December 8th 2024.
The legal battle over the proposed Uinta Basin Railway has been ongoing for years, and on Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear arguments on the matter. At the heart of the dispute is the potential environmental impact of the railway, which would transport millions of gallons of crude oil along the Colorado River, including its headwaters in Colorado.
Opponents of the project, led by Eagle County in Colorado, were successful in halting its construction in 2023, when a federal appeals judge agreed that the environmental impacts had not been adequately assessed. However, the coalition of private companies and seven Utah counties who support the project have petitioned the Supreme Court to review the judge's decision. In June, the court accepted their petition and agreed to consider the extent to which federal agencies must analyze potential environmental impacts.
The proposed railway would connect Utah's oil fields to the national rail network, significantly increasing the amount of crude oil transported through Colorado and eventually to the Gulf Coast refineries. This would involve up to 350,000 barrels of oil per day on nine trains, each stretching two miles long, along the tracks of Colorado's Interstate 70, which follows the Colorado River for hundreds of miles.
Numerous local governments and the state's attorney general have filed briefs in the case, urging the Supreme Court not to overturn the appeals judge's decision and to uphold the National Environmental Policy Act. Their concern is that the railway poses a risk of leaks, spills, and accidents in close proximity to the headwaters of the Colorado River, which is a crucial water source for residential communities, agriculture, and outdoor recreation in the state. The Attorney General's brief states that the project has generated deep concern and opposition from across the state.
The Supreme Court will hear arguments from both sides on Tuesday, but a decision is not expected for several weeks or even months. Justice Neil Gorsuch has recused himself from the case due to his ties to Colorado billionaire Philip Anschutz, whose companies could benefit from the railway, according to reports from The New York Times.
Even if the Supreme Court rules in favor of the railway project, construction cannot begin immediately, as the court is only considering one of the reasons for the lower court's decision to halt the project. If the court agrees with the arguments of the project's supporters, the lower court will have to reassess its analysis and issue a new opinion.
However, environmentalists are concerned that the court's decision could weaken one of the nation's fundamental environmental protection laws. According to Sam Sankar, the Senior Vice President of Programs for the environmental legal group Earthjustice, the outcome could result in a "radical restriction" on how the government evaluates the environmental impact of decisions.
At the heart of the dispute is whether the U.S. Surface Transportation Board, which regulates railways, violated the National Environmental Policy Act by not fully analyzing the potential environmental impacts of the project beyond its immediate area. Last year, the federal appeals judge ruled that the board had indeed violated the law and should have considered the potential threats to the Colorado River, as well as the increased risk of wildfires due to more train traffic.
Lawyers for the Seven County Infrastructure Coalition, the group spearheading the rail project, argue that such a thorough analysis is not necessary. In their brief to the Supreme Court, they state that the board should only consider the immediate environmental impacts of a project, such as the displacement of bighorn sheep habitat or changes to a mountain stream. They argue that the board should not be required to analyze "imponderables" such as the potential for accidents hundreds or thousands of miles away.
The Colorado communities opposed to the railway project include Glenwood Springs, Grand County, Grand Junction, Avon, Basalt, Routt County, and the Northwest Colorado Council of Governments, which represents 31 counties and municipalities in the northwest region of the state. They reject the argument that the impacts on their communities should not be considered. City Councilman Jonathan Godes of Glenwood Springs states that any spill of crude oil into the Colorado River would be catastrophic for his town and all communities downstream. He emphasizes that their entire recreation economy relies on the river and that any harm to it would not only affect their economy, but also their drinking water.
Stay updated on Colorado news by signing up for our Mile High Roundup email newsletter.
[This article has been trending online recently and has been generated with AI. Your feed is customized.]
[Generative AI is experimental.]
