Utah

A Supreme Court Case About a Railway Could Have Widespread Impacts on U.S. Environmental Laws – Inside Climate News

Published

1 year ago

December 9, 2024

A Supreme Court Case About a Railway Could Have Widespread Impacts on U.S. Environmental Laws – Inside Climate News

A legal fight over an 88-mile proposed railway in Utah has set the stage for the U.S. Supreme Court to decide how federal agencies evaluate the environmental impacts of projects requiring their approval, a decision with the potential to drastically shift how projects are permitted across the nation.

The Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments in the case, Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, on Tuesday, Dec. 10. It’s the latest development following a U.S. Court of Appeals decision last year that overturned a federal agency’s approval of the railway after a lawsuit from environmental groups and a Colorado county along the project’s path. The appeals court found that the review failed to evaluate the downstream impacts of the project.

A coalition of seven Utah counties appealed that decision, and the Supreme Court will now decide how far federal agencies can evaluate the impacts of a project under the National Environmental Policy Act—in this case, the immediate area of an 88-mile railway or beyond.

The Uinta Basin Railway would connect the oil fields of northeastern Utah to the national rail network running directly alongside the Colorado River for more than 100 miles as it makes its way to refineries on the Gulf Coast. If built, the new railway could quadruple the production of the region’s waxy crude oil. Supporters argue it would revitalize the region’s economy, but opponents say it would worsen the region’s already poor air quality, affecting locals and those downstream, including in neighboring Colorado and along the Gulf Coast, where the crude oil will be refined.

“The primary beneficiaries of the railway would be a handful of CEOs of oil companies who have already manipulated Utah lawmakers into giving them public subsidies, whose objective is to exhaust this unique oil resource as fast as they can, to make as much money as fast as they can,” said Dr. Brian Moench, president of the Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment, one of the groups opposing the project. “The cost, literally and figuratively, would be borne by everyone else and future generations.”

The Supreme Court’s decision will not determine the final fate of the railway. The appeals court ruling found that the federal Surface Transportation Board in its permitting of the project also violated the Endangered Species Act and the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act. What the high court’s decision will do, however, is likely to dictate the scope of NEPA analyses for years to come. Weighing in to try to shape that opinion is a growing chorus of industry groups, state attorneys general, law professors and advocacy groups.

Signed into law in 1970, NEPA is the nation’s bedrock environmental law, requiring federal agencies “to use all practicable means and measures … to create and maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive harmony, and fulfill the social, economic, and other requirements of present and future generations of Americans.” NEPA set forth the requirements to evaluate a project’s environmental impacts through documents known as environmental impact statements.

But the law has been at the center of debate for years, especially in talks of permitting reform from Congress. Any substantial project overseen or regulated by the federal government must undergo a NEPA review, a process that can take years and often opens up projects to litigation. Supporters of the law argue it is critical to stopping bad projects and mitigating problems other projects may bring, while opponents argue its requirements are too cumbersome, especially regarding the nation’s energy transition. Many on both sides agree change is needed, though they dispute how to do so.

“Seven Counties goes to the heart of environmental impact analyses,” said John Ruple, a law professor and program director at the University of Utah’s Wallace Stegner Center for Land, Resources and the Environment. “No one likes long and expensive environmental reviews, but environmental reviews are there to protect the quality of the air we breathe and the water we drink. They make disasters like Love Canal less likely. There are plenty of ways to make NEPA work better without watering down protection in the name of efficiency.”

He likened the case to a car coming to a stop at an intersection. “All agree that the driver must stop, look left and then look right before deciding whether to proceed,” he said. “The question is how far and how carefully the driver must look.”

The Uinta Basin Railway did not respond to a request for an interview. But officials from the groups behind the project, including Utah counties, have previously dismissed opponents’ concerns in interviews with Inside Climate News, saying the economic benefits are important for the rural community and the environmental issues raised were overblown.

“We are optimistic about the Supreme Court’s review and confident in the thorough environmental assessments conducted by the STB,” Keith Heaton, director of the Seven County Infrastructure Coalition, said in a press release. “This project is vital for the economic growth and connectivity of the Uinta Basin region, and we are committed to seeing it through.”

Opponents, however, see it as the latest example of the Supreme Court weighing in on cases that should be settled by Congress, and one that could have far-reaching environmental consequences, like the court’s decision earlier this year to overturn the Chevron Doctrine that gave agencies some deference when translating laws into regulations.

Associate Justice Neil M. Gorsuch recused himself from the railway case this week after pressure to step back due to his close connection to billionaire Philip F. Anschutz, who would economically benefit from the project. Though his companies are not directly parties to the lawsuit, one of his oil and gas exploration companies filed a friend-of-the-court brief urging the justices to put limits on NEPA.

“It’s a perfect example of where the court is doing the dirty work for all of these industries that are interested in changing our environmental laws, reducing community input, limiting transparency into government decision making and making sure that the government puts blinders on before it actually makes big decisions like improving this railway,” said Sam Sankar, the senior vice president of programs at Earthjustice, a U.S.-based nonprofit that takes on environmental lawsuits.

Opponents: Railway Would Worsen Uinta Basin’s Poor Air Quality

The railway has been in the works since the 2014 formation of Utah’s Seven County Infrastructure Coalition, which is working with the Rio Grande Pacific Corp. and Drexel Hamilton Infrastructure Partners.

It has long faced opposition from local environmental groups critical of the increase in greenhouse gas emissions resulting from burning the oil and the risk of a derailment and spill into the Colorado River. Five groups and Colorado’s Eagle County sued the Surface Transportation Board after it approved the project. Eagle County, where the oil tankers would pass through, has won support for its fight from other Colorado counties as well as the state’s elected officials, led by U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet and U.S. Rep. Joe Neguse.

This story is funded by readers like you.

Our nonprofit newsroom provides award-winning climate coverage free of charge and advertising. We rely on donations from readers like you to keep going. Please donate now to support our work.

Donate Now

Communities across Colorado have already seen the destructive impacts of climate change, from flooding to wildfires. More oil production, Eagle County officials and environmentalists have said, will only worsen matters. They’re also worried about potential spills as the oil travels alongside the Colorado River. That river supplies water to 40 million people and is in a 20-year-long drought.

“We’re sitting here in the western United States watching increased wildfire activity, aridification, drought, all sorts of enormous environmental challenges that have huge human health consequences,” said Deeda Seed, a public lands senior campaigner for the Center for Biological Diversity. “The consequences of something like the Uinta Basin Railway need to be fully explored, and this was not done.”

The Uinta Basin, found in northeastern Utah, is already home to some of the worst air pollution in the state. An increase in oil production would only make that worse, railway opponents argue.

A 2014 study found that Uinta Basin emissions of volatile organic compounds—which can cause serious health consequences like cancer—accumulated to the equivalent of the annual VOC emissions of 100 million cars the previous winter. And oil and gas wells within the region have experienced far higher rates of methane leaks compared to the national average. Methane is a potent greenhouse gas that is much more effective at warming the planet in the near-term than carbon dioxide.

That air pollution came under intense scrutiny during the 2010s, when a nurse midwife in Vernal, the main town within the basin, contacted Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment about the rising number of infant deaths. A state review of health department data showed more such deaths in the Uinta Basin than the national average in 2013, but the study suggested it was not statistically significant.

“Suppose the FDA were to only consider the public health consequences of manufacturing a drug, and not the good or ill effects on millions of people taking the drug. Any court would conclude that such a ruling would be a mockery of the purpose of the FDA,” said Moench, Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment’s president. “If the EPA only considered the environmental consequences of constructing a coal-fired power plant and not the public health consequences of the lifetime emissions from operating the plant, any court could grasp the illogic and mockery of the Clean Air Act and question the very purpose of the EPA.

“The Surface Transportation board’s failure to consider any of the downstream consequences of building this railway is equally absurd, illogical, contrary to the public good, legally indefensible and a gaming of the system by special interests. Laws are supposed to make sense. The public has a right to think that they protect the public interest, not special interests.”

About This Story

Perhaps you noticed: This story, like all the news we publish, is free to read. That’s because Inside Climate News is a 501c3 nonprofit organization. We do not charge a subscription fee, lock our news behind a paywall, or clutter our website with ads. We make our news on climate and the environment freely available to you and anyone who wants it.

That’s not all. We also share our news for free with scores of other media organizations around the country. Many of them can’t afford to do environmental journalism of their own. We’ve built bureaus from coast to coast to report local stories, collaborate with local newsrooms and co-publish articles so that this vital work is shared as widely as possible.

Two of us launched ICN in 2007. Six years later we earned a Pulitzer Prize for National Reporting, and now we run the oldest and largest dedicated climate newsroom in the nation. We tell the story in all its complexity. We hold polluters accountable. We expose environmental injustice. We debunk misinformation. We scrutinize solutions and inspire action.

Donations from readers like you fund every aspect of what we do. If you don’t already, will you support our ongoing work, our reporting on the biggest crisis facing our planet, and help us reach even more readers in more places?

Please take a moment to make a tax-deductible donation. Every one of them makes a difference.

Thank you,

Wyatt Myskow

Reporter, Phoenix

Wyatt Myskow covers drought, biodiversity and the renewable energy transition throughout the Western U.S. Based in Phoenix, he previously reported for The Arizona Republic and The Chronicle of Higher Education. Wyatt has lived in the Southwest since birth and graduated from Arizona State University with his bachelor’s degree in journalism.

Source link

Utah

Utah QB Devon Dampier confirms he will play in Las Vegas Bowl vs. Nebraska

Published

3 hours ago

December 19, 2025

Press Room

Utah QB Devon Dampier confirms he will play in Las Vegas Bowl vs. Nebraska

The weeks following the college football regular season provide players plenty of time to weigh their NFL draft options against their desire to compete in a bowl game.

In Utah’s case, offensive tackles Spencer Fano and Caleb Lomu, as well as defensive end Logan Fano, decided it was in their best interests to forego the Utes’ Las Vegas Bowl matchup against Nebraska and declare for the 2026 NFL Draft instead.

Utah quarterback Devon Dampier, meanwhile, was looking forward to one last ride with his 2025 teammates before calling it a season.

“I chose to finish out this season with my team,” Dampier said during a media availability session Thursday. “I’m gonna play in the game. But some people, it’s a lot higher stakes; got a couple first rounders and things like that.”

‘We know those guys love us. They let it be known every day since they’ve been here, so we still support those guys and they support us.”

Utah head coach Kyle Whittingham presumed Thursday that the Fano brothers and Lomu would be the only bowl game opt-outs on Utah’s side, along with a few walk-ons. Some Utes who announced their transfer portal intentions continued to practice with the team as well.

Dampier confirmed his availability for the Las Vegas Bowl after a historic regular season under center, becoming the first Utes signal-caller to throw for over 2,000 yards and rush for over 600 yards in a single season since Alex Smith accomplished the feat in 2004. Dampier had 2,180 passing yards, a career-high 22 passing touchdowns and only five interceptions after throwing 12 picks last season. He also had 687 rushing yards and seven touchdowns going into Utah’s postseason game.

While his intentions for Dec. 31 were made clear, Dampier’s status for next season remained somewhat cloudy. He did hint at making an announcement alongside fellow quarterback Byrd Ficklin, though it was postponed after Ficklin’s return to the Utes was leaked Dec. 11.

“Y’all going to see,” Dampier said when asked if he was coming back for the 2026 campaign. “It’s great. I’m very happy to be here.”

“[Ficklin and I] were trying to do something special, but his [return] got a little leaked out before we could get to it. But it’s coming.”

Dampier said during a radio show appearance earlier in December that he was “big on staying” and had “no intentions to leave” the Utes. He also said over the airwaves that he anticipates being named a captain for the 2026 squad, and that he does play a role in recruiting.

Dampier discussed Kyle Whittingham’s impending departure from the program and the future outlook with Morgan Scalley set to take over during his media availability session.

On Kyle Whittingham’s decision to step down as head coach

“That’s a legend. I got a lot of respect for him. I think he’s transformed this program. He’s made it perfect for [Morgan] Scalley to step in. I’m still excited to still be at Ute.”

On Morgan Scalley taking over as head coach

“I’m very confident in Scalley. When I came here on my visit, that was someone I talked to. He let me know the rundown for when his time comes. He had his full belief in me and in my talent, so I’m perfectly fine where I’m at.”

On sending Whittingham off with a win

“It means a lot to me. I could try to speak for everybody on the team, but for me, especially, that’s a coach that believed in me to come in here after being at New Mexico, and just had a full trust in me, in the offense, to do what we do. And that’s just huge respect from him, and just what he’s done for this program. This is one only programs in college football where you know what Utes do, you know how they play and you know the mentality. So for him to leave that up, I got to finish well for him.”

On whether the program is in better hands than it would be if an outsider was hired

“Most definitely. I think just what’s already set here, what’s known here; Scalley has been under Whitt. I think Whitt’s done a great job of allowing him to demonstrate what a good head coach looks like and I know Scalley is gonna step into it and do what he does.”

MORE UTAH NEWS & ANALYSIS

Source link

Utah

Where did the Red Wings go wrong in loss to Utah? 5 thoughts

Published

15 hours ago

December 18, 2025

Press Room

Where did the Red Wings go wrong in loss to Utah? 5 thoughts

DETROIT — Just as the Detroit Red Wings looked like they were getting into a groove, they hit a stumbling block Wednesday in a 4-1 loss to the Utah Mammoth.

It’s only one game for a team that still sits atop the Atlantic Division, and none of the Red Wings players or coaches were going to panic in the aftermath. But a night after head coach Todd McLellan cautioned, “You can’t give it back,” after a strong run of recent play, a three-goal loss on home ice wasn’t the follow-up anyone was looking for.

Here’s what went wrong and some other thoughts from Wednesday night.

1. There was no doubt what McLellan thought the biggest issue was against the Mammoth.

“For me, the difference was obvious,” he said. “It was play around our net.”

And that was a theme on all four goals Detroit allowed. On the first, Simon Edvinsson drifted just off of Clayton Keller in the slot, giving him enough room to put home a big rebound off Cam Talbot. On the second, Ben Chiarot didn’t tie up Jack McBain on the back post. The third was a bit different, as no one really lost their man, but when Moritz Seider went to clear a trickling puck headed for a goal line, he ended up bouncing it off Talbot’s pad and right to Dylan Guenther for an easy goal. And on the fourth, Nate Danielson was a step or two off his check in the slot for a one-timer.

“It’s like sitting at your desk at school,” McLellan said. “You’re sitting there, but big deal. Are you doing any work? We’re in position. Do the work. Do the job. Get it done.”

McLellan also noted that Edvinsson and Danielson threw their heads back after the first and fourth goals, indicating they knew immediately what had gone wrong.

2. Though those goals against were ultimately the difference in the final score, Detroit also created far too little danger of its own against the Mammoth, especially at five-on-five.

Detroit’s top players, in particular, had uncharacteristic nights, with their first line (Larkin, Lucas Raymond and Emmitt Finnie) and the top defense pair (Seider and Edvinsson) all ending the night at minus-2, and with five-on-five expected goals shares below 25 percent, according to Natural Stat Trick.

Finnie got the Red Wings’ lone goal on a third-period power-play blast that briefly gave Detroit life, but there just weren’t enough serious chances in the second or third periods to really threaten Utah.

Although Detroit’s power play eventually scored in the third, a pair of second-period opportunities on the man advantage went by uneventfully when the score was still 1-0. The Red Wings didn’t record a shot on goal in the first of those two chances, and the top unit managed just one shot on goal in the second as well.

“We had looks, we had zone time, we just didn’t get it done,” Larkin said. “Didn’t get pucks through. Credit to them, they had a tight diamond, and I’m sure Todd will tell you both on their penalty kill and five-on-five, they probably won the net play tonight, and that was probably the story of the game.”

Certainly, the lack of any five-on-five offense is a more damning proposition than a 1-for-4 night on the power play. But situationally, in a one-goal game, those were big missed chances to swing momentum. Utah scored just 22 seconds after killing off the second penalty to make it 2-0, and that ultimately proved to be the game-winning goal.

Still, with just one even-strength goal in the last two games, the Red Wings are going to need more there, and that includes their top players, who have really carried them offensively to this point.

3. Wednesday’s loss dropped the Red Wings to 1-5 in the second half of back-to-backs this season.

It’s a small sample, but that stands out, even with the inherent challenge of playing on consecutive nights. It didn’t seem to slow Utah too much Wednesday, for example.

Larkin acknowledged the Red Wings will have to be better in those situations, particularly with more on the horizon. Detroit will play three more sets of back-to-backs in the next two weeks, with a home-and-home against the Washington Capitals this weekend, tilts against the Carolina Hurricanes and Toronto Maple Leafs the following weekend, and then the Winnipeg Jets and Pittsburgh Penguins at New Year’s.

I asked McLellan if there was anything he could put his finger on with the back-to-backs, and he pointed out that Detroit hadn’t scored first in any of those losses. That is true, and it’s probably a symptom and a cause.

Not scoring early has been a theme all season, though. Detroit has just 19 first-period goals in 35 games, which ranks 30th in the league, while giving up 28. The goals against number isn’t so bad — it’s still roughly league average — but it still translates to coming out of the first in a hole too often.

Cam Talbot hasn’t quite hit the same highs as earlier this season in recent games. (Rick Osentoski / Imagn Images)

4. Just as John Gibson seems to have found a bit of a rhythm for the Red Wings, Cam Talbot — who was Detroit’s rock in net early this season — has slipped into a bit of a funk. Not many of Wednesday’s goals were on him, but the rebound he gave up on the first goal (stemming from a low-percentage shot from along the boards) and then the trickling puck that led the third are atypical of where he was to start the season.

McLellan said he thinks the Red Wings have played better in front of Gibson of late, a reversal from early in the season, but that he’d “have a conversation (with Talbot) real quick, just let him know that we believe in him, because we do.”

5. After Tuesday night’s game, I noted Detroit had a tougher portion of the schedule coming up, with the back-to-back games against Washington and hosting a good Dallas Stars team to lead into Christmas.

Co-worker Dom Luszczyszyn pointed out to me that it’s actually more dramatic in the big picture. His model projects the Red Wings with the league’s toughest remaining schedule coming into Wednesday, and Detroit’s remaining opponents also have the second-highest collective win percentage.

That’s just one more reason that banking every point possible matters right now, especially from Eastern Conference foes they’ll be competing with for a playoff spot.

Source link

Utah

Utah organization urges harm reduction after executive order on fentanyl

Published

1 day ago

December 17, 2025

Press Room

Utah organization urges harm reduction after executive order on fentanyl

Enter your email and we’ll send a secure one-click link to sign in.

ABC4 Utah is provided by Nexstar Media Group, Inc., and uses the My Nexstar sign-in, which works across our media network.

Learn more at nexstar.tv/privacy-policy.

ABC4 Utah is provided by Nexstar Media Group, Inc., and uses the My Nexstar sign-in, which works across our media network.

Nexstar Media Group, Inc. is a leading, diversified media company that produces and distributes engaging local and national news, sports, and entertainment content across its television and digital platforms. The My Nexstar sign-in works across the Nexstar network—including The CW, NewsNation, The Hill, and more. Learn more at nexstar.tv/privacy-policy.

Source link