Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Permitting And Nepa topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Members press need to speed NEPA and permitting to lower costs and deliver projects faster
Summary
Members and witnesses described lengthy NEPA reviews and fragmented federal permitting as a major cause of project delay and cost increases, proposing interagency collaboration, categorical exclusions and 'one federal decision' implementation as remedies.
Multiple members—including Representatives Westerman, Stalberg and others—and witnesses said project delays driven by environmental reviews, duplicative federal permitting and litigation add substantially to project cost and time.
AASHTO and state DOT witnesses described the ‘‘one federal decision’’ provision in IIJA as a tool that, if fully implemented, could shorten timelines; some states have pursued NEPA assignment (letting a state assume certain NEPA responsibilities) but widespread adoption is restricted by legal and political obstacles, including the need for states to waive sovereign immunity in some cases.
Testimony described state efforts to speed reviews by colocating federal resource‑agency staff in interagency offices to coordinate permits and approvals. Georgia was cited as an example: Timon said Georgia had hired federal resource‑agency staff to work on state projects as a workaround to speed reviews.
Multiple members said reforms should preserve environmental protections but remove redundant processes, allow more concurrent review, and expand categorical exclusions where appropriate. Witnesses and members framed permitting reform as essential to stemming the inflationary effects of long delays: some witnesses estimated that each year of delay can add 20–30% to project cost, and that cumulative material‑cost inflation has largely consumed nominal funding increases from IIJA for many core formula programs.
The subcommittee did not adopt policy language at the hearing but directed staff to explore statutory and regulatory options to implement ‘‘one federal decision’’ and reduce duplicative permitting steps that apply to major highway projects.
