taking a 

broad look at energy permitting processes for your subcommittees 

in the coming year and looking for additional ways to improve efficiency and performance. 

This ends my oral remarks. I’ll be happy to answer any questions 

you may have. 

Thank you. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Rusco follows:] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
10 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 1 here 32511.001

For Release on Delivery 

Expected at 10:00 a.m ET 

Thursday, September, 6, 2018 

GA0-18-693T 

United States Government Accountability Office 

Testimony before the Subcommittees on 

Intergovernmental Affairs and the Interior, 

Energy, and Environment, Committee on 

Oversight and Government Reform, 

House of Representatives 

ENERGY 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

PERMITTING 

Factors Affecting 

Timeliness and Efficiency 

Statement of Frank Rusco, Director, 

Natural Resources and Environment 
11 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 2 here 32511.002

ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE PERMITTING 

Factors Affecting Timeliness and Efficiency 

What GAO Found 

GAO's prior work has found that the timeliness and efficiency of permit reviews 

may be affected by a range of factors. For the purposes of this testimony, GAO 

categorized these factors into five categories. 

Coordination and Communication. GAO found that better coordination 

between agencies and applicants is a factor that could result in more efficient 

permitting. Coordination practices that agencies can use to streamline the 

permitting process include the following: 

Designating a Lead Coordinating Agency. GAO found having a 

lead agency to coordinate the efforts of federal, state, and local 

stakeholders is beneficial to permitting processes. For example, in a 

February 2013 report on natural gas pipeline permitting, industry 

representatives and public interest groups told GAO that the 

interstate process was more efficient than the intrastate process 

because in the interstate process the Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission (FERC) was lead agency for the environmental review. 

Establishing Coordinating Agreements among Agencies. In the 

February 2013 report, GAO reported that FERC and nine other 

agencies signed an Interagency agreement for early coordination of 

required environmental and historic preservation reviews to 

encourage the timely development of pipeline projects. 

Human Capital. Agency and industry representatives cited human capital 

factors as affecting the length of permitting reviews. Such factors include 

having a sufficient number of experts to review applications, GAO reported in 

November 2016 on long-standing workforce challenges at the Department of 

the Interior's Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), such as inadequate staff 

resources and staff at some offices without the skills to effectively conduct 

such reviews_ GAO recommended that Interior incorporate effective 

workforce planning standards by assessing critical skills and competencies 

needed to fulfill its responsibilities related to energy development. Interior 

agreed with this recommendation, and BIA stated that its goal is to develop 

such standards by the end of fiscal year 2018. 

Collecting and Analyzing Accurate Milestone Information. GAO's work 

has shown that a factor that hinders efficiency and timeliness is that agencies 

often do not track when permitting milestones are achieved, such as the date 

a project application is submitted or receives final agency approvaL Having 

quality information on permitting milestones can help agencies better analyze 

process deficiencies and implement improvements. 

Incomplete Applications. Agency officials and agency documents cited 

incomplete applications as affecting the duration of reviews. For example. in 

a 2014 budget document, BLM reported that-due to personnel turnover in 

the oil and gas industry-operators were submitting inconsistent and 

incomplete applications for drilling permits, delaying permit approvals. 

Significant Policy Changes. Policy changes unrelated to permitting can 

affect permitting time frames. For example, after the 2010 Deepwater 

Horizon incident and oil spill, Interior issued new safety requirements for 

offshore drilling. GAO found that review times for offshore oil and gas drilling 

permits increased after these safety requirements were implemented_ 

------------- United States Government Accountability Office 
12 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 3 here 32511.003

Chairmen Palmer and Gianforte, Ranking Members Raskin and Plaskett, 

and Members of the Subcommittees: 

I am pleased to be here today to discuss our work on the role of federal 

agencies in the permitting processes for energy infrastructure projects. 

Federal agencies, including the Department of the Interior and the 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), play a critical role in 

ensuring that energy infrastructure projects developed in the United 

States comply with a wide range of federal statutes and regulations. 

Perhaps the most notable is the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA), which requires federal agencies to evaluate the potential 

environmental effects of actions they propose to carry out, fund, or 

approve, such as by permit. 1 

Over the years, we have issued numerous reports describing the role of 

federal agencies in permitting various types of energy infrastructure, 

including onshore and offshore oil and gas projects, natural gas pipelines, 

and liquefied natural gas (LNG) export facilities. Two common themes 

emerge from these reports. First, permitting processes are varied and 

complex, often requiring an applicant to comply with a range of federal, 

state, and local laws and regulations. Second, permitting processes can 

involve several federal and state agencies, as well as other stakeholders, 

many of whom have approval responsibilities. For example, to construct 

an LNG export facility, an applicant must coordinate with federal agencies 

such as FERC-the lead agency responsible for the environmental and 

safety review-as well as the U.S. Coast Guard-which assesses 

waterway suitability; the applicant may also need permits from, among 

others, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for dredging activities and the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for permits under the Clean Air 

Act. 2 In addition to federal permits and consultations, applicants may also 

be required to obtain other permits under state and local law. Because of 

1 Enacted in 1970, NEPA has as Its purpose, among others, to promote efforts to prevent 

or eliminate damage to the environment NEPA requires an agency to prepare a detailed 

statement on the environmental effects of any "major federal action" significantly affecting 

the environment. Regulations promulgated by the Council on Environmental Quality 

implementing NEPA generally require an agency to prepare either an environmental 

assessment or an environmental impact statement, depending on whether a proposed 

federal action could significantly affect the environment. 

2

GAO, Natural Gas: Federal Approval Process for Liquefied Natural Gas Exports, 

GA0-14-762, (Washington, D.C .. Sept 26, 2014) 

Page 1 GA0~18--693T Energy Infrastructure Permitting 
13 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 4 here 32511.004

the wide variety of projects, locations, and state and local laws, permitting 

requirements vary by project Public interest groups and the public also 

contribute to the process. 

We have found that inefficiencies in the permitting process can have real 

world effects. For example, in a June 2015 report on Indian energy 

development, we reported that a review by the Bureau of Indian Affairs 

(BIA) could be a lengthy process and increase development costs and 

project development times, resulting in missed development opportunities 

and lost revenue and jeopardizing the viability of projects. 3 As we 

reported then, the Acting Chairman for the Southern Ute Indian Tribe 

reported in 2014 that BIA's review of some of its energy-related 

documents took as long as 8 years, and during that time the tribe 

estimated it lost $95 million in revenues. 

Congress has recognized the harmful effects of permitting delays and 

passed legislation to streamline permitting and to hold agencies 

accountable, including Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act' 

When Congress passed this act in 2015, it included provisions for 

streamlining the infrastructure permitting process and codified into law the 

use of a permitting dashboard to track project timelines. 

This testimony discusses factors that can affect permitting timeliness and 

efficiency. This statement draws on findings from our reports issued from 

July 2012 to December 2017. In conducting that work, we reviewed 

relevant federal laws, regulations, and policies; reviewed and analyzed 

federal data; and interviewed tribal, federal, state and industry officials, 

3

GAO, Indian Energy Development: Poor Management by BIA Has Hindered Energy 

Development on Indian Lands, GA0-15-502 (Washington, D.C.: June 8. 2015). 

4

Pub. L. No. 114-94, 129 Stat. 1312 (2015). 

Page2 GA0·18·693T Energy Infrastructure Permitting 
14 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 5 here 32511.005

Factors Affecting 

Federal Infrastructure 

Permitting 

Coordination and 

Communication 

among others. More detailed information on our scope and methodology 

can be found in each of the cited reports. 5 

We conducted the work on which this testimony is based in accordance 

with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards 

require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate 

evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions 

based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained 

provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions. 

In our prior work, we identified a range of factors that can affect permitting 

timeliness and efficiency. For the purposes of this statement, we have 

categorized the factors into five broad categories: 1) coordination and 

communication, 2) human capital, 3) collecting and analyzing accurate 

milestone information, 4) incomplete applications, and 5) significant policy 

changes. 

Effective coordination and communication between agencies and 

applicants is a critical factor in an efficient and timely permitting process. 

Standards for internal control in the federal government call for 

management to externally communicate the necessary quality information 

to achieve the entity's objectives, including by communicating with and 

obtaining quality information from external parties. 6 We found that better 

coordination between agencies and applicants could result in more 

efficient permitting. For example, in our February 2013 review of natural 

gas pipeline permitting, we reported that virtually all applications for 

5

GAO, Offshore Seismic Surveys: Additional Guidance Needed to Help Ensure Timely 

Reviews, GA0-18-60, (Washington D. C.: Dec. 11, 2017).; Indian Energy Development, 

Additional Actions by Federal Agencies Are Needed to Overcome Factors Hindering 

Development, GA0-17-43, (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 10, 2016).; Indian Energy 

Development: Poor Management by BIA Has Hindered Energy Development on Indian 

Lands. GA0-15-502, (Washington, D.C.: June 8, 2015).; Natural Gas: Federal Approval 

Process for Liquefied Natural Gas Exports, GA0-14-762, (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 26. 

2014); Oil And Gas Development: BLM Needs Better Data to Track Permit Processing 

Times and Prioritize Inspections, GA0-13-572, (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 23, 2013).; 

Pipeline Permitting: Interstate and Intrastate Natural Gas Permitting Processes Include 

Multiple Steps, and Time Frames Val}', GA0-13-221, (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 15, 2013); 

Oil And Gas Management: lnten'or's Reorganization Complete, but Challenges Remain in 

Implementing New Requirements, GA0-12-423, (Washington, D.C .. July 30, 2012). 

6

GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, GA0-14-704G 

(Washington, D.C.; September 2014). 

Page3 GA0-18..S93T Energy Infrastructure Permitting 
15 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 6 here 32511.006

Designating a Lead 

Coordinating Agency 

Establishing Coordinating 

Agreements among Agencies 

Using Mechanisms to Expedite 

Routine or Less Risky Reviews 

pipeline projects require some level of coordination with one or more 

federal agencies, as well as others, to satisfy requirements for 

environmental review. 7 For example, BIA is responsible for, among other 

things, approving rights of way across lands held in trust for an Indian or 

Indian tribe and must consult and coordinate with any affected tribe. 

We have reported on coordination practices that agencies use to 

streamline the permitting process, including the following. 

We have found that having a lead agency coordinate efforts of federal, 

state, and local stakeholders is beneficial to permitting processes. For 

example, in our February 2013 review on natural gas pipeline permitting, 

industry representatives and public interest groups told us that the 

interstate process was more efficient than the intrastate process because 

in the interstate process FERC was designated the lead agency for the 

environmental review. 8 Other agencies may also designate lead entities 

for coordination. For example, in a November 2016 report, we described 

how BIA had taken steps to form an Indian Energy Service Center that 

was intended to, among other things, help expedite the permitting 

process associated with Indian energy development. 9 We recommended 

that BIA involve other key regulatory agencies in the service center so 

that it could more effectively act as a lead agency. 10 

Establishing coordinating agreements among agencies can streamline 

the permitting process and reduce time required by routine processes. 

For example, in our February 2013 review of natural gas pipeline 

permitting, we reported that FERC and nine other agencies signed an 

interagency agreement for early coordination of required environmental 

and historic preservation reviews to encourage the timely development of 

pipeline projects. 11 

Agencies can also use mechanisms to streamline reviews of projects that 

are routine or less environmentally risky. For example, under NEPA, 

7

GA0-13-221. 

8GA0-13-221. 

9

GA0-17-43. 

101nterior agreed with this recommendation and, as of September 2017, 81A was in 

discussions with other agencies to establish formal agreements. 

11GA0-13-221. 

Page4 GA0~18-693T Energy Infrastructure Permitting 
16 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 7 here 32511.007

Human Capital 

agencies may categorically exclude actions that an agency has found-in 

NEPA procedures adopted by the agency--do not individually or 

cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment and for 

which, therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an 

environmental impact statement is required. 12 Also under NEPA, 

agencies may rely on '1iering," in which broader, earlier NEPA reviews 

are incorporated into subsequent site-specific analyses. Tiering is used to 

avoid duplication of analysis as a proposed activity moves through the 

NEPA process, from a broad assessment to a site-specific analysis. 13 

Such a mechanism can reduce the number of required agency reviews 

and shorten the permitting process. 

Agency and industry representatives cited human capital factors as 

affecting the length of permitting reviews. Such factors include having a 

sufficient number of experts to review applications. Some examples 

include: 

In June 2015 and in November 2016, we reported concerns 

associated with BIA's long-standing workforce challenges, such as 

inadequate staff resources and staff at some offices without the 

skills needed to effectively review energy-related documents. 14 In 

November 2016 we recommended that Interior direct BIA to 

incorporate effective workforce planning standards by assessing 

critical skills and competencies needed to fulfill BIA's 

responsibilities related to energy development. 15 

For a September 2014 report, representatives of companies 

applying for permits to construct LNG export facilities told us that 

staff shorlages at the Pipeline and Hazardous Safety Materials 

§ 1508.4. Any such procedures must provide for extraordinary circumstances 

a normally excluded action may have a significant environmental effect. ld. 

13GA0-18-60. 

14GA0-15-502; GA0-17-43. 

15GA0-17 -43. Interior agreed with this recommendation and stated the Indian Energy 

Service Center would identify and implement a workforce plan for the participating 

agencies regarding positions associated with the development of Indian energy and 

minerals on trust lands. According to June 2018 testimony by the Acting Director of BIA, 

BIA's goal is to develop workforce standards by the end of fiscal year 2018, 

Page 5 GA0~18-693T Energy Infrastructure Permitting 
17 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 8 here 32511.008

Collecting and Analyzing 

Accurate Milestone 

Information 

Administration delayed spill modeling necessary for LNG facility 

reviews. 16 

In an August 2013 review of Interior's Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) and oil and gas development, industry 

representatives told us that BLM offices process applications for 

permit to drill at different rates, and inadequate BLM staffing in 

offices with large application workloads are one of the reasons for 

these different rates. 17 

Agencies have taken some actions to mitigate human capital issues. For 

example, we reported in August 2013 that BLM had created special 

response teams of 10 to 12 oil and gas staff from across BLM field offices 

to help process applications for permits to drill in locations that were 

experiencing dramatic increases in submitted applications.'' In July 2012, 

we recommended that Interior instruct two of its bureaus to develop 

human capital plans to help manage and prepare for human capital 

issues, such as gaps in critical skills and competencies. 19 

Our work has shown that a factor that hinders efficiency and timeliness is 

that agencies often do not track when permitting milestones are achieved, 

such as the date a project application is submitted or receives final 

agency approval to determine if they are achieving planned or expected 

results. In addition, our work has shown that agencies often do not collect 

accurate information, which prevents them from analyzing their processes 

in order to improve and streamline them. The following are examples of 

reports in which we discussed the importance of collecting accurate 

milestone information: 

In December 2017, we found that the National Marine Fisheries 

Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service were not recording 

accurate permit milestone dates, so it was not possible to 

16GA0-14-762. 

17 GA0-13-572. 

18GA0-13-572. 

19GA0~12-423. Interior neither agreed nor disagreed with our recommendation. According 

to Interior, the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement and the Bureau of Ocean 

Energy Management completed human capital plans in 2013 and 2016, respectively. 

Page6 GA0~18-693T Energy Infrastructure Permitting 
18 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 9 here 32511.009

determine whether agencies met statutory review time frames. 20 

We recommended that these agencies clarify how and when staff 

should record review dates so that the agencies could assess the 

timeliness of reviews. 21 

We found in June 2015 that BIA did not have a documented 

process or the data needed to track its review and response 

times; to improve the efficiency and transparency of BIA's review 

process, we recommended that the agency develop a process to 

track its review and response times and improve efforts to collect 

accurate review and response time information. 22 

We found in an August 2013 report that BLM did not have 

complete data on applications for permits to drill, and without 

accurate data on the time it took to process applications, BLM did 

not have the information it needed to improve its operations. We 

recommended that BLM ensure that all key dates associated with 

the processing of applications for permits to drill are completely 

and accurately entered into its system to improve the efficiency of 

the review process. 23 

Standards for internal control in the federal government call for 

management to design control activities to achieve objectives and 

respond to risks, including by comparing actual performance with planned 

or expected results and analyzing significant differences. Without tracking 

performance over time, agencies cannot do so. The standards also call 

for agency management to use quality information to achieve agency 

objectives; such information is appropriate, current, complete, accurate, 

accessible, and provided on a timely basis. As we have found, having 

21The National Marine Fisheries Service agreed with the recommendation and said it planned to implement the recommendation. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service partially 

agreed with the recommendation but did not indicate whether it planned to implement the 

recommendation. 

22GAO~ 15~502. Interior did not agree with the recommendation, but in May 2017 Interior 

stated that BIA subject matter experts were working to improve data fields necessary to 

track and monitor review and response times for oil and gas leases and agreements. 

23GA0-13-572. Interior generally agreed with this and other recommendations in this 

report According to BLM, it redesigned its system to improve the accuracy and 

completeness of applications in the system, and in February 2017 began requiring 

operators to use the system, which BLM believes will help reduce application processing 

times 

Page7 GA0~18·693T Energy Infrastructure Permitting 
19 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 10 here 32511.010

Incomplete Applications 

quality information on permitting milestones can help agencies identify the 

duration of the permitting process, analyze process deficiencies, and 

implement improvements. 

According to agency officials we spoke with and agency documents we 

reviewed, incomplete applications are a factor that can affect the duration 

of reviews. For example, in a 2014 BLM budget document, BLM reported 

that-due to personnel turnover in the oil and gas industry-operators 

were submitting inconsistent and incomplete applications for permits to 

drill, which was delaying the approval of permits. 24 In a February 2013 

report, officials we spoke with from Army Corps of Engineers district 

offices said that incomplete applications may delay their review because 

applicants are given time to revise their application information. 25 

Deficiencies within agency IT systems may also result in incomplete 

applications. As we noted in a July 2012 report, Interior officials told us 

that their review of oil and gas exploration and development plans was 

hindered by limitations in its IT system that allowed operators to submit 

inaccurate or incomplete plans, after which plans were returned to 

operators for revision or completion. 26 

Agencies can reduce the possibility of incomplete applications by 

encouraging early coordination between the prospective applicant and the 

permitting agency. According to agency and industry officials we spoke 

with, early coordination can make the permitting process more efficient 

One example of early coordination is FERC's pre-filing process, in which 

an applicant may communicate with FERC staff to ensure an application 

is complete before formally submitting it to the commission. 27 

25GA0-13-221. 

26GA0-12-423. 

27This process may be mandatory-such as for liquefied natura! gas export facilities-or 

voluntary-such as for pipelines. For example, liquefied natural gas export facility 

applicants are required to spend at least 6 months in the pre~filing process before formally 

submitting an application. According to FERC officials we spoke with, the pre-filing 

process is intended to allow applicants to communicate freely with FERC staff and 

stakeholders to identify and resolve issues before the applicant formally files an 

application with FERC. 

PageS GAO~f8-693T Energy Infrastructure Permitting 
20 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 11 here 32511.011

Significant Policy Changes Changes in U.S. policy unrelated to permitting are a factor that can also 

affect the duration of federal permitting reviews. For example, in 

September 2014, we reported that the Department of Energy did not 

approve liquefied natural gas exports to countries without free-trade 

agreements with the United States for a period of 16 months. 28 We found 

that the Department stopped approving applications while it conducted a 

study of the effect of liquefied natural gas exports on the U.S. economy 

and the national interest. Exporting liquefied natural gas was an economic 

reversal from the previous decade in which the United States was 

expected to become an importer of liquefied natural gas. 

Policy changes can result from unforeseen events. After the Deepwater 

Horizon incident and oil spill in 2010, Interior strengthened many of its 

safety requirements and policies to prevent another offshore incident. For 

example, Interior put new safety requirements in place related to well 

control, well casing and cementing, and blowout preventers, among other 

things. In a July 2012 report, we found that after the new safety 

requirements went into effect, review times for offshore oil and gas drilling 

permits increased, as did the number of times that Interior returned a 

permit to an operator29 

In conclusion, our past reports have identified varied factors that affect 

the timeliness and efficiencies of federal energy infrastructure permitting 

reviews. Federal agencies have implemented a number of our 

recommendations and taken steps to implement more efficient permitting, 

but several of our recommendations remain open, presenting 

opportunities to continue to improve permitting processes. 

Chairmen Palmer and Gianforte, Ranking Members Raskin and Plaskett, 

and Members of the Subcommittees, this concludes my prepared 

statement. I would be pleased to answer any questions that you may 

have at this time. 

28GA0-14-762. 

29GA0-12-423. 

Page9 GA0~18-693T Energy Infrastructure Permitting 
21 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 12 here 32511.012

GAO Contacts and 

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

(102980) 

If you or your staff members have any questions concerning this 

testimony, please contact Frank Rusco, Director, Natural Resources and 

Environment, who may be reached at (202) 512-3841 or 

RuscoF@gao.gov. Contact points for our Office of Congressional 

Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this 

statement Key contributors to this testimony include Christine Kehr 

(Assistant Director), Dave Messman (Analyst-in-Charge), Patrick Bernard, 

Marissa Dondoe, Quindi Franco, William Gerard, Rich Johnson, Gwen 

Kirby, Rebecca Makar, Tahra Nichols, Holly Sasso, and Kiki 

Theodoropoulos. 

Page 10 GA0~18-693T Energy Infrastructure Permitting 
22 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 13 here 32511.013

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately. 
23 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 14 here 32511.014

GAO's Mission 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Phone 

Connect with GAO 

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs 

Strategic Planning and 

External Liaison 

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and investigative 

arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional 

responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability of the 

federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use of public 

funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, 

recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make informed 

oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to good government 

is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is 

through GAO's website (https:ilwww.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, GAO 

posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence. To 

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products, go to https:ilwww.gao.gov 

and select "E-mail Updates." 

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO's actual cost of production and 

distribution and depends on the number of pages in the publication and whether 

the publication is printed in color or black and white. Pricing and ordering 

information is posted on GAO's website, https:ilwww.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, MasterCard, 

Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information. 

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube. 

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts. 

Visit GAO on the web at https:ilwww.gao.gov. 

Contact: 

Website: https:ilwww.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm 

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7700 

Orice Williams Brown, Managing Director, WHiiamsO@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400, 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125, 

Washington, DC 20548 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548 

James-Christian Blockwood, Managing Director. spel@gao.gov, (202) 512-4707 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7814, 

Washington, DC 20548 

(} Please Print on Recycled Paper. 
24 

Mr. GIANFORTE. Okay. Thank you. 

We now recognize Mr. Howard for his opening—his statement. 

STATEMENT OF PHILIP K. HOWARD 

Mr. HOWARD. Thank you, Chairman Gianfonte, Palmer, Ranking 

Members Plaskett and Raskin, members of the subcommittee. 

The problem that we’re faced with is that—is that the goals of 

environmental review are indisputably valid. It’s very important to 

look at a project and its effects before sometimes billions of dollars 

are spent on the project. So that the public knows what they’re in 

for. And the regulatory complexity that causes delay is also, to an 

extent, unavoidable. There are fire code requirements as well as 

environmental requirements. But most of these requirements are 

legitimate. 

The problem is that there’s no mechanism in the government and 

among the different levels of government to make the value judgements that prioritize these concerns and then make a judgment to 

move forward. 

So in an effort to achieve a perfect compliance with often hundreds, sometimes thousands, of regulatory requirements, it can 

take years, sometimes more than a decade. And that’s the problem 

we’re confronted with here, which is the absence of decisionmaking 

authority to make practical judgments. 

America is a country of practicality. The environmental and permitting process in this country is a process of dysfunction and paralysis is the opposite the practicality. 

In 2015, Common Good, which I chair, released a research paper 

2 years, not 10 years, which tried to, on order of magnitude, evaluate the cost and the harm caused by permitting delays. And while 

there’s no comprehensive data on large projects, it was common 

that projects would be delayed by years, sometimes more than a 

decade. 

We also found that in countries such as Germany and Canada, 

with which our economy competes, typically projects like this were 

approved within 1 or 2 years at most. 

In calculating the harm, we—assuming a 6-year delay in a large 

project, found that the delay more than doubled the cost of infrastructure. That’s wasted money for the American economy. Thirty 

percent of the increase is in direct cost, inflation and an extra overhead, and the indirect cost of sustained inefficiencies and loss of 

benefits, being stuck in traffic jams or waiting for, as inefficient 

century-old locks on rivers finally open up, lost electricity and inefficient power lines more than doubles the cost of the infrastructure. 

We also found that lengthy environmental review is typically 

harmful to the environment because it delays—when you have halfcentury or century-old infrastructure, it delays the improvements 

to infrastructure that get rid of the traffic jams or the waste of 

electricity. 

The cause of delay is not the fact that we do environmental review. It’s that there are no clear lines of authority to make the 

needed practical choices. So, for example, environmental review 

statements on large projects now are typically characterized by a 

flood of detail that can be characterized as no pebble left unturned. 

A project of a pipeline in Wyoming, for example, had detail about 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
25 

the possibility of gates being left open when the power line was 

built so that cows might wander off. 

It had a point about the trucks using construction-emitted fumes 

and, therefore, that caused pollution. These are completely self-evident points that are not at all important to the decision whether 

to build this power line. There were big issues and material issues 

involved with the power line and shouldn’t have thousands of pages 

of detail like this. 

And the Bayonne Bridge, a project to raise the roadway of a 

bridge using its existing foundations to permit more efficient ships 

into New York harbor, the environmental assessment ended up 

being 10,000 pages plus another 10,000 pages of exhibits and took 

5 years, including studies of historic buildings within a 2-mile radius of either end of the bridge even though the project was not 

touching any buildings, and traffic studies even though the project 

was not changing the flow of traffic over that bridge. 

That’s the kind of detail that ends up adding cost and time to 

these projects, because no one has authority to actually make a 

choice about what’s important on a particular project. It doesn’t 

help public policy, and it doesn’t help public debate to get it lost 

in detail. 

But environmental review is not the only problem. There’s also 

permitting. For example, the Bayonne Bridge, 47 permits from 19 

different agencies. The effect of all this in our view is that the 

White House cannot solve the problem. Its goals, we think, are all 

valid. As Ranking Member Plaskett said, many of these goals have 

been set forth in prior statutes. But what’s needed is congressional 

help in clarifying lines of authority so that the chair CEQ can decide what’s important in a project. Someone in the White House, 

to resolve disagreements among different agencies and so forth. 

And if Congress would do that, we propose legislative language, 

I think it would go a long ways be towards getting the decrepit infrastructure rebuilt in this country. 

Thank you. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Howard follows:] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
26 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 15 here 32511.015

Statement of Philip K. Howard 

Chair of Common Good 

"Permitting: Finding a Path Forward" 

September 6, 2018 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Affairs and 

Subcommittee on the Interior, Energy, and Environment 

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

Washington, DC 

Chairman Palmer, Ranking Member Raskin, Chairman Gianforte, Ranking Member 

Plaskett, and Members of the Subcommittees: 

Thank you for inviting me to testify before the subcommittees today about the issue of 

infrastructure permitting. 

In September 2015, the organization I chair, Common Good, released a white paper 

arguing that two things are needed to rebuild America's infrastructure: money and 

permits. The paper's key finding was that delays associated with the current 

infrastructure approval process more than double the effective cost of infrastructure. 1 A 

six-year delay in permitting raises direct costs of infrastructure construction by 30 percent. 

Opportunity and environmental costs associated with this delay, depending on the sector, 

can exceed total construction costs. All told, we estimate that the cost of delay from 

permitting and review is nearly $3.7 trillion, compared to an overall cost to rebuild of 

$1.7 trillion. 

Our paper found that delays associated with environmental review and permitting 

actually harm the environment by prolonging bottlenecks that produce congestion and 

pollution, and preventing replacement of outdated systems with new technologies. For 

example, a six-year delay in rebuilding our nation's crumbling highway infrastructure 

would release an extra 51 million tons of C02 emissions. America's antiquated power grid 

wastes an amount of electricity equivalent to the output of200 coal-burning power plants. 

The upside of modernizing America's decrepit infrastructure is as rosy as the current 

situation is dire. An infrastructure initiative will provide upwards of two million highpaying construction-related jobs, and provide a 21 51 century platform to enhance 

America's competitiveness. Not rebuilding infrastructure runs irresponsible risks. 

1 In May of this year we updated our calculations using 2017 data (the 2015 paper was based off 

2012 numbers). We now estimate that approval delays add nearly $3.9 trillion to the cost of fixing 

American infrastructure, an increase of nearly $200 billion from our previous figure. At this rate, 

every year in which we neglect to address the process failures inherent in our current system of 

infrastructure approval adds around $40 billion to the pricetag. 
27 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 16 here 32511.016

The core flaw in America's review and permitting process is that there are no clear lines 

of authority to make needed decisions to adhere to timetables, including to resolve 

disputes among bickering agencies or project opponents. At any step along the way, a 

project can get bogged down in the balkanized bureaucracy. The project to raise the 

roadway of the Bayonne Bridge required 4 7 permits from 19 different federal, state, and 

local agencies. Despite creating virtually no environmental impact, as it used the same 

rights of way and foundations as the old bridge, approval of the Bayonne Bridge project 

took five years and created 20,000 pages of documentation. 

The Bayonne Bridge is no outlier; complex or controversial projects regularly generate 

thousands, and even tens of thousands, of pages of review documents. The environmental 

impact statement for the new Mario Cuomo Bridge (replacing the aging Tappan Zee 

Bridge over the Hudson River) spent over 300 pages describing the methodology used in 

the rest of the statement. It also included detailed traffic studies despite the fact that the 

new bridge would not meaningfully alter traffic patterns relative to the old bridge. 

The Complexification ofNEPA 

No one deliberately designed this permitting process. Environmental review in particular 

has strayed from its original intention. The 1970 National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) was designed to provide the public with disclosure of major impacts, not dense 

academic analyses. One historian reports that "[t]he earliest [environmental impact 

statements (EISs)] were less than ten typewritten pages in length." The current 

regulations of the Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ), created to oversee NEPA, 

say that an EIS should generally be no more than 150 pages, and no more than 300 pages 

for complex projects. 

What happened in America is that NEPA diverged from its original goal of public 

transparency to being an implied mandate for perfect projects. But every infrastructure 

project has an environmental cost-a desalination plant has a briny byproduct, a new 

power line or wind farm mars natural views, a new highway exit or intermodal facility 

will disrupt a neighborhood. Wringing our hands for years over these effects does not 

make these effects disappear; it just postpones the benefits of the projects while making 

them more expensive. 

NEP A provided no private right of action. But activist courts in the 1970s implied a right 

of action, and lawsuits over environmental review statements became surrogates for 

questioning the wisdom and design of projects. 

In effect, NEP A litigation transferred power from democratically-elected officials to 

project opponents and courts. For example, the environmentally-beneficia!, but now 

defunct, Cape Wind offshore wind farm project faced numerous NIMBY lawsuits since 

its NEPA process began in 2001 as wealthy beachfront property owners used lawsuits to 

kill the project and protect their ocean views. 

2 
28 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 17 here 32511.017

Over time, lawsuits over environmental disclosures triggered a downward spiral of everdenser detail-a process of no pebble left unturned. Former EPA general counsel E. 

Donald Elliott estimates that 90 percent of detail in federal impact statements is there not 

because it's actually useful to the public or decision-makers, but because it might help in 

the inevitable litigation-a form of environmental "defensive medicine.'' 

At this point, environmental review has taken on a life of its own, often unrelated to any 

meaningful public purpose. Striving for consensus means that delays can go on for years, 

often decades. A plan to plug a quarter-mile gap in a Missouri levee has been studied 

seven times since it was originally proposed, with no resolution in site. 

Environmental review is often a weapon for opponents to demand changes or other 

concessions that undermine the common good. Fear of litigation skews decision-making 

towards mollifying the squeaky wheel. The public harm includes dramatically higher 

costs and delayed environmental benefits. 

Another harm from delay is that the uncertainty over timing keeps many projects on the 

drawing board, and has been a kind of poison pill deterring private capital from 

committing to infrastructure investment. 

Efforts to Fix the Current Approval Process 

In recent years, Congress has improved the approval process, but only marginally, by 

creating committees to resolve disputes, shortening the statute of limitations, allowing 

some state-level processes to fulfill federal requirements, and improving transparency via 

the Permitting Dashboard. For example, the creation of a 16-agency Permitting Council 

to resolve inter-agency disputes-mandated in the FAST Act-may be better than no 

mechanism, but few wise public managers would ever recommend a I 6-agency 

committee as a way to expedite decision-making. 

The Trump Administration-in Executive Order 13807, its accompanying MOU, and its 

February 2018 legislative outline-also deserves credit for highlighting the issue of 

permitting in its infrastructure agenda. But it can't work to meet its goals without clear 

lines of authority to override the current bureaucratic tangle. For instance, while the 

executive order's "One Federal Decision" framework seems to recognize that the vacuum 

of authority that defines the current system is a major contributor to delay and buckpassing during the environmental review and permitting process, it does not actually 

create a single federal decision-maker who is empowered to set limits on review. Instead, 

it mostly reiterates existing legal requirements, such as that a project have a designated 

"lead agency." Similarly, the executive order attempts to address the issue of agency 

disagreement, which can drag projects off course and add months or even years to 

permitting timelines. But here too, the order falls short, by seemingly assigning 

responsibility to facilitate resolutions to two separate entities simultaneously, and in 

terms too weak to allow either to decisively resolve significant conflicts. The MOU's 

language on dispute resolution is similarly vague on actual decision-making authority, 

insisting that disputes be resolved "at the earliest possible time" or else elevated "to 

3 
29 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 18 here 32511.018

senior agency leadership for resolution." Because it lacks any action-forcing mechanism, 

this agreement is unlikely to have any actual effect on inter-agency disputes. 

Implementing the Administration's goals requires new regulations and help from 

Congress, in each of following ways: 

A crucial component of the Administration agenda is for firm deadlines, no longer than 

two years, to complete environmental reviews and permits. Enforcing deadlines, however, 

requires clear lines of authority. Common Good proposes a statutory amendment giving 

CEQ responsibility over the scope and adequacy of environmental review. 

The Administration is correct in directing CEQ to issue new regulations to streamline 

NEPA processes, which take many years longer than ever intended. The environment will 

be helped, not harmed, by returning to the shorter process originally created by landmark 

environmental protections. 

The Administration agenda would also make needed changes to judicial review, such as a 

shorter statute of limitations and a higher bar for injunctive relief. This is important to 

avoid a kind of"defensive medicine" which, because of fear of legal claims over 

inadequate review, transforms environmental impact statements into multi-thousand-page 

documents. We propose a statutory clarification that, among other things, requires the 

plaintiff to demonstrate material deficiencies of environmental significance. 

The Administration does not adequately address the delay caused by review and 

permitting by multiple levels of government. If state and local processes extend beyond 

the federal timetable for projects of interstate significance, we propose preemption of 

state and local review (similar to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's authority 

over new gas pipelines). 

We support the Administration agenda to create pilot programs to explore accelerating 

projects that have net environmental benefits. 

The Administration's funding proposals are not adequate. A federal contribution of$200 

billion over ten years will not stimulate $1.5 trillion of infrastructure investment. Most 

transportation infrastructure projects have little or no revenue streams, and require public 

investment that cannot be directly repaid. It is not realistic to expect state and local 

governments to fund 80-90 percent of the cost of projects where the federal government 

currently provides half or more of the funding. 

Legitimate concerns over increasing the federal deficit lead to one obvious conclusion: an 

increase in the gas tax or a "vehicle miles travelled" tax. The return on the investment 

will greatly outweigh the costs, as well as improve America's environmental footprint. 

Congress Needs to Act 

4 
30 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 19 here 32511.019

Funding is another area where Congress needs to act-and the deal to be made is right in 

front of us: Republicans agree to provide funding, and Democrats agree to streamline 

permitting. 

In summary, what's needed to achieve the Administration's goals is to create a 

straightforward hierarchy, where designated officials have statutory authority to make 

needed decisions at each step without months of delay, accountable to officials up the 

hierarchy, and also to courts if they shirk their responsibilities under NEPA and other 

statutes. I attach here three pages of amendments that create clear lines of authority to 

make decisions needed to adhere to reasonable schedules. The effect will be to reduce the 

effective cost of infrastructure by half and to create a greener footprint. 

5 
31 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 20 here 32511.020

Attachment to Statement ofPhilip K. Howard for 

"Permitting: Finding a Path Forward" 

Accelerate Infrastructure Permitting 

March 2017 

Permitting for infrastructure projects can take a decade or more. Multiple agencies 

oversee the process, with no clear lines of authority. Once permits are granted, lawsuits 

can last years more. These delays are costly and, often, environmentally destructive. 

To eliminate unnecessary delays, we must give officials authority to enforce deadlines 

and resolve lawsuits in expedited proceedings. To accomplish these goals, we 

recommend amending the FAST Act with the following provisions: 

l. Except in unusual circumstances, decisions to approve infrastructure projects are 

made in less than two years. 

2. The Chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) has authority to 

resolve all disputes regarding the scope and adequacy of environmental review 

pursuant to NEPA. 

3. CEQ has the authority to grant afa~t track one-year review for those projects that 

were developed with significant consultation with stakeholders and that 

demonstrate net environmental benefits. 

4. The Director of the Office of Management and Budget has authority to resolve 

inter-agency disputes. 

5. If state and local permits are delayed past issuance offederal permits, the Chief 

Permitting Officer is authorized to grant final permits for projects of interstate or 

national significance. 

6. Judicial review is limited to the question of whether the initial review failed to 

disclose material impacts and practical alternatives. 

These changes will substantially improve review timetables and reduce construction costs 

while maintaining strong environmental protections for federal infrastructure projects. 

Here is the text of the bill to accomplish these amendments, which we call the Get 

America Building Act of 2017. 

6 
32 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 21 here 32511.021

FAST Act (PL 114-94) as Amended by the Get America Building Act of 

2017 

1. Approval in Less Than 2 Years (§41002) 

(aa) IN GENERAL.-The final completion dates in any perfonnance schedule for the 

completion of an environmental review or authorization under clause (i) shall not exceed 

2 years, unless there is a determination under Section 41003(c)(2)(B) that the project 

presents unusual and extraordinary circumstances. the avemge time to eemplete an 

e1wiroameatal revie'l< or authoriilatioa fur a project withia that category. 

(bb) CALCULATION OF AVERAGE TIME. The average time referred to ia item (aa) 

shall be ealetdated Ofl the basis of data from the preseding 2 ealeadar years and shall rHfl 

from the period beginaiag on the date on whish the EKesHtive Direetor mHst make a 

spesifie entry fur the prejeet on the Dashboard HAder sectioa 410G3(b)(2) (eJ<cept that, fur 

prejeets iaitiated befure that dHty takes effeet, the period beginniag on the date of filing 

of a eomp!eted applieatioa), and eading on the date ofthe issHaaee of a reeord ofdesisioR 

or other final agency actioa on the reYiev<' or aHthorization. 

2. The Chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality Resolves Disputes 

Regarding the Scope and Adequacy of Environmental Review (§41 003) 

(ii) DISPUTES. If a dispute remains HHresolved 3G days after the date oa whish the 

disptite '.vas sHbmitted to the Exeernive Director, the Direstor ofthe Offiee of 

Managemeat and BHdget, ia coasHltatioR with the Chairman ofthe CoHHeil OR 

Eaviroameatal QHality, shall facilitate a reso!rnion ofthe disprne and direst the ageaeies 

party to the dispHte to resolve the dispt~te by the ead of the 60 day period beginniag OR 

the date ofst~bmissioa of the dispHte to the EJ<eeHtiYe Direetor. The Chairman ofthe 

Council on Environmental Quality may resolve all disputes regarding 

environmental review pursuant to NEPA, including scope, adequacy, timetable, and 

incorporation of prior environmental review statements. 

(iii) FINAL RESOLUTION.-Any action taken by the Director ofthe Offiee of 

Management and Bt~dget Chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality in the 

resolution of a dispute under clause (ii) shall: (I) be final and conclusive; and (II) not be 

subject to judicial review. 

3. Unusual and Extraordinary Circumstances and Fast Track Review (§41003) 

(B) FACTORS FOR CONSIDERATION.- ill. In establishing the permitting timetable 

under sub-paragraph (A), the facilitating or lead agency shall follow the perfonnance 

schedules established under section 41002(c)(l)(C), but may vary the timetable if a 

determination is made that the project presents unusual and extraordinary 

circumstances based on relevant factors, including7 
33 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 22 here 32511.022

ttj ill_ the size and complexity of the covered project; 

W {ill_the resources available to each participating agency; 

fHif illDJhe regional or national economic significance of the project; 

ti¥) {!Y} the sensitivity of the natural or historic resources that may be affected by 

the project; 

M ffithe financing plan for the project; and 

t¥t) 1YI)_the extent to which similar projects in geographic proximity to the 

project were recently subject to environmental review or similar procedures under 

State law. 

(ii) If the Chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality determines 

that a project demonstrates significant net environmental benefits and was 

developed with significant consultation with affected stakeholders, the timetable 

may be set at one year or less. 

4. The Director of the Office of Management and Budget Resolves Inter-Agency 

Disputes (§41 005) 

(e) Issue Identification and Resolution.-

{4) DISPUTE RESOLUTION-

(i) IN GENERAL. -The Executive Director, in consultation with 

appropriate agency CERPOs and the project sponsor, shall, as necessary, mediate 

any inter-agency disputes regarding a project. 

(ii) DISPUTES.-If a dispute remains unresolved 30 days after the 

date on which the dispute was submitted to the Executive Director, the Director of 

the Office of Management and Budget, in consultation with the Chairman of the 

Council on Environmental Quality, shall resolve the dispute. 

(iii) FINAL RESOLUTION.-Any action taken by the Director of the 

Office of Management Budget in the resolution of a dispute under clause (ii) shall: 

(I) be final and conclusive; and (II) not be subject to judicial review. 

5. Coordination with State and Local Governments (§41003(c)(3)) 

(E) For interstate projects, in the event that the coordination specified in (B) does 

not achieve a final determination on review and permitting under any applicable 

state, local, or tribal law by the respective state, local, or tribal agency by the time of 

issuance of a final Federal permit, the lead agency CERPO, in consultation with the 

Chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality and the Director of the Office 

8 
34 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 23 here 32511.023

of Management and Budget, shall be authorized to make a determination regarding 

any outstanding environmental review, authorizations, and permits. 

6. Judicial Review (§41 007) 

(1) IN GENERAL-Notwithstanding any other provision oflaw, a claim arising under 

Federal law seeking judicial review of any authorization issued by a Federal agency for a 

covered project shall be barred unless-

(A) the action is filed not later than 60 days after the date of publication in the 

Federal Register of the final record of decision or approval or denial of a permit, unless a 

shorter time is specified in the Federal law under which judicial review is allowed; and 

(B) in the case of an action pertaining to an environmental review conducted 

underNEPA-

(i) the action is filed by a party that submitted a comment during the 

environmental review; and 

(ii) any commenter filed a sufficiently detailed comment so as to put 

the lead agency on notice of the issue on which the party seeks 

judicial review, or the lead agency did not provide a reasonable 

opportunity for such a comment on that issue; and 

(iii) the action is limited to claims that the lead agency failed to 

consider or disclose material impacts of the proposed project 

or practical alternatives to the project. 

This proposed bill was developed with the assistance of Covington & Burling LLP, pro 

bono counsel to Common Good's infrastructure red tape project. 

9 
35 

Mr. GIANFORTE. Thank you. 

Ms. Goldfuss. 

STATEMENT OF CHRISTY GOLDFUSS 

Ms. GOLDFUSS. Good morning, everyone. 

Thank you, Chairman Palmer and Gianforte, and Ranking Members Raskin and Plaskett, for inviting me to participate in this important discussion about Federal permitting process and finding a 

path forward. 

Both Republicans and Democrats have sought to improve the 

process by which we permit major infrastructure projects while also 

ensuring community input and clean air, clean water, and wildlife 

are protected. The U.S. Congress has acted to address this issue 

three times in the past 6 years. Passing MAP–21 in 2012, WRRDA 

in 2014, and most importantly, the FAST Act in 2015. 

The three laws included bipartisan provisions to clarify several 

permitting requirements and provide the Federal Government with 

many new tools to expedite the review process without sacrificing 

environmental considerations and community input. The Trump 

administration has not used these tools to maximize permitting efficiencies. Instead of recognizing its own failures and addressing 

them, the administration has asked Congress to cut corners and 

gut cornerstone environmental laws. 

My experience in the U.S. Federal Government both as deputy 

director of the National Park Service and leading the Council on 

Environmental Quality gave me a front row seat to the inner agency difficulties that can slow this permitting process. This confirmed 

for me that the permitting reforms are necessary. But those calling 

for gutting the environmental laws were using the reform process 

as a trojan horse. 

Give my experience, I recommend five steps for consideration by 

the committee when reviewing the path forward. First, hold the administration to account for implementing the recent permitting reforms and authorities that Congress enacted. For example, recognizing the need for further study of the cause of project delays, the 

Congress directed DOT To establish a public facing online tracking 

system for projects. This is called the Federal Infrastructure Permitting Dashboard, and it can help to expedite projects and understand the true cause of the delays. The permitting dashboard is 

still very much a work in progress with incomplete data and limited mapping capabilities. But it really does have significant untapped potential. 

Next, appoint people with collaborative project implementation 

and permitting expertise. The Federal Highway Administration, 

which processes approximately 10 percent of the Federal Government’s environmental impact statements in any given year, still 

does not have an administrator. Also, key positions in the EOP are 

left vacant. In 2015, the Federal permitting improvement steering 

council whose core function is to coordinate these agencies was established with an executive director appointed by the President. 

The connection to the EOP is integral to the success of the executive director who needs to build relationships with deputy secretaries and staff across these agencies. Incredibly important posiVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:00 Nov 16, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\32511.TXT APRIL

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
36 

tion. President Trump still has not appointed anyone to this position. 

Third, both Congress and the administration should fund environmental review through implementing existing fee authority for 

cost recovery and the regular appropriations process. The FAST 

Act gave TIFIA fee authority, and the notice to implement that fee 

authority was put out this week. That’s great news but still way 

too slow for an administration that places priority on permitting. 

Fourth, a lot can be learned from studying and collecting data on 

environmental review about contracting practices. Congress could 

work with GAO to make sure that incentives for Federal contractors are appropriately structured to achieve efficient and quality 

environmental analysis and not extraordinarily long documents. 

Lastly, the permitting review process must be objective and free 

from political interest and conflicts. The administration’s handling 

of the Hudson Tunnel project, an infrastructure proposal to modernize bridges and tunnels that ferry commuters from New Jersey 

to Manhattan, lays bear the current level of political meddling. 

Since a bipartisan meeting in September, the President has refused to fund the project unless the Senate agrees to fund the 

southern border wall. The Trump administration points to burdensome environmental reviews as the culprit, yet recently, a senior 

administration official was quoted as saying they are slow walking 

the review and the release of that document. 

In conclusion, there is already evidence that the new administrative tools, when used, can ensure that environmental review of 

major infrastructure projects is efficient. Instead of rushing into future gutting of statutes that provide for public input on infrastructure and clean air and clean water, we need to make sure that we 

implement the existing tool kit that the administration already 

has. 

Thank you for allowing me to testify, and I look forward to your 

questions. 

[Prepared statement of Ms. Goldfuss follows:] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
37 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 24 here 32511.024

Testimony of Christy Goldfuss 

Senior Vice President for Energy and Environment Policy, 

Center for American Progress 

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

Joint Interior Environment and Energy and Intergovernmental Affairs Subcommittees 

Hearing on Permitting: Finding a Path Forward 

September 6, 2018 

Introduction 

Thank you, Chairmen Palmer and Gianforte and Ranking Members Raskin and Plaskett for inviting me 

to participate in this important discussion about the federal permitting process and finding a path 

forward. What we are talking about today should not be political or divisive. Both Republicans and 

Democrats have sought to improve the process by which the Federal Government works to permit 

major infrastructure projects while ensuring that community input is included, and clean air, clean 

water, and wildlife are protected. 

The U.S. Congress acted to address permitting challenges three times over the past six yearspassing the Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act in 2015, the Water Resources 

Reform and Development Act (WRRDA) in 2014, and the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st 

Century Act (MAP-21) in 2012. The three laws included bipartisan provisions to clarify several 

permitting requirements and provide the federal government with many new tools to expedite 

review processes without sacrificing environmental considerations and community input. 

In those recent pieces of legislation, Congress recognized the need for more transparency, funding, 

and agency coordination in the permitting process and gave the Federal Government the tools to 

modernize the way it does business. In corporations, it has been well documented that highlighting 

best practices, measuring progress, and tracking metrics leads to better outcomes. However, those 

tested measures only work if the government uses them and builds trust with industry to 

demonstrate that this model will work in the complex government structure. The Trump 

administration has not used the tools that it has to maximize permitting efficiencies. Instead of 

recognizing its own failures and addressing them, the administration has asked Congress to cut 

corners and gut cornerstone environmental laws. 

My experience in the U.S. federal government, both as Deputy Director of the National Park Service 

(NPS) and as Managing Director of the Council on Environment Quality (CEQ), gave me a front row 

seat to the interagency difficulties that can slow permitting progress. This confirmed for me that 

permitting reforms were necessary, but that those calling for gutting environmental laws were using 

the reform process as a trojan horse. 

While running CEQ under President Obama, I worked closely with my colleagues at the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMS) and the National Economic Council {NEC) to implement the Fixing 

America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act by standing up the Federal Permitting Improvement 

Steering Council (FPISC), writing its inaugural guidance, and staffing it with talented people that knew 
38 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 25 here 32511.025

how to move the levers of government to overcome barriers and achieve greater efficiency in the 

environmental review process. 

As you know, CEQ is responsible for administering the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 

which allows federal decision-makers to understand the impacts of their actions ahead oftime. The 

clear majority, upwards of 95 percent, of federal decisions are exempted from detailed analysis 

through categorical exclusions. less than one percent of federal decisions, which are frequently 

related to large, multi-jurisdictional, and complex projects, are subject to detailed environmental 

impact statements (EIS) that provide information to federal decision makers about the potential 

impacts of a project and options for alternatives. This small percentage of reviews garners the 

greatest attention. The unique nature of each of these projects makes it impossible to apply a one 

size-fits all approach, but thanks to Congress, there are new tools and authorities that show 

promising signs of facilitating permitting for the most complex projects. 

Given my experience, I recommend a few options for consideration when reviewing the path 

forward. 

1. Hold the administration to account for implementing recent permitting reforms and authorities 

that were enacted in the FAST Act, WRRDA, and MAP-21 

2. Appoint people with collaborative project implementation and permitting expertise across the 

government 

3. Fund environmental review through implementing existing fee authority for cost recovery and 

regular appropriations 

4. Study and collect data on environmental review contracting practices 

5. Remove political influence from the environmental review process as is done with independent 

agency actions 

Fully Implement Recent Permitting Reforms 

Federal agencies often coordinate their review processes so that experts on a range of environmental 

impacts or infrastructure types can weigh in on projects' potential outcomes. The FAST Act provided 

project sponsors with a path to help them identify potential environmental impacts as well as agencies 

with jurisdiction over affected natural, cultural, and historic resources. Thanks to MAP-21 and the FAST 

Act together, agencies with jurisdiction now have improved early coordination procedures; clarified 

roles and responsibilities; and dispute resolution practices. Projects must follow a single governmentwide project schedule and can carry planning-level decisions forward into the NEPA process. Progress 

has been made, but there is a lot more work to be done for these reforms to reach the scale and 

impact desired by Congress. 

Instead, the Trump administration and others point to the permitting process as the main cause for 

project delays. The limited existing data show that delays are more often the result of a lack of funding, 

failure to govern, and even politics. Recognizing the need to further study the causes of project delays, 

the U.S. Congress directed DOT to establish a public-facing online tracking system of projects in the 

permitting process. Project sponsors and the public should be able to use the tracking system-known 

as the Federal Infrastructure Permitting Dashboard to expedite projects and understand the true 

causes of any delays. The Permitting Dashboard is still very much a work in progress, with incomplete 

data and limited mapping capabilities, but it has significant, untapped potential. Ideally, this tool would 
39 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 26 here 32511.026

be continually supported through investment to ensure that it is upgraded on a regular basis to meet 

the needs of project sponsors and federal agencies. 

In 2015, the Infrastructure Permitting Improvement Center (!PIC) at the Department ofTransportation 

(DOT) was established to help the agency that has many of the most complicated projects develop 

transparency for project sponsors. The I PIC, too, is only just getting started. In its Annual Report to 

Congress, the IPIC notes that its "accomplishments this past year have laid the foundation for the time 

and resource efficiencies that DOT expects will soon be realized in the environmental review and 

permitting of infrastructure projects." Like many of the other provisions Congress provided, the 

Permitting Dashboard and the I PIC have not had sufficient time to demonstrate success in expediting 

project delivery. 

lastly, as with all new authorities and tools, there needs to be extensive and rigorous training 

components for subject matter experts across the government on how the new authorities impact 

their work. The Annual Report to Congress for FY2017 from the FPISC shows that each agency has at 

least one updated online training tool, and while that is a start, it will hardly be enough to change 

behavior across the government. The leaders of permitting in the Executive Office of the President 

(EOP) should prioritize developing a strong community of practice across the government so that case 

studies, training tools, and data needs can be shared regularly by practitioners. By failing to utilize 

these existing tools, the Trump administration is not advancing the established goals within the agreed· 

upon frameworks of MAP-21, the FAST Act, and WRRDA. 

The recent progress of the Mid-Barataria Sediment Diversion project along the Mississippi River shows 

that when all interested parties use these tools effectively, environmental review for large, 

complicated projects can move more efficiently. The project, which is being financed in part by 

settlement money from the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill, will divert sediment, along with water and 

nutrients, into Barataria Bay to support existing wetlands and ensure the creation of new wetlands. 

This helps louisiana to meet its goals in its 50-year coastal Master Plan. 

In early 2018, louisiana's Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority (CPRA) announced a 

Memorandum of Understanding between state and federal agencies committing to finish the complex 

permitting process' in two years. This time line was confirmed by the Army Corps of Engineers in April 

2018, and the change in the permitting timeline was then added to the permitting "dashboard" 

established by FAST-41. The expedited timeline was achieved in part thanks to CPRA agreeing to 

advance a portion of the permitting costs upfront, an action that was followed by the state's governor 

elevating the project to Executive Office attention. This complex project is a model for how 

stakeholders can successfully employ existing tools that encourage cooperation across state and 

federal agency actors. 

Appoint Project Delivery and Permitting Expertise to Key Positions 

President Trump has also failed to appoint people to key positions that could help accelerate project 

delivery. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), which processes approximately 10 percent of 

the federal government's environmental impact statements in any given year, is still without an 

administrator. 

Similarly, key positions within the Executive Office of the President (EOP) have been left vacant. In 

2015, the Infrastructure Permitting Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council {FPISC) was 

established with an executive director appointed by the President. The FPISC was viewed as essential 
40 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 27 here 32511.027

to bringing agencies together to surface interagency disputes and share best practices. At the time it 

was established, the connection to the POTUS and the Executive Office of the President (EOP} was 

viewed as integral to the success of the executive director who would need to build relationships with 

deputy secretaries and staff across at least 13 departments and agencies, while also having credibility 

with project sponsors. The Trump administration has not appointed anyone to this important position. 

In coordination with CEQ, NEC, and OMB, this body has the most authority to move projects faster. It 

stands to reason that filling this position should be a priority for any administration committed to 

effective permitting reviews. 

Fund Environmental Review 

Through recent enacted reforms, Congress recognized the need to provide more funding to entities 

across the federal government responsible for conducting environmental review. The FAST Act allowed 

FPISC to establish a "fee structure for project proponents to reimburse the United States for 

reasonable costs incurred in conducting environmental reviews and authorizations" for certain 

projects. The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR} was announced coincidentally this week, 20 

months into the Trump administration. The FPISC has taken far too long to implement this provision 

given the relative priority the Trump administration claims to place on expedited permitting. This new 

source of funding could help substantially as it will be applied to the most complex projects. 

Next, the Trump administration's own budget has repeatedly requested cuts or low appropriated levels 

for the very agencies and offices with the talent and tools necessary to reduce permitting times. For 

example, President Trump's FY18 and FY19 budget proposals requested a 30 percent and 25 percent 

cut respectively for EPA. EPA is the agency with the most tools and talent available to assist other 

agencies in conducting environmental reviews. In addition, President Trump's own initial budget did 

not request dedicated funding for the FPISC and just under $3 million for CEQ. 

Study Environmental Review Contracting Practices 

Federal contracting is big business in Washington DC, and it is well known that federal agencies turn to 

outside firms to conduct environmental reviews, especially for some of the most complex analysis. The 

Bureau of land Management (BLM) has contracted with Environmental Management and Planning, Inc. 

to write the EIS for oil and gas development in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska. The 

contract award is for $1,667,550.44, and information from GSA shows that the federal contractor bills 

$214 per hour for a senior scientist's time. While this may be a bargain for taxpayers, it is difficult to 

say for certain given the lack of data and other information on the frequency, cost, or efficacy of 

outsourcing essential environmental analysis. 

Congress should work with the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO} to study and gather 

information about federal contracting practices for environmental review across the federal 

government. Through the Federal Permitting dashboard, Congress will have more transparency into 

the federal agency review process. The next area of inquiry should be to ensure that incentives for 

federal contractors are appropriately structured to achieve efficient and quality environmental 

analysis. What are the best federal contracting practices for environmental review, and how do 

agencies ensure that their contracts are not inadvertently incentivizing longer review times or 

documents? The goal of this study would be to ensure quality environmental analysis at the lowest cost 

to the taxpayer. 

Remove Political Influence from Environmental Review 
41 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 28 here 32511.028

lastly, the most clear and simple recommendation is to ensure that the permitting review process is 

objective and free from the political interests and conflicts that can so easily stall, delay, or even derail 

infrastructure projects. Two recent examples demonstrate that the Trump Administration has chosen 

the opposite approach by more closely aligning politics with permitting decisions. 

With the President's issuance of Executive Order 13807 in August 2017, agencies responded with 

attempts to modernize the NEPA process. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) moved the 

Office of Federal Activities, charged with reviewing environmental impact statements under NEPA, 

away from the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance and into the Office ofthe 

Administrator. While done under the guise of prioritizing NEPA review, this move is clearly political in 

nature. It means that long-term career staff with institutional knowledge will be sidelined from this 

process, instead putting political appointees in charge of decision-making and review throughout the 

Agency's NEPA process. Political leadership can and should be responsible for driving review times and 

coordination, but they should not be engaged in the substance of the reviews. This threatens the 

quality of the environmental analysis and could make the reviews more vulnerable to litigation. 

Another example of politics influencing the environmental review process and timeline is the current 

gridlock around the Hudson Gateway Tunnel, a project whose planning process started over a decade 

ago. The tunnel is intended to connect New Jersey and Manhattan to replace the crumbling tunnels 

that currently ferry more than 200,000 commuters daily and are in desperate need of repair. President 

Trump convened an initial bipartisan meeting in September 2017 to specifically address this project 

with lawmakers from both New York and New Jersey, including former Governor Christie and Senate 

Minority leader Schumer, in which there was general agreement around the need for this massive 

infrastructure modernization project. 

After the meeting, however, the President reportedly said he would only support funding the tunnel 

project if the Senate authorized funds for a border wall. Records indicate that the environmental 

review for this project was actually fast-tracked and sent to the Department of Transportation (DOT) 

for approval within two years. The Final EIS was due on March 30, 2018 and yet it is September 6, 2018 

and it has still yet to be made public. An administration source is quoted as saying that they are slowwalking the review's release as they wait for the political battle to play itself out, as the environmental 

review makes an easy scapegoat for delay. 

Conclusion 

In conclusion, the U.S. Congress has acted repeatedly in the last six years to improve permitting 

efficiency. It is now up to the Trump administration to govern effectively so that project proponents 

and the American public can reap the benefits of well-constructed and planned infrastructure projects 

that include community input and protect clean water, clean air, and wildlife. Congress can help 

achieve this outcome by holding the administration to account for implementing recent reforms, 

including pressuring the administration to appoint people with the necessary expertise. Then, both 

Congress and the administration need to fund environmental review through appropriations and 

existing fee authority. Congress should study environmental review contracting practices and help to 

remove political influence from the environmental review process. Any assessment that assumes a 

one-size fits all approach to deadlines will cut costs and review times misunderstands the complexity of 

government incentives and the nexus of local, state, and federal decision-making. This is important 

work that should focus on giving agencies and their experts the tools necessary to be successful. 
42 

Mr. GIANFORTE. Thank you. 

Mr. Bakst, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF DAREN BAKST 

Mr. BAKST. Thank you. 

Chairman Gianforte and Palmer, Ranking Members Plaskett and 

Raskin, and distinguished members of the subcommittees, thank 

you for this opportunity to discuss the Federal regulatory obstacles 

facing infrastructure development. 

My name is Daren Bakst. I am a senior research fellow at the 

Heritage Foundation. The views I express in this testimony are my 

own and should not be construed as representing any official position of the Heritage Foundation. 

Protecting the environment and building critical infrastructure 

are not mutually exclusive goals, yet Federal environmental regulations are creating unnecessary obstacles to effectively and efficiently build critical infrastructure projects. 

There are three Federal regulatory obstacles that I’d like to discuss today. First, let’s took at the National Environmental Policy 

Act, or NEPA. There’s a bipartisan recognition that there are problems with the NEPA process. For example, to facilitate projects 

that were funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, 

better known as the stimulus package, the Obama administration 

recognized that NEPA reviews can be expedited to speed up project 

investment without sacrificing the environment by effectively relinquishing NEPA requirements for projects. Trying to expedite the 

development of projects by cutting the red tape should not be the 

exception but the rule. 

In the NEPA conference report nearly 50 years ago, legislators 

made it clear that they did not want undue delay in the processing 

of Federal proposals. Yet a recent National Association of Environmental Professionals report found that the average preparation 

time of 177 final EIS’ was 5.1 years in 2016. 

Second, let’s look the Endangered Species Act. The ESA was created and enacted into law in 1973 to promote the conservation of 

species. Unfortunately, the laws failed to achieve its mission. For 

example, only about 3 percent of species listed have been recovered 

and delisted as a result. But making matters worse, the law has 

created obstacles for major infrastructure projects. For example, according to a 2014 New York Times article, quote, already Federal 

officials had delayed, altered, or denied permits for more than two 

dozen energy projects in the west because of the bird. And the bird 

they’re referring to is a sage-grouse. 

There are very important reasons to protect endangered species, 

but that’s not the same thing as protecting the Endangered Species 

Act. After 45 years, valuable lessons have been learned regarding 

the law and specifically whether or not it achieves its purpose. 

Those lessons need to be applied and not ignored. 

And then, third, let’s look at the Clean Water Act. I’d like to 

highlight two issues with the Clean Water Act—with the implementation of the Clean Water Act, not the statute itself but the implementation. And these two issues will also demonstrate some 

issues common across many environmental statutes. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
43 

One, there’s an agency disrespect for States. The Clean Water 

Act expressly indicates right at the outset of the statute that the 

primary role of States in addressing water pollution, yet the EPA 

and Corps, even before the 2015 Clean Water Rule, had been trying 

to have—there has been Federal overreach, and they try to regulate in waters and intrude on traditional State and local powers. 

The second issue is unclear and subjective Federal regulations. 

Objectivity and clarity of regulations is certainly important to regulated parties. For a law like the Clean Water Act that has civil and 

criminal penalties, it’s really important. 

Clear regulations, though, are also very beneficial to those officials enforcing the law. It allows agencies such as the EPA and the 

Corps to have consistency across districts or regions and to focus 

resources on the primary problems, not on waters that may not 

even be covered under the law. As it connects to permitting, these 

two issues lead to overbroad definitions of what waters are covered 

under the Clean Water Act. 

The EPA and Corps are requiring more permits for more people 

and for more activities than is consistent with the text and intent 

of the underlying law. 

In conclusion, protecting the environment does not have to mean 

blocking infrastructure projects, trampling on property rights, or 

ignoring principles of Federalism. 

Thank you. I look forward to your questions. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Bakst follows:] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
44 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 29 here 32511.029

'TiieHetitage Foundation 

CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY 

Permitting: Finding a Path Forward 

Testimony before 

Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Affairs and the Subcommittee on 

the Interior, Energy, and Environment 

House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

United States House of Representatives 

September 6, 2018 

Daren Bakst 

Senior Research Fellow in Agricultural Policy 

The Heritage Foundation 

My name is Daren Bakst. I am the Senior Research Fellow in Agricultural Policy at The Heritage 

Foundation. The views I express in this testimony are my own and should not be construed as 

representing any official position of The Heritage Foundation. 

I want to thank the Members of the House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and 

Government Reform, Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Affairs and Subcommittee on the 

Interior, Energy and Environment for this opportunity to examine the federal regulatory barriers to 

infrastructure development. My testimony will discuss some general principles and then go through 

several major federal regulatory obstacles, their impact, and recommendations on how to address 

them. 

A Brief Overview 

Infrastructure development and environmental protection are not mutually exclusive. Yet, federal 

regulations, particularly environmental regulations, seemingly exist to ensure that critical 

infrastructure projects never see the light of day. Of course, many critical infrastructure projects do 

come to fruition, but often not without significant cost and delay. 

Environmental reviews and the federal permitting process for infrastructure projects are a major part 

of the reason many infrastructure projects are delayed or never come to fruition. Fortunately, there 

is a bipartisan recognition that improvements need to be made to help expedite the development of 

infrastructure projects. 

214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE • Washington, DC 20002 • (202) 546-4400 • heritage~org 
45 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 30 here 32511.030

CONGRESSIONAl TESTIMONY 

For example, on August 15, 2017, President Donald Trump issued Executive Order 13807 that 

addresses National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) reforms. 1 In 2015, President Barack Obama 

signed the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act) into law. This legislation 

provided some changes to the NEP A permitting process. 2 

Even more instructive is what happened to facilitate projects that were funded by the American 

Recovery and Reinvestment Act, better known as the stimulus package. The Obama Administration 

recognized that NEP A reviews can be expedited to speed up project investment without sacrificing 

the environment by effectively relinquishing NEPA requirements for projects. The Administration 

granted more than 179,000 categorical exclusions for stimulus projects because, as then-Energy 

Secretary Steven Chu said, it was necessary to "get the money out and spent as quickly as possible" 

and "[i]t's about putting our citizens back to work."3 Some of these projects included an electric grid 

update project in Kansas and a wind farm project in Texas.4 

Trying to expedite the development of projects by cutting the red tape should not be the exception, 

but the rule. Providing clean drinking water or reliable electricity to citizens, for example, is 

important all the time, not just when the government seeks to spend taxpayer dollars to stimulate the 

economy. 

Improving the environmental review and permitting process though is an after-the-fact solution in 

the sense that the underlying problem is the sheer number of permitting requirements in the first 

place. 

As a result, there also needs to be a major focus on ensuring that when there are regulatory obstacles 

such as the need to secure permits, these obstacles are in fact justified. After all, even an efficient 

permitting process will eventually crumble under the weight of a high volume of permits and an 

overly complex web of permitting requirements. 

This major focus would include examining federal environmental statutes in an in-depth manner, 

which is beyond the scope of this testimony. However, in general, simply improving upon agency 

implementation of these statutes will make a major difference, including addressing common 

problems that exist across the implementation of these statutes. 

Principles to Address Regulatory Obstacles in Infrastructure Development 

There are important principles, which if applied, could help to address the common problems in the 

implementation of federal environmental statutes. These principles would help to reduce regulatory 

1 Executive Order !3807, "Establishing Discipline and Accountability in the Environmental Review and Permitting 

Process lor Infrastructure Projects, August 15, 2017 

https://www.energy.gov/sites/prodifiles/201 7/09/f361E0-13807.pdf (accessed September 3. 2018), 2 "The FAST Lane: How the FAST Act Provisions Could Expedite Your Federal Pennitting,'' I!unton & Williams, 

January 2016, https:llwvHv.hunton.comlimages/contcnt/2/0iv21202llfast-act-could-expedite-federnl-pepnittingjan2016.pdf(accessed September 3, 2018). 3 Kristen Lombardi and John Solomon. "Obama administration gives billions in stimulus money without environmental 

., The Post, November 28, 2010, 

3, 20!8). 

2 
46 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 31 here 32511.031

CONGRESSlONAl TEST!MONY 

obstacles while simultaneously helping to achieve environment objectives, such as conserving 

species. 

at ways to 

nermittin~> processes reduce inefliciencies and miscommunication. The environment 

will not improve because penn it applicants have duplicative requirements or receive conflicting 

information from multiple agencies. 

nhie.:~tive regulations. While objectivity and clarity are certainly important to 

permit'""""'''"''"· also extremely beneticial to federal agencies. Too often, such as the 

EPA requirements. This creates inconsistent unpredictable 

However, it allows officials wide latitude to enforce the 

law in their preferred manner. Objective and clear those the law 

and allow them to spend less time guessing and more time on 

resources the most important issues. 

the role of states in ftw environmental process. Congress has the important 

addressing environmental quality issues. States often the most 

to address they are more familiar than federal bureaucrats 

unique nature of state ch<all<:ng:es. also have the most interest as well, because 

they live in the communities that are directly by any environmental problems. 

interests and concerns with intrastmcture development, 

should be and take precedent. ln 

of tlrotectinil' the 

be one objective when evahulting 

federal government should not place 

imr>mi~nt It that this 

ln the wake ofthe prescriptive NEPi\ rule, federal 

inclusive environmental reviews, and the 

greater weight than any other agency 

erred on the side of over· 

environmental objectives 

of \Villiam L. Ktwacs, Senior Vice President, En>iironment, "''''""'''n•m 

nfl''n"""""''" bef(we the House Committee on the 

4377, ;Responsibly rmd no1es:"orm• 

3 
47 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 32 here 32511.032

National Environmental 
48 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 33 here 32511.033

CONGRESS!ONAL TESTIMONY 

does 
49 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 34 here 32511.034

Profession<lls that ii:mnd 197 final EISs in 20 12 had an newer NAEP rcpol1 tound that the average preparation ti.mt~ 

2Ht6,1r

1 

The 

rw•~piu'atio'n time of 4.6 -~~~ A 

Hmd E!Ss was 5J years in 

., . Nor£hwcst Ar~a Suriply 

to devdop a water 

North Dak(lta and the Bureau of Rec1mnntlon htfl/C been 

to ¥inter tn 1he s:ta.tt: ~;.; 

Tllc province 

lawsuits <~gainst the 

up .in the courts ibr !5 years over the Bureau 

In A\lgust, 2D17, a federal 

state <lfMlssot!rl l1kd 

n The has been held 

., HllH!gan Re<ren•uir, The dtyofFmt ('ol!ins, Color<tdo sotlghl. til exp;md 

Reservoir to \vith its vvat~~r and protect against The notice of lntent to 

Register in 2006. prqject, being OV\~rs.ecn 

ofEnginecrs~ has ak-e.ady Htken tnore th;;~n i. (}years and has stiH n<H, 

rnqtor obstacles for infrftsuuctun.~ 

As of August 3 L 2018, based on the 'U.S; Fish aild Wildlife Service's i'rlvinl!Hn·ental 

()nHne Systcn1, there .are l ~.66 I do:mestk::. species and 683 JOn::ign species zm !he endaJ!l£<~r<·d 

list (inclu-ding both threatened and endangered species).n ()n!y 54 sp~,.cies have he~"""·""""'''''''"'' 

fu~ . ' ' 

H' "'NAEP AJH1u;1t 0bt!.onu! r::nv-itom'l1ent-i.\.ll')oBt'Y A!::t H~l~PA) }{¢port 

Env lt\l11H'\r!nta! n·;·*"<SKmat"' l1lt!l,:fl~c;:c;,o:JJil£cll,Q!t&rilm11!::2:lU.1i.oll!ill!£il:!'ill~'lU 

U$. Departrnem ofth>:: lnterlnr, ·Fish und \VHd!ifu Service~ '"Etwiwnrnen~o~ Conservati\:<!1 Online System: Listed 

S\~mn'KtQ.' (H(~X:%~ore V' Augus1 3 i 1 2013) {lJ:l§r.~.; ~{~~S':~U~c~·\, . .\ili?.l:i:££L'if:~f~.P.~:Lli~~~~:~.f;QXf.:l~211 { acct5S~d A ugu~.t 201~) 
50 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 35 here 32511.035

Califor11ia 
51 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 36 here 32511.036

CONGRESStONAL TESTIMONY 

8 
52 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 37 here 32511.037

CONGRESS\ONAL TESTlMONY 

Clean 
53 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 38 here 32511.038

l{espt~ctiing the State Role in Addressing Water Pollution. 

role in au•u"'"''"lS 

10 
54 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 39 here 32511.039
55 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 40 here 32511.040
56 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 41 here 32511.041
57 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 42 here 32511.042

Recommendations 

a 
58 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 43 here 32511.043
59 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 44 here 32511.044

CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY 
60 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 45 here 32511.045

CONGRESS10NAL TESTIMONY 

** *** ******** *** 

The Heritage Foundation is a public policy, research, and educational organization as 

under section 50l(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. It is privately supported receives 

no t!·om any government at any level, nor does it perform any government or other contract 

work. 

The Heritage Foundation is the most broadly supported think tank in the United States. During 

2014, it had hundreds of thousands of individual, foundation, and corporate supporters representing 

every state in the U.S.lts 2014 income came from the following sources: 

Individuals 75% 

Foundations 12% 

Corporations 3% 

Program revenue and other income 

The top five corporate givers provided The Heritage Foundation 2% of its 2014 income. The 

Heritage Foundation's books are audited annually by the national accounting firm ofRSM US, LLP. 

Members of The Heritage Foundation staff testify as individuals discussing their own independent 

research. The views expressed are their own and do not reflect an institutional position for The 

Heritage Foundation or its board of trustees. 

17 
61 

Mr. GIANFORTE. Okay. Thank you to all the witnesses for your 

testimony today. 

We’ll move now to the period where we ask some questions and 

have some dialogue and dig a little deeper. And I’ll recognize myself for 5 minutes to begin the questioning. 

I’d like to start with you, Mr. Howard. You made an interesting 

comment. I’m a business guy. I’m always looking for best practices 

to adopt. And you made a comment about how other countries like 

Germany, Canada, and Australia have managed to reduce permit 

processing times while maintaining environmental quality. 

Could you explain a little bit before what they’ve done achieve 

to that? 

Mr. HOWARD. Yes. Quite interesting. 

So, for example, with Germany, they divide projects into local or 

regional, national projects. And so with more local projects, the presumptive authority goes to a local body, the State, and it is in 

charge of doing all that’s required, including complying with the 

Federal laws. It can’t ignore the Federal laws, but it’s in charge of 

making the decisions. 

And if it acted in a way that was arbitrary, that is to say it ignored the Federal laws, it could—someone could go to court. So 

there are courts in Germany just as there here, and say they ignored the law. 

But, in general, they have clear lines of authority. And so if it’s 

a Federal—a big Federal project that’s an offshore platform in the 

North Sea, or some other sort of large project, the Federal Government has presumptive authority. 

And officials actually can make decisions. This is what we think 

is important to study when doing the tunnel under the City of 

Leipzig. And they will focus on the large environmental effects, and 

they won’t talk about whether the construction trucks are emitting 

fumes. You know, they’ll have a—they’ll have a 50-page document 

that talks about what’s important so the people can see it. 

Mr. GIANFORTE. So making those observations, what lessons can 

we learn to apply here? 

Mr. HOWARD. Very clear. I think that the head of CEQ, was appointed as part of NEPA, which I believe is quite a good statute 

and an important statute, should have authority to resolve all 

issues about scope and adequacy of environmental review, for example. 

Mr. GIANFORTE. Do those other countries have the same level of 

litigation that the United States has? 

Mr. HOWARD. Not the same level. They do have litigation. But, 

again, the difference is the courts in this country tend to focus on, 

well, did you leave the pebble unturned? And the process goes on 

for years. And it has all kinds of negative effects just in the way 

we write projects. That’s why they’re as thick as they are, because 

people are trying to avoid litigation. 

The courts there focus on materiality. They look at the benefits 

of a project as well as the harms of a project and make a decision. 

Mr. GIANFORTE. Okay. Mr. Bakst, while we’re on this topic of litigation, what impact does litigation have on permit applicants’ efforts to prepare environmental impact studies? 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
62 

Mr. BAKST. So in 1970, when NEPA was enacted, there were 

none of these Federal environmental statutes. There were no citizen suit provisions that exist now. At the time, Congress didn’t envision that plaintiffs would be able to get standing like they do 

now. And, unfortunately, what’s happening is, even when you have 

a final EIS, there is—can be up to 6 years for a lawsuit to be 

brought. It just extended and delays the project. 

And, quite simply, if you’re an investor or somebody who’s thinking about being a part of this infrastructure project, this delay may 

just be a reason not to even go forward in the first place. So we 

may focus on the delays of the projects that we know about. The 

problem is where the projects that we don’t know about that never 

came to be. And I think a lot of that has to do with the litigation. 

Mr. GIANFORTE. Okay. I’d like to follow on that with Mr. Howard. 

What changes could Congress or the executive branch make that 

would respect the judicial process while reducing the incidence of 

frivolous lawsuits? 

Mr. HOWARD. I think you have to change the standard of review 

and instruct the courts to try to abide by an expedited schedule. 

I’m sorry, and also shorten the statute of limitations dramatically 

to probably a matter of 60 or 90 days for most projects, because 

people know what the issues are by the time the environmental review statement is done. 

And there should be a materiality standard that makes it clear 

that the court shouldn’t intervene unless someone has really done 

the review in bad faith or made a conclusion that can’t withstand 

any sort of reasonable standard. And the Congress can change that 

standard. 

Mr. GIANFORTE. Okay. Mr. Bakst, would you like to add anything 

to that? 

Mr. BAKST. Yeah. I would just say that I think one of the key 

issues is that the courts are in a position reviewing things that 

they shouldn’t be reviewing. It shouldn’t be a gotcha type of system 

where if you make one little mistake, then there goes the project. 

I think there needs to be some type of deference that exists. And 

certainly, for these projects, if there’s some type material problem 

with an EIS, that’s one thing. But if it’s just a minor little defect, 

that shouldn’t, you know, mean the end of the project. The courts 

shouldn’t be trying to make those decisions. They’re not in the 

right—they’re not in a position to do so. 

Mr. GIANFORTE. Okay. Thank you. 

I’d now like to recognize the ranking member, Ms. Plaskett, for 

her questions. 

Ms. PLASKETT. Thank you. 

Ms. Goldfuss, thank you for your insights you are providing here 

into the Federal permitting process. 

You mentioned that instead of issuing new executive orders, the 

administration should have its focus on what’s already in place. 

The Federal permitting improvement steering council, which was 

created under what we all know as the FAST Act, Fixing American 

Surface Transportation. 

As I understand it, the FAST Act and the council it created enabled agencies with jurisdiction over projects to have improved 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
63 

early coordination, clarified roles and responsibilities, establishment of milestones and better transparency when it comes to environmental reviews; is that correct? 

Ms. GOLDFUSS. That’s correct. 

Ms. PLASKETT. An that sounds like streamlining and efficiency to 

me. Can you elaborate on how the council was specifically designed 

to streamline projects and make environmental reviews or permitting more efficient? 

Ms. GOLDFUSS. So just as Mr. Howard has been discussing, there 

is an issue with so many different statutes and decision-making 

deep within the agencies. So both when I was at the National Park 

Service and then moving to the White House, I saw how people 

could have disagreements, and there was no one that forced those 

disagreements to be resolved. 

And what the permitting steering council allows is all those 

agencies and their deputy secretaries to sit at the table, see a dashboard of the major projects that they are facing and the timelines 

that they agreed to. 

So what it was envisioned to do was look at the sticking points 

and the issues that needed to be resolved, bring them into the secretary’s office early, and make sure that those difficulties were resolved so that the timeline would be adhered to. 

What we haven’t talked a bunch about is that there are many 

different factors around funding and design and local requirements 

and State requirements that also hold up this process. And because 

we have so little data on when the timeline starts and what agencies are doing, it’s very easy to blame the statutes and blame these 

agencies. That’s why the steering committee allows us to—— 

Ms. PLASKETT. And who would have that data? Where would 

that ideally be situated? 

Ms. GOLDFUSS. Ideally, at this point, it would be on the dashboard. And the dashboard that was also created through the FAST 

Act is a public facing technological tool that would allow project 

sponsors and the agency to see what the timeline is and the 

progress that’s being made. 

Ms. PLASKETT. So can you give an example or two of projects that 

benefited from the council or in your past experience would have 

benefited from the council if the—it was working at the time that 

those projects were in place? 

Ms. GOLDFUSS. Yes. I mean, the highest profile—obviously the 

council has only been around for 3 years. We had a transition in 

the middle and still no executive director. But the highest profile 

example that we have is the Mid Barataria wetlands sediment 

project in Louisiana. This was an enormous project that involved 

State agencies and U.S. Corps, EPA, and many other agency across 

the Federal Government. 

And initially it was thought it was going to be a 10-year time 

frame to get through the permitting project. But through working 

with the council, working with the State, and then having funds 

from the BP oil spill settlement, they’ve been able to get to an 

agreed-upon timeline that is actually 2 years. And it will be on the 

dashboard so everybody can see the progress being made on that 

timeline. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
64 

Ms. PLASKETT. Okay. We were just talking about the two executive orders that the President has made. Executive Order 13766, 

which was intended to identify, quote, high priority infrastructure 

projects. And the other was Executive Order 13807, which created 

a, quote, one Federal decision mechanism to supposedly expedite 

major infrastructure projects. 

So with, as you discussed, the Federal permitting improvement 

steering council already in place, were these executive orders necessary? 

Ms. GOLDFUSS. The first executive order that you referenced, 

which—— 

Ms. PLASKETT. The high priority. 

Ms. GOLDFUSS. —would identify high priority projects was within 

the first week of the administration. And it seemed as if they didn’t 

know the Federal permitting council existed. The second one came 

along, put the one decision-maker policy in place, and corrected 

some of the high priority issues that were in the first executive 

order. 

So although there has been a large priority on permitting and 

press releases, I would say, and executive orders, there’s very little 

attention on the authority that the White House and these agencies 

already have to speed up the process. 

Ms. PLASKETT. And you discussed needing an executive director. 

How would that facilitate the council being able to operate? 

Ms. GOLDFUSS. This is a person that would have a connection to 

the EOP, connection to the President, and ideally a relationship 

with the project sponsors. So the executive director is that person 

that can unstick the problems and really make sure that we move 

these projects along. That is a key, key position that needs to be 

filled. 

Ms. PLASKETT. Okay. Quickly, and Mr. Rusco, in your testimony, 

you cite different factors, and we’ve heard that there are other factors that are involved. You also note that the FAST Act include 

provisions for streamlining the infrastructure permitting process 

and codified into law permitting dashboard to track project 

timelines. Core coordination among agencies has been a problem. 

What do you think the solutions to that are? 

Mr. RUSCO. Well, I think, you know, we have found that there 

have been some examples of attempts to improve coordination and 

communication. So one is obviously FERC, being a lead agency, has 

helped in permitting pipelines. Another example is the Indian Energy Service Center, which has been proposed to be a one-stop shop 

for information about permitting for energy projects on tribal and 

Indian lands. 

Now, they have not set it up effectively to be a coordinating body, 

but they have the intent to do so. And if they do that and they get 

all of the resource agencies that are going to be involved, they will 

be able to improve the access for applicants to information they 

need to pursue applications, and they will also be able to help 

agency offices process those applications. 

Ms. PLASKETT. Thank you. 

I yield back. 

Mr. GIANFORTE. Okay. At this time, I recognize Mr. Comer for 

his questions. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
65 

Mr. COMER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I appreciate this committee hearing, because this is one of 

the biggest complaints that I get. As I have traveled my district, 

a couple of projects I wanted to mention and then ask some questions. 

First, in my district in Kentucky, southern Kentucky, we have 

eight lakes with marinas. Every lake—and that’s from 6 hours 

from east to west in my southern Kentucky congressional district. 

Each lake is at maximum capacity with their current boat slips. 

We’ve had permits, they’ve had permits, several of the lakes, to 

build new marinas, to even expand the number of slips they have 

to increase their capacity. This has to go through the Army Corps 

of Engineers. The permitting process is a nightmare. We recently 

announced a new marina opening on Lake Cumberland in eastern 

Kentucky. It took 12 years for that to get approved. 

Is there anything that can be done with respect to the Corps of 

Engineers permitting for infrastructure projects? Can anyone answer that question? 

Mr. HOWARD. I grew up in Whitesburg, Kentucky, and then 

moved to Mount Sterling, so I’m one of your—— 

Mr. COMER. Okay. Yeah, I know where Mount Sterling is. 

Mr. HOWARD. Yeah, historically a constituent. So I know of many 

of the lakes in question. Ultimately, the choices should be politically accountable, including, in my view, choices by the Corps of 

Engineers. There are laws that they have to comply with that Congress passed. And there’s a rule of reason typically that applies to 

things like docks and permits. And if there’s too much delay, there 

ought to be political accountability to the people in the Corps. 

And what’s happened with all the bureaucracy that’s grown up, 

really just over the last 50 years, is that there’s no link between 

the White House, or virtually no link, and the Corps of Engineers. 

And one of the reasons to restore clear lines of authority is to actually reconnect us, not to let the White House make a decision about 

docks or lakes. But if some agency is dragging its feet, to make it 

make a decision and then call the question and get it resolved. 

Mr. COMER. Another very important project that I’m working 

with Congressman Bucshon on is a new bridge, Interstate 69 between Evansville, Indiana, and Henderson Kentucky. We are— 

have been waiting for a long time on the environmental impact 

study. And I appreciate the question the chairman asked about litigation and things like that. This project is a number one priority 

for both Congressman Bucshon and myself. A very important link 

between an interstate that goes through Tennessee and basically 

from Canada to Mexico, really will open up a rural part of America. 

And the permit process, you know, every time that we check with 

the government agencies, they’ll blame another agency. They’ll say 

it’s delayed. 

What can—what can Congress do to try to streamline the process? Because if you meet with one of the bureaucrats, they will always say, well, we’re doing better than we’ve ever done. They’ll pat 

themselves on the back, but it’s still—it’s delayed and it’s a frustration that’s holding America back, not just my district. I don’t think 

my district’s unique to anything. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
66 

What, legislatively, or is there—are there any legislative solutions or is this all an executive branch function to try to streamline 

the process to get the permitting process? If we have an infrastructure bill next year, a major infrastructure bill like the President 

wants, I’m concerned that this won’t go anywhere near the timeline 

that Congress hopes. 

So I guess I’ll let anyone answer any questions on advice on how 

we as Congress or as representatives can encourage the administration to try to streamline the process. 

Mr. HOWARD. You know, the bureaucrats probably are doing a 

good job. The problem is there are 12 different agencies that have 

jurisdiction. And so if there’s not a motivated political figure at a 

very high level forcing it to happen, as happened, I think, in Louisiana, it’s happened with the Gateway Tunnel process that got expedited, it’s happened with the Tappan Zee Bridge in New York, 

if you don’t have that front page political willpower to make that 

bridge happen, it will get bogged down for—it could be decades. 

And, again, I think there is a legislative solution. You need to reconnect the lines in the hierarchy. We’d be happy to work with 

your office and talk about what the really quite simple legislative 

reconnections are that don’t involve changing the underlining substantive law. 

Mr. COMER. Right. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. GIANFORTE. Thank you. 

At this time, I will recognize Mr. Duncan for his questions. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

First of all, when I chaired the Aviation Subcommittee in another committee several years ago, we had a hearing one time with 

the head of the Atlanta airport and other witnesses, and he told— 

testified that the newest runway at the Atlanta airport took 14 

years from conception to completion. It took—they were so happy 

to get all the final approvals, and all the problems were environmental rules and regulation. They did the—they built the runway 

in 33 days. They did—they were so excited, they worked around 

the clock. So I guess you could say it’s 99 workdays. 

Then when I chaired the Highways and Transit Subcommittee, 

there were two different Federal highway studies which said that 

the average highway project took—one study said 13 years from 

conception to completion, one said 15 years. This puts us at a disadvantage globally because most developed countries and even 

many developing countries are doing these major infrastructure 

projects in about a third of the time that we are and at about a 

third or less of the cost. In addition, it hurts—it’s unfair to our taxpayers and it hurts our economy. 

I want to mention another thing. These things kind of are all 

tied in together because—I really appreciate the work, Mr. Howard, that you’ve done through the years on legal reform, and you’ve 

been complimented by people on both sides of the political spectrum. And I understand now you’re working with former Senator 

Bradley and Governor Kaine in your Common Good organization. 

But you’ve written a book called Too Many Lawyers, and you’re 

a lawyer yourself. I was a lawyer and a judge before I came to Congress. But this ties in together because I can tell you I’ve read that, 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
67 

over the last 50 years, we’ve sent 50,000 or 60,000 factories to 

other countries and it’s mostly because of environmental overregulation and rules, and red tape. And when I graduated, got my undergraduate degree, almost any young person with just a bachelor’s 

degree could get a really good job, because we didn’t just lose factory worker jobs when we sent all those factories away, we lost 

many white collar jobs. And so half the young people in the country 

started going to law school. And as you’ve noted in your book, Too 

Many Lawyers, it’s—the number of lawyers has doubled in this 

country over the last 30 years or so. 

And I want to read something from my last newsletter—or one 

of my last newsletters. There’s so many rules, regulations, and 

laws on the books today that no human being could even come 

close to knowing about or understanding all of them. Harvey 

Silverglate, a Boston lawyer who studied in Princeton and Harvard, has written a new book. On the cover is the following, quote: 

‘‘The average professional in this country wakes up in the morning, 

goes to work, comes home, eats dinner, and then goes to sleep, unaware that he or she has likely committed several Federal crimes 

that day. Why? The answer lies in the very nature of modern Federal criminal laws which have exploded in number, but also have 

become impossibly broad and vague,’’ unquote. 

The Code of Federal regulations is now 178,277 pages long; the 

Federal Register, 81,402 pages; and the U.S. Tax Code is 73,954 

pages. This does not even count all the State and local laws. An 

innocent mistake is not supposed to be criminal, but a zealous, 

publicity-seeking prosecutor can make even the most innocent mistake look criminal. 

And there’s a retired law professor from Louisiana State University, John Baker, who told the Wall Street Journal recently that 

said there is no one in the United States over the age of 18 who 

cannot be indicted for some Federal crime. That is not an exaggeration. 

What I’m getting at, we’ve got way too many laws, rules, and 

regulations on the books in this country. We have made some improvements in the last few years in this permitting process, but we 

still go ridiculously overboard and it takes far too long. The environmental impact statements now take, I think it says in our briefing material, 4.6 years, just that part of it. 

What do you have to say about all that, Mr. Howard? 

Mr. HOWARD. Most of the detail in modern regulation is not setting goals like clean air and clean water; it’s telling people exactly 

how to meet those goals. And so we’ve got this—might call it a theory of correctness where you’re not actually free, you’re free to go 

and comply with thousands of pages of rules that you can’t know. 

But in my view of the judgment, the problem here is not mainly 

in the goals, certainly not in having clean air and clean water; it’s 

in the micromanagement. 

Environmental impact statements were supposed to be, according 

to the CEQ regs, no more in the most complex project than 300 

pages long, the most complex project. You can find them, they’re 

10,000 pages or 20,000 pages. That’s all unnecessary detail. Most 

regulation, in my judgment, is unnecessarily detail telling people 

how to make a safe workplace, how to do everything, rather than 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
68 

saying, we’re going to hold you accountable for a safe workplace or 

for, you know, a reasonable environmental stewardship. 

So I think the solution lies in restoring human responsibility in 

place of these dense, mindless bureaucratic structures that built up 

in the last 50 years. 

Mr. DUNCAN. All right. Thank you very much. 

Mr. GIANFORTE. At this time, I’d like to recognize the ranking 

member, Mr. Raskin, for his comment—for his questions. 

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Chair, thank you very much for your flexibility. 

So, Ms. Goldfuss, let me ask you. The CRS has said that environmental review is typically not the greatest source of delay in surface transportation projects, and went on to say, quote: ‘‘Developing 

community consensus on what to do, securing the funding in dealing with effects of residents and businesses, including utilities and 

railroads, also contribute to the long timelines required to complete 

certain projects.’’ 

Do you agree with that general assessment? 

Ms. GOLDFUSS. Completely agree. 

Mr. RASKIN. A recent memo written by CRS in response to questions about Mr. Howard’s 2-years now 10-years report found that 

in the reports he cited, quote:A common, if not the primary, issue 

identified in each report relates to funding. And then again, 

quote:No outside report or study cited in the Howard report identified permitting generally or compliance with specific local, State, or 

Federal requirements, in particular, as a primary barrier to completing various infrastructure projects. 

Now, from 2015 to 2017, you were managing director of the 

White House Council on Environmental Quality. Is that right? 

Ms. GOLDFUSS. Correct. 

Mr. RASKIN. And in that time, you oversaw, as part of setting up 

the Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council, the creation 

of an online Federal Infrastructure Permitting Dashboard to track 

the progress of different infrastructure projects. Is that right? 

Ms. GOLDFUSS. Yes. We worked with National Economic Council 

and OMB to set that up, and all the agencies that participate. 

Mr. RASKIN. Okay. So based on that experience and the data received on the Dashboard, would you agree that project delays are 

primarily caused by some factor other than the permitting process? 

Ms. GOLDFUSS. The point of the Dashboard is to collect that information. GAO’s report from 2014 showed that we have very little 

data. That data is just coming about. And so, anecdotally, we know 

that we can point to, all right, this project has its EIS, here’s the 

timeframe, we met it or we missed it. So the Dashboard is designed 

to show us what the real delay is. 

The reality is you can have your environmental impact statement. If you don’t have funding to build the bridge, the bridge 

doesn’t get built. 

Mr. RASKIN. Gotcha. Okay. I want to go to the question of how 

agency budgeting cuts affect the permitting process. In its 2015 

Red Book, the Federal Highway Administration said that limited 

budgets and staffers were to preclude agencies from assigning staff 

to work on reviews when staff may already be strained to process 

pending workload in a timely manner. 

Do you agree with that assessment? 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
69 

Ms. GOLDFUSS. Completely agree. We now have NEPA officials 

that are wearing multiple hats, and this is just a small part of 

their job, if they are overseeing large contracts for environmental 

impact statements or other environmental reviews, it’s very difficult for them to keep on top of it. 

Mr. RASKIN. Okay. I read an article that you wrote with Allen— 

Alison Cassady in which you said: ‘‘The best way for the Trump administration to speed up permitting without sacrificing environmental protection is to adequately fund the relevant Federal agencies involved in the permitting and environmental review process. 

Without funding, the Federal agencies cannot hire and train staff 

to complete environmental reviews or invest in technology that provides efficiencies.’’ 

Do you want to elaborate on that point? 

Ms. GOLDFUSS. My point there, and I do think again, it’s something similar to what Mr. Howard said. I mean, you’d be shocked 

at the antiquated tools that some of these agencies have with doing 

the review and the small number of human capital, the small number of people we have actually doing the reviews. 

These are highly important projects. Industry would demand, 

corporations would demand using the best digital tools, the best information sharing so that we wouldn’t have redundancies, so agencies could coordinate early on to make sure that we’re expediting 

this process. Instead, we have limited talent, people who are doing 

multiple jobs, and as a result, potentially even misaligned incentives with our environmental review contracting process that pays 

for more pages rather than quality and efficiency. 

Mr. RASKIN. The President has proposed a cut of $2.8 billion in 

the EPA. And I assume, based on what you just said, that what 

this would mean would be further delays and further postponement 

of the process. So why would we be actually defunding the agencies 

that could make the permitting process work? 

Ms. GOLDFUSS. This is a fact of governing. I mean, the agencies 

have to be funded, the ones that have the talent. And EPA has the 

most talent and tools to share with the other agencies. They’re also 

responsible for tracking and signing off on EISs. So if you’re cutting the workforce that needs to do the work, it does not make 

sense that you’re going to speed up the timeframes. So the rhetoric 

doesn’t match the governing that’s happening in the administration 

right now. 

They need to fund EPA. They need to fully implement the fee authority they have through the Federal Permitting Council to put 

the money towards new tools, and really use the Dashboard and 

make sure that we take advantage of all that we can in modern 

tools of data sharing and data collection. 

Mr. RASKIN. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GIANFORTE. Okay. Thank you. 

At this time, I’d like to recognize Mr. Palmer for his questions. 

Mr. PALMER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

This question is for Mr. Howard and Mr. Bakst. Do we need all 

of the various agencies and subagencies and that linear structure 

of people out there that have to give approval to get a project done 

or can we do this in a more expedited manner with fewer people? 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
70 

Mr. HOWARD. I believe in the one lead agency idea. So I think 

decisionmaking should be clarified, which isn’t to say that you 

leave them out completely, but you don’t necessarily give everybody 

an equal voice. 

I would second what Ms. Goldfuss says about funding, particularly for CEQ. I would give CEQ more authority and three times 

as much money and put the spotlight on them and say, if this is 

not moving forward, it’s your fault. I mean, just put—you know, 

that’s the agency that’s supposed to be in charge of environmental 

review. I wouldn’t give undue power to the Corps of Engineers. 

Mr. PALMER. Are you suggesting we should hold anybody in Federal Government accountable for something? 

Mr. HOWARD. Yeah, I know it’s a radical idea. 

Mr. PALMER. Well, I think that we’re at a point now, Mr. Chairman, where we need to consider some radical ideas. 

Mr. Bakst, would you like to respond to that? 

Mr. BAKST. I would just say that I think—I agree with the one 

agency idea, but I think there is kind of an underlying assumption 

with a lot of these projects that some type of precautionary principle have a concept that these projects are not going to go forward, 

unless you can pretty much prove in extreme detail that there’s not 

going to be any environmental problem whatsoever. And the reality 

is there’s many benefits to these projects, including being very critical infrastructure needs, which is water and transportation, and 

we tend to forget that. 

And I think it’s—regardless of how many people are working at 

the agencies doing NEPA, how much money is spent, if you have 

a lot of people doing a lot of inefficient and duplicative work, then 

you’re just wasting their time and more money. The reality is that’s 

the cart before the horse. What we need to do is have a more efficient process in the first place. 

We need to have specific deadlines for projects. When developing 

these projects, you shouldn’t have to look at every possible alternative that you have and examine that you’re going to identify the 

alternative that definitely is going to have the least impact on the 

environment. The idea would be to identify those alternatives, they 

are actually feasible, not—— 

Mr. PALMER. Let me suggest something here. And I think it’s 

easy to disparage Federal regulators and people that are trying to 

do their job. I don’t think that’s how you solve the problem. I think, 

having worked for a couple of international engineering construction companies, I have a pretty good idea of how you get things 

done. I can go back to Mr. Howard, I think you have to assign accountability. But there’s also a quality of life issue here when it 

comes to infrastructure that impacts both the environment, public 

safety, and public health. 

When you have, particularly cities in the South that are subject 

in the summertime to higher ozone levels, the more traffic congestion you have, the worse those levels become. Consequently, when 

you tie up projects that could reduce that amount of congestion and 

you have far more pollution produced by cars sitting on the highway than driving on the highway, that becomes a balancing act 

that the people in charge of permitting have to take into account. 

And then you have to take into account the economic benefits of it. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
71 

They get delayed because of this, and the city of Birmingham is a 

prime example of this by not completing that northern belt line. So 

I think that’s all part of the issue here. 

The other thing that I want to ask about is, and the ranking 

member, Ms. Plaskett, has lived through this, as have other Members of Congress, from natural disasters, and how we expedite the 

permitting process to rebuild infrastructure, and some of the very 

frustrating things we’ve gone through, like the Stafford Act and 

having to build things back. 

I think that—we could take—we can learn some lessons from 

how we recovery from natural disasters for improving our overall 

infrastructure, because I think everybody in this room knows that 

we’re in a real critical point in this country in regard to, first of 

all, rebuilding our infrastructure and getting it up to speed, whether it’s highways or, as we’ve seeing in other parts of the country, 

our waterworks. And the longer we take to get this done, the worse 

it’s going to get and the more it’s going to cost and the more negative benefit it’s going to have on public well-being. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. GIANFORTE. Okay. Thank you. 

I want to follow on with one additional question for you, Mr. 

Rusco. The GAO has shown that many agencies are not tracking 

permitting milestones, like the date a permit was submitted or the 

final date of approval and, therefore, have no data to determine if 

they’re achieving expected results. Can you shine a little more light 

on that, what you found as you have done this research? 

Mr. RUSCO. Sure. For example, I’ll just take applications for permits to drill for onshore BLM. You go to different field offices, you 

get different approaches to documenting when applications come 

in, when they’re complete, and when they start the review process. 

So that—you’re going to get what you measure. And you can’t go 

to a central database in BLM, although the databases exist, and 

track permitting times. And you should be able to, because sometimes—you know, sometimes they get an application, it’s not complete. Well, they have to send it back. That’s not their fault, that 

shouldn’t count against them in the time. Sometimes they get an 

application, they get it all the way to the end, and they—and then 

the company just abandons it. 

All that needs to be known, but there are other times when— 

when they’re understaffed and they don’t—they don’t get to it and 

they’re missing their timeframes. And we need to know what the 

difference is so that they can fix the ones they can fix. If they need 

more staff, they have to have the data to say, we’re missing these 

deadlines because we don’t have the staff to do the permit reviews. 

Mr. GIANFORTE. So adoption of some standard practices and 

tracking methodologies would help us at least instrument the permitting process and have a basis then to improve? 

Mr. RUSCO. Absolutely, and better IT tools. 

Mr. GIANFORTE. Okay. In your written testimony, you identified 

incomplete applications as a contributing factor to delays. Could 

you talk a little bit about that in more detail? 

Mr. RUSCO. Yes. So where we found that typically, you know— 

and, again, I’ll refer to oil and gas development. So as you know, 

the oil and gas business is kind of boom and bust. And when it’s 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
72 

booming, all kinds of folks are coming in and they’re filing applications for rights-of-ways and permits to drill, and they don’t necessarily understand the process. So there’s an opportunity for better communication and explanation about what the process is, 

that’s something the agency could do, but sometimes it is just a 

learning curve for applicants. 

The same thing happens when you have a change in regulations, 

as happened in the Gulf after the BP disaster, that they strengthened some safety requirements. It took people a lot to figure out 

how to do those, and then the permitting times settled down. 

Mr. GIANFORTE. In your research, have you found agencies that 

do a good job of educating applicants on how to navigate the process? 

Mr. RUSCO. Well, I’ve sort of repeatedly brought up FERC, that 

in some cases—so, for example, for permitting an LNG facility, you 

have an option of doing a pre-application process. And in that preapplication process, you basically get a primer on here’s all the 

boxes you’re going to have to tick, here’s all the agencies you’re 

going have to deal with. And that, according to a lot of the folks 

we’ve talked to, helps them understand, okay, we know what we 

have to do and we know the timeframes. 

And by and large, the permitting process for LNG facilities has 

not been as slow as some things that you’ve seen. There was a 

large delay, while DOE made a determination, they basically 

stopped the process, and DOE made a determination that LNG exports was in the national interest. But in terms of the FERC process and all, you know, coordinating with Coast Guard and coordinating with resource agencies where necessary, that process went 

fairly smoothly. 

Mr. GIANFORTE. So you believe there’s a role for the agency in 

helping applicants navigate the permitting process instead of it 

being a black box where you don’t know what you’re going to 

get—— 

Mr. RUSCO. It’s very important for there to be transparency in 

what is required and also the timing. When can you go to the next 

step? And there should be a place where you can go and track your 

progress online and see where it is, and that often doesn’t exist. 

Mr. GIANFORTE. Okay. I’d like to recognize Mr. Palmer for a follow-on question. 

Mr. PALMER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I had written myself a note and I overlooked it, and I apologize. 

I just want to know how much input do the State and local governments have in the permitting process and getting to a final approval? 

Mr. Howard? 

Mr. HOWARD. It depends on the project. A power line from the 

wind farm in Wyoming to the Pacific Northwest had to get the approval of every county in Idaho over which the line passed, which 

I find to be absurd. It’s an interstate line. They shouldn’t have to 

go to 100 hearings in Idaho for—you know, to get the approval. So 

it depends on the project. 

As I suggested earlier—people—it shouldn’t be a gauntlet. You 

know, people should honor the legitimate regulatory goals at each 

level of government, but it shouldn’t be a gauntlet. If it’s an interVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:00 Nov 16, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\32511.TXT APRIL

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
73 

state project, I think the Feds ought to be in charge. If it’s local, 

I think the local ought to be in charge. 

Mr. PALMER. All right. The reason I bring that up is we had a 

hearing with some county engineers, one of whom was from Alabama, and they had a culvert washed out of a county road, and 

that is a no-brainer. I mean, just—okay. Just replacing the culvert 

and putting the road back is the only—it gave access to residents, 

to the property. I want to say it took almost a year to get that put 

in. That should have been weeks, not months. 

Mr. HOWARD. Right. 

Mr. PALMER. And that should have been a local deal. Now, there 

was Federal intervention in that on permitting. It involved water 

that—you know, there needs to be a level at which, and I think it’s 

been suggested in MAP–21, that there could be a level of costs 

under $2 million or under $5 million, I don’t remember exactly 

which one it was, that is an expedited permitting process where 

you leave that to the county or to the municipalities. 

Mr. HOWARD. Mr. Rusco made a good point. The OECD countries 

in Europe now have established some one-stop shops for everyone. 

So there were offices where the government was supposed to help 

you get the permit. If a culvert washes out and you need to get the 

road fixed, there ought to be some place you can go that will coordinate all of that and raise holy hell if somebody is holding it up for 

a year. And instead, you’re going to literally 11 different agencies 

to try to get a permission. 

Mr. PALMER. I thank the chairman for his indulgence. I yield 

back. 

Mr. GIANFORTE. Okay. The chair recognizes Mr. Grothman for 

his questions. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Thank you. 

First for Mr. Bakst. Do you feel the Federal environmental review and permitting system currently functions as Congress intended when it originally passed the legislation? 

Mr. BAKST. No. In—when President Nixon signed NEPA into law 

on the first day in 1970, there was no other Federal environmental 

statutes. We don’t have the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, et 

cetera. There was no citizen suit provisions. The idea was to take 

into account environmental considerations, which is very reasonable. Unfortunately, what’s happened over time is that through the 

agencies and through the courts, NEPA has evolved into something 

that Congress never envisioned when they passed it in 1970—or 

they passed it in 1969, set into law in 1970. 

I think if Congress—if NEPA didn’t exist now and we looked at 

the existing Federal statutes that are on the books and the way citizen suit provisions exist now, and we wanted to create a procedural statute like NEPA is, we’d be trying to figure out ways to expedite the permitting process to help people to navigate through all 

these different Federal environmental laws and State and local 

laws. Unfortunately, NEPA has become a law that existed before 

these other statutes that’s created kind of a—it’s made things more 

difficult, and I think the reality is we need to make it simpler, not 

more difficult. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Okay. In general, the amount of things one requires permits for, the time it takes to get permitting done for 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
74 

whatever, I don’t know how long all of you’ve been involved in this 

game, but you use the general opinion of where the world stands 

today or the country stands today compared to, say, 25 years ago. 

It seems to me things only always get worse. And I’m old enough 

to remember the 1970s, and I thought the world was pretty idyllic 

then. 

Could you comment on that? Have you ever, in all your experience, seen things ever go the other way, or do we always march 

steadily for more requirements, more paperwork, more time? 

Mr. BAKST. Unfortunately—it’s one of the points I made in my 

written testimony was I think looking at the permitting process on 

how to be more efficient in dealing with the permits that exist in 

some ways is an after the fact type of solution. And in reality, we 

need to look at the before the fact issue, which is looking at why 

permits require—— 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Can you give us any examples, any of the four 

of you, in which you can say, over the entire time 

you’ve been following this, that, yeah, we’ve improved things 

since 20 years ago and it’s less paperwork and less time? Can you 

think of any examples of that where you can really say, man, this 

used to be burdensome, but now we’ve sure straightened this out? 

Mr. HOWARD. Yeah, there are a few things that have happened. 

People—on a local level, Mayor Bloomberg put in a 311 process. It’s 

like a one-stop shop. You call in, you’ve got a—— 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Yeah. On a Federal level. 

Mr. HOWARD. Yeah. On the Federal level, not too many. The— 

I worked with Clinton and Gore in the Reinventing Government 

Program, they dramatically simplified the way officials could buy 

small items. You know, get a credit card instead of going through 

a procurement process. So in some ways it got—— 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Well, that’s kind of a Federal thing. How about 

the way you deal with not the Federal Government? How about 

how you deal with industry or business? Can you think of any examples in which it’s now—— 

Mr. HOWARD. No. The regulations have only gotten thicker, and 

the solution, in my view, is not to reform it but to replace it. And 

that’s the lesson of history. The Uniform Commercial Code replaced 

50 complicated commercial codes, and it was great for the country. 

And most of these areas, including this one, permitting, in my 

view, we need to replace it with a simpler program that doesn’t 

change the goals. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. So there is no example right now, no good examples where any of the four of you can say, man, we’re turning 

things around quicker than we used to, less paperwork, less cost? 

Mr. BAKST. Let me reiterate that if you look at the Federal environmental statutes, the agencies are only expanding their power 

and they’re taking very broad interpretations of statutes and not 

really meeting the will and intent of the statutes. And they’re continuing to expand their power, not limit their power, which means 

more regulations and more permitting requirements. 

Ms. GOLDFUSS. So I can say, from my time in the last administration, that tools like dashboards, tools like scorecards have done 

a lot to provide transparency into what the agencies are doing, and 

people do move faster when they’re held to account. So from a very 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
75 

macro level, I can’t say whether or not it’s worse than 20 years ago, 

but I saw change in a very short period of time. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. I guess I’m out of time. 

Mr. GIANFORTE. I want to thank the witnesses for appearing before us today. 

The hearing record will remain open for 2 weeks for any member 

to submit a written opening statement or questions for the record. 

If there’s no further business, without objection, the subcommittee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:32 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
(77) 

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
78 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 46 here 32511.046

STACEY PLASKEtT 

U.S.VMttlst.AHOS 

331 ~ HouH t>Ae£ 8u•L*'I6 

W~D.C.20515 

(202)225-1180 

fAll; (202} 225-5517 

PlASKETUtoUSE.GOV 

(ongress of tqe ;Jiniteb ~:hties 

~t!Ust nf ~epreaenbdiuea 

Jlaa~ington, ~Qt 20515 

August 17, 2018 

RDML Tim Gallaudet, Ph.D., USN Ret. 

Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

140 I Constitution Ave NW 

Washington, DC 20230 

Mr. Chris Oliver 

Assistant Administrator for Fisheries 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

1315 East-West Highway 

Silver Spring, MD 20910 

Cottwnll (Wrf Aolaout.f\lfta 

~EtOit~~. 

EHeiiGY, AND CMofr 

SulloowmK C1H GEHEIW. FAMA Cow.loorriEB 

.................... ~I.ONl.MSTOOCNWfCRWN~T\Jfl£ 

eo-na ... o.- MDGoviJIHIIENTREf"OM 

fWautlo ....... ,SI.IliCOIMotm'!I!ON11tTVOO!!, 

EM!RGT,_,EPf\IIACIHII€t(f 

~mtli:OHHEA~.JHCNit, Bl!r!!llTS. 

IONO~TM'!M:Ruwi. 

Re: Llmetree Bay Terminals, LLC, St. Croix, Virgin Islands USACE 

Permitting of Single Point Mooring 

Dear RDML Gaulladet and Mr. Oliver: 

I am writing to request your urgent assistance with the federal permitting of an energy 

infrastructure project that is a top priority for the economic recovery of the U.S. Virgin Islands, 

as described in the attached letter from Governor Mapp. The permit application to install a 

single point mooring buoy system to allow the Limetree Bay Terminals facility in St. Croix to 

receive shipments from very large bulk fuel carriers, has now been pending for one year. As a 

result of the delay in issuance of the permit, Limetree has incurred extraordinary costs and any 

further delay threatens to push the project timeline into the height of the 2018 hurricane season 

and further delays. 

The project presents only minimal environmental impacts, but final authorization by the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers cannot be issued before consultations with the National Marine 

Fisheries Service under the Endangered Species Act are complete. Accordingly, I ask that the 

pending consultations be given a top priority within your agency and are concluded as 

expeditiously as possible. The project sponsor is working diligently with both the Corps and 

NMFS to complete the required consultations. 

ST. CROIX DISTRICT OFFICE 

FN.OMI~i!trn1), VJ 00840 

(340)778-5900 

Fu:(340)778-5Hl PfflNT£0 ON RECVCL£0 PAPER 

<E>· 

Sr. THOMAs Ot!rrRIOT OFFICE 9100 P?.T ~ 8M,t M.\1.., SuttE 22 

$T THOIM .. VI 00802 

(340)714-4408: 

FAX {340) 774-8033 
79 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 47 here 32511.047

I would appreciate any assistance you can offer to expedite the issuance of the final 

permit and look forward to hearing back from you. I can be reached at (202) 225-1790 or a 

member of your staff can reach Angeline M. Jabbar in my office at (202) 226-7978. 

~~ Stacey E. P etl 

cc: 

Rickey Dale James 

Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works 

I 08 Army Pentagon 

Washington, DC 20310-0108 

Lt. Gen. Todd T. Semonite 

Commanding General and Chief of Engineers 

Headquarters 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

441 G Street NW 

Washington, DC 20314-1000 

James Cason 

Associate Deputy Secretary 

Department ofthe Interior 

1849C St. NW 

Washington, DC 20240 

Thomas Smith 

Chief Environmental Review and Permitting Officer 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

Congress (D- VI) 
80 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 48 here 32511.048

Earth justice 

September 5, 2018 

The Honorable Greg Gianforte 

Chairman, Subcommittee on Interior, Energy and Environment 

Oversight and Government Reform Committee 

United States House of Representatives 

I 419 Longworth House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

The Honorable Stacey Plaskett 

Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Interior, Energy and Environment 

Oversight and Government Reform Committee 

United States House of Representatives 

331 Cannon House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

The Honorable Gary Palmer 

Chairman, Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Affairs 

Oversight and Government Reform Committee 

United States House of Representatives 

330 Cannon House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

The Honorable Jamie Raskin 

Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Affairs 

Oversight and Government Reform Committee 

United States House of Representatives 

431 Cannon House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

Re: "Permitting: Finding a Path Forward" 

Dear Chairmen Gianforte and Palmer and Ranking Members Plaskett and Raskin, 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide written testimony for the Joint Subcommittees' 

September 6, 2018 hearing titled "Permitting: Finding a Path Forward." Please accept these 

comments for the hearing's official record. 

This testimony addresses the importance of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for 

infrastructure projects and refutes false narratives that cite it as the main source of delay in the 

permitting process. 
81 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 49 here 32511.049

I. Robust Environmental Reviews under NEPA Produce Better Projects and Save Taxpayer 

Dollars 

There is no question that our nation needs transportation infrastructure. But our nation also needs 

this infrastructure to be safe, intelligently planned, and ultimately effective in responding to public 

necessities. Much time has been spent scapegoating the environmental review process and making 

false attributions as to the degree that NEPA contributes to project delays for important 

infrastructure projects, but very little time has comparably been spent highlighting how the 

permitting process under NEPA makes our infrastructure development smarter, safer, fairer, and 

more effective. 

Careful compliance with NEPA is fundamental to making sound decisions on federal infrastructure 

projects. NEPA ensures that the public and agency decision-makers will have the information they 

need to understand the impacts of a proposed action and to know whether reasonable alternatives 

exist to achieve the project goals while incurring fewer environmental, social, cultural, public 

health, and economic costs. 

Robust environmental review and meaningful public input under NEPA lead to better, more 

effective infrastructure projects. Indeed, as eight past chairs of the Council on Environmental 

Quality have concluded, NEPA review is a prerequisite for responsible agency action: 

[C]onsideration of the impacts of proposed government actions on the quality of 

the human environment is essential to responsible government decision-making. 

Government projects and programs have effects on the environment with important 

consequences for every American, and those impacts should be carefully weighed 

by public officials before taking action. Environmental impact analysis is thus not 

an impediment to responsible government action; it is a prerequisite for it. 1 

For example, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority's (LACMTA) 

Crenshaw/LAX Transit Corridor project is an 8.5-mile light-rail metro extension under 

construction that will serve the cities of Los Angeles, Inglewood, Hawthorne, and El Segundo by 

offering an alternative transportation option to congested roadways. Through the NEP A process, 

the LACMTA determined that a five-mile stretch of the project could utilize a rarely-used existing 

freight rail line corridor instead to limit disruption to local neighborhoods and significantly reduce 

costs. One of the visionary elements NEPA is its creation of broad opportunities for public 

participation in government decisions that affect their environment and local communities. 

Throughout the environmental review and planning process, local residents were continuously 

' September 19, 2005 Letter to the Honorable Cathy McMorris, Chair of the Task Force on Improving the National 

Environmental Policy Act from Russell E. Train (CEQ Chair 1970-1973), Russell W. Peterson (CEQ Chair 1973-

1976), John Busterud (CEQ Chair 1976-1977), Charles W. Warren (CEQ Chair 1977-1979), J. Gustave Speth (CEQ 

Chair 1979-1981), Michael R. Deland (CEQ Chair 1989-1993), Kathleen A. McGinty (CEQ Chair 1995-1998), 

George T. Frampton Jr. (CEQ Chair 1998-2001), Gary Widman (CEQ General Counsel1974-1976), Nick Yost 

(CEQ General Counsell977-1981) (emphasis added). 
82 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 50 here 32511.050

engaged in dialogue to ensure the project would be completed in an equitable, beneficial, and 

resourceful way that met the needs of local communities.2 

NEPA also helps to ensure that the public and local decision-makers are fully engaged in the 

decision-making process so that the best, most cost-effective alternative can be pursued. The 

proposed "Garden Parkway" toll highway outside of Charlotte, North Carolina was once slated to 

cost close to $1 billion- a debt taxpayers would have been paying off for the next forty years. 

Questions raised during the NEPA process, however, led to the discovery that if the highway was 

built, North Carolina would actually see net job losses over time. Moreover, the careful review of 

traffic patterns during the NEPA process revealed that the highway would actually make 

congestion on other area highways worse. As a result, North Carolina has now abandoned the 

project and is pursuing more cost-effective upgrades to 1-85. 

Effective environmental reviews are critical for infrastructure projects that often have a profound 

effect on the environment and on public safety. NEPA reviews are typically the only opportunity 

for members of the public to provide input into these projects. Effective NEPA reviews expose 

the true cost of environmentally damaging and ill-conceived proposals, leading to improved and 

far less damaging projects and substantial savings for federal taxpayers. As the Crenshaw/LAX 

Transit Corridor project demonstrates, the public's local expertise often improves projects, 

lowering their cost and actually shortening the time they take to complete. Similarly, as illustrated 

by the Garden Parkway example, NEPA can empower local communities by giving them the 

information they need to make the best decisions for their communities. 

In testimony before the House Armed Services Committee regarding plans to address problems 

with obsolete nuclear reactors at the Savannah River site, then Secretary of Energy Admiral James 

Watkins, testified: 

"Looking back on it, thank God for NEPA because there were so many pressures to make 

a selection for a technology that it might have been forced upon us and that would have 

been wrong for the country."3 

When resource agency concerns are ignored or necessary studies are not done, the results can be 

devastating. Prior to construction of the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet (MRGO)- a channel that 

provided a shorter route between the Gulf of Mexico and New Orleans' inner harbor in Louisianathe U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service raised serious concerns and recommended additional 

environmental and hydrologic modeling, but the Army Corps of Engineers ignored this advice. 

By 2000, the MRGO had impacted over 600,000 acres of coastal ecosystems surrounding the 

Greater New Orleans area and destroyed over 27,000 acres of wetlands that once served as an 

important buffer from storm surge. During Hurricane Katrina, the MRGO funneled Katrina's 

storm surge into New Orleans, resulting in devastating and deadly flooding in St. Bernard Parish 

and the lower Ninth Ward. 

2 FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION, RECORD OF DECISION ON THE CRENSHA WILAX TRANSIT 

CORRIDOR PROJECT (Dec. 30, 2011), 

http:limedia.metro.net!pmjects studies/crenshaw/lmages/201 I 1230 CrenshawLAX Record of Decision.pdf. 

' Hearings on National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993 - H.R. 5006, and Oversight of Previously 

Authorized Programs before the House Committee on Anned Services, 102nd Cong. 912 (1992). 
83 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 51 here 32511.051

Still, NEPA provides more than just a voice for the environment. State, local and tribal agencies, 

private property owners, labor unions, and business associations routinely rely on NEPA to express 

their views and impact agency decisions. It also gives a voice to the most impacted and 

underrepresented, especially to the most vulnerable communities who usually have to bear the 

greatest burden where federal projects are first proposed. Overall, it allows citizen oversight, 

ensuring public resources are used in a way that is responsive to what the public needs and wants. 

II. All the evidence demonstrates that the NEPA review process is not the source of delay 

Over the last few years, a number of Members of Congress and witnesses before this committee 

have commented that NEPA and other regulations were a major cause of delay in infrastructure 

projects. This theory has been comprehensively examined and rebuffed by numerous studies, 

including studies conducted by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) and the U.S. 

Department of the Treasury. 

The most recent report was released by the Treasury Department in December 2016. This report, 

like the others, found that "a lack of funds is by far the most common challenge to completing" 

major infrastructure projects.4 The report listed three additional challenges to large-scale 

infrastructure projects in order of their impact on the project development process. The second 

largest challenge was lack of consensus when multiple public and private entities and jurisdictions 

are involved. The third largest challenge was capital costs increasing at a greater rate than 

inflation. The last, and smallest challenge by far, to large-scale infrastructure projects was the 

environmental review and permitting process. 

The Congressional Research Service (CRS) has likewise concluded, on multiple occasions, that 

NEPA is not a primary or m~or cause of delay in project review. In fact, CRS has found that the 

most commonly identified causes of delay are completely unrelated to the NEPA review process. 

In one report, CRS concludes that for transportation projects, the Jack of funding, securing 

community consensus, and accommodating affected stakeholders, including utility companies and 

railroads, account for the vast majority of delays. 5 In another report, CRS determined: 

"[T]here is little data available to demonstrate that NEPA currently plays a 

significant role in delaying federal actions'' and "factors outside the NEPA process 

were identified as the cause of delay between 68% and 84% of the time.''6 

In a 2012 report, CRS also concluded that about 90% of federally-assisted highway projects are 

conducted under a Categorical Exclusion (CE), essentially allowing them to move forward without 

4 Toni Horst. et al., 40 Pmposed US. Transportation and Water InfrastnJcture Projects of Major Economic 

Significance. AECOM, (2016). https://www.treasury.gov/connect/blog!Documents/tinal-infrastructure-report.pdf 

(last accessed March 20, 2016). 5 Congressional Review Service (CRS), Accelerating Highway and Transit Project Delivery; Issues and Options for 

Congress I (Aug. 3, 201 I), available at 

http://www.aashtoj ournal.org/Documents/ A ugust20 1 1 /CRS infrastructure.pdf. 6 CRS, The National Environmental Policy Act: Background and Implementation 28, 30 (Feb. 29, 2008), available 

at http://www .cnie.org!NLE/CRSreports/08Mar/RL33 152.pdf. 
84 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 52 here 32511.052

an environmental review process. Moreover, only four percent of projects required a detailed 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to be prepared. 

A return to the Crenshaw/LAX transit corridor project is also instructive. Although the project is 

a model for community engagement and effective management, getting the project off the ground, 

however, was no small feat. Without the approval of"Measure M," a half-cent sales tax approved 

by Los Angeles County voters in 2016 that provided a dedicated funding for twelve metro area 

transit projects, the city simply wouldn't have had the money to proceed. When projects have 

access to dedicated sources of funding (e.g., Los Angeles' Measure M), the NEPA review process 

is normally swift and rarely a major barrier to project completion. 

Overall, the overwhelming evidence demonstrates that NEPA is not a primary source of delay 

when it comes to infrastructure projects. Therefore, we urge Congress to address the causes of 

delay identified by CRS and others. 

III. Further reforms will only complicate and confuse the process 

Congress has already made significant changes to the permitting process under NEPA, but many 

of these changes have not been implemented yet. Thus, there is no evidence indicating further 

changes are necessary. As the Committee is aware, changes to the NEP A process for infrastructure 

projects were enacted in the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP21), the 

Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (WRDA), and the Fixing America's 

Surface Transportation (FAST) Act. 

Already, federal agencies are struggling to implement NEPA reforms that have been piled on top 

of one another in 2012, 2014, and 2015. In March 2017, the Department of Transportation's 

Inspector General (I G) found that the agency has delayed implementing a significant number of 

MAP-21 reforms because they must be revised to comply with additional measures mandated in 

the FAST Act. The IG further stated that, because of the interruptions caused by the additional 

FAST Act reforms, "the Department may not achieve all of the intended benefits under MAP21 ... such as accelerated project delivery, reducing costs, and ensuring that the planning, design, 

engineering, construction, and financing of transportation projects are done in a more efficient and 

effective manner." 

Making further changes to the NEPA review process before federal agencies fully implement these 

legislatively-mandated changes to the NEPA process will only serve to increase regulatory 

uncertainty and likely slow down the environmental review process. 

Indeed, members of the business community seem to agree. In April 2017, the Business 

Roundtable sent a letter to the White House stating that "existing law already provides a 

mechanism for comprehensive reform of the process of permitting major infrastructure projects" 

and urging federal agencies to focus on implementing existing legislative reforms. 

As recently as April2017, the Business Roundtable sent a letter to the White House stating that 

"existing law already provides a mechanism for comprehensive reform of the process of permitting 
85 

Æ 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 53 here 32511.053

major infrastructure projects" and urging federal agencies to focus on implementing existing 

legislative reforms. 

These piecemeal legislative attacks on NEPA not only constrain agency flexibility but, by creating 

new burdensome NEPA requirements, they also unnecessarily complicate and delay 

implementation. 

IV. Conclusion 

To ensure that transportation decision-making is conducted in a transparent and informed fashion, 

Congress should ensure robust environmental reviews that fully comply with the National 

Environmental Policy Act. Our organizations look forward to working with you to achieve these 

important goals. 

Sincerely, 

Raul Garcia 

Senior Legislative Counsel 

Earth justice