Witnesses tell House subcommittee environmental reviews add months and millions to HOME projects
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
State and nonprofit witnesses cited duplicative NEPA reviews and local examples where environmental review requirements delayed housing projects by years and increased costs, and they proposed limiting reviews to one per project or categorical exclusions for small projects.
Multiple witnesses told the House Financial Services subcommittee that environmental review requirements tied to HOME awards can add substantial time and cost to housing projects, and they urged legislative fixes to avoid duplication without removing environmental protections.
Allison George, director of the Colorado Division of Housing and CASDA board president, said the uncertainty over how many environmental reviews a project might trigger “causes delays” and advocated limiting environmental review to one per project. Eric Oberdorfer of NARO agreed, saying duplicative reviews “increase both time and cost” and urged mechanisms to ensure only a single environmental review is required no matter how many funding sources are layered.
Ellen Woodward Potts of Habitat for Humanity of Tuscaloosa gave on-the-ground examples: she said Habitat attempted to acquire 33 lots for redevelopment after a 2011 tornado and that the environmental review process delayed reconstruction for nearly three years; she also described a separate home-repair example in which an elderly couple could not replace an HVAC unit until an environmental review was completed. Potts told the committee the goal is not to eliminate environmental reviews but to reduce unnecessary delays.
Tiffany Bohe of Mercy Housing California said HOME-triggered reviews are often duplicative with reviews already completed for other funding sources and recommended aligning environmental review requirements so HOME does not automatically trigger a separate NEPA process when another valid review exists.
Witnesses and members suggested reforms in the draft legislation that would (1) shorten review timelines, (2) allow reuse of environmental reviews completed for the same project, and (3) provide limited categorical exclusions for small new-construction projects (examples cited: categorical exclusions for new construction up to 20 units and exemptions for home repair projects), while maintaining core environmental safeguards.
Committee members pressed for specifics and emphasized they do not seek to eliminate environmental protections; rather, they sought clarity and reduced duplication so projects can proceed more quickly.