Abstract
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires major federal actions that significantly affect the quality of the human environment to undergo an environmental review prior to federal authorization or funding. The decision to license or permit a project on federal lands is generally considered a major federal action subject to NEPA review. NEPA’s critics allege that the review process delays federal decision making, unduly impedes development, and results in excessive litigation. These claims, however, are not supported by empirical evidence. Using quantitative analyses we challenge four pervasive myths about NEPA compliance and litigation, and we argue that efforts to “streamline” NEPA are likely to have significant unintended consequences.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
