After years of legal wrangling, the fate of Utah’s Uinta Basin Railway will be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. What’s at stake is not only the future of the proposed railway. The case could also have far-reaching consequences when it comes to how the federal government manages the environmental review process.
The crux of the question in front of the justices is this: Does the National Environmental Policy Act require a federal agency to study environmental impacts beyond its authority?
The project started in 2019 but was halted in 2023 after a federal appeals court ruled that a critical environmental impact statement was rushed and violated the law. That suit was brought by environmental groups and Eagle County, Colorado. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to reconsider the case in June and oral arguments are scheduled for Dec. 10.
If built, the railway would span approximately 90 miles and connect the oil-rich Uinta Basin with existing rail lines in central Utah, ultimately shipping waxy crude oil to the Gulf Coast — through Colorado — for processing to the tune of an estimated 350,000 barrels a day.
The petitioner is the Seven County Infrastructure Coalition. Executive Director Keith Heaton said rail is critical for the economic health of the northeastern part of the state and to more effectively move oil.
“If the Uinta Basin can't diversify their transportation options beyond two-lane highways, there's very limited economic opportunity out there for any industry.”
Utah, in its friend-of-the-court brief in support of the railway, echoed the need for more rural economic development. In backing the railway, the state wrote it “has the potential to open the region to entirely new markets that rely on freight shipping and to create jobs.” Furthermore, Utah argued that federal overregulation ignores the state’s interests — a familiar point to followers of the state’s other fights with the federal government over resources and lands.
In addition, the rail project has the support of the Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah & Ouray Reservation, as well as many Utah lawmakers.
The railway has been a target of environmentalist groups concerned that any new infrastructure used to transport fossil fuels will allow more oil to be extracted and burned, ultimately contributing to climate change.
Center for Biological Diversity Senior Campaigner Deeda Seed contends the environmental work was not sufficient and represents a “significant potential for harm to the environment and public health.”
“Analyzing the environmental consequences of building the railroad without analyzing what happens when the oil arrives is like diving head first into a pool without checking how deep the water is.”
The Center for Biological Diversity is one of several groups supporting Eagle County, Colorado, in their case. Several Colorado communities, including Glenwood Springs, filed a friend-of-the-court brief. City Councilor Jonathan Godes said Glenwood is particularly worried about the consequences of train derailments along the Colorado River.
“It would destroy our economy and destroy our water, our drinking water,” he said. “It would be harmful for all the communities downstream that also rely on the Colorado River.”
For the Seven County Infrastructure Coalition’s part, Heaton believes the environmental work was done properly.
“We're talking hundreds of thousands of pages of documentation that went into this, looking at a lot of different aspects of it,” he said. “At some point, you do have to draw the line on what you can look at.”
With a conservative majority on the Supreme Court and recent rulings that ended Chevron Deference and blocked the Environmental Protection Agency’s “good neighbor” rule aimed at curbing emissions across state lines, the odds could be in the railway’s favor.
However, Justice Neil Gorsuch recused himself from the case on Dec. 4 after a letter from 13 members of Congress detailed his former work as a corporate lawyer for Colorado-based billionaire Philip F. Anschutz. According to the letter, Anschutz “has a direct financial interest in the outcome” of the case due to his ties to the oil and gas companies he owns. Anschutz Exploration Corporation has filed a brief in the case.
Gorsuch’s recusal gives the court a 5-3 split in favor of conservatives.
Whatever the outcome, how future environmental impact studies are conducted for infrastructure projects across the country could be affected.
While Heaton is excited and optimistic ahead of arguments, he and other interested parties will be paying close attention to the wording and scope of the court’s decision.
“Regardless of the outcome in our particular case,” he said, “it's going to be good for anyone who's trying to develop any type of major project in this country to have some clarity on what's expected with the environmental protection policy.”
