H.R.676 - To exempt Federal actions related to energy and mineral activities on certain Federal lands from the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. (119th Congress)
Summary
H.R. 676 proposes to exempt Federal actions related to energy and mineral activities on certain Federal lands from the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969. Specifically, it targets actions such as issuing leases, easements, or permits for the exploration, development, or production of oil, gas, coal, and critical minerals. The bill aims to expedite these activities by removing the requirement for environmental impact assessments under NEPA.
The bill focuses on lands open to mineral entry under the Mineral Leasing Act and the Mining Law of 1872. This exemption would apply to the exploration, development, or extraction of resources on these lands.
The bill was introduced in the House of Representatives by Ms. Hageman and referred to the Committee on Natural Resources.
Expected Effects
If enacted, H.R. 676 would likely lead to faster approval and implementation of energy and mineral projects on Federal lands. This could result in increased domestic energy production and access to critical minerals.
However, it could also lead to less environmental oversight and potentially greater environmental impacts from these activities. The removal of NEPA requirements means less scrutiny of potential ecological and community effects.
This could also impact long-term sustainability and environmental health in affected regions.
Potential Benefits
- Increased domestic energy production, potentially leading to lower energy costs.
- Faster development of critical mineral resources, reducing reliance on foreign sources.
- Streamlined permitting processes, reducing bureaucratic delays for energy and mining companies.
- Potential for job creation in the energy and mining sectors.
- Increased revenue for the government from resource extraction.
Potential Disadvantages
- Reduced environmental oversight, potentially leading to greater pollution and habitat destruction.
- Diminished public input and transparency in decision-making processes related to energy and mineral projects.
- Increased risk of environmental damage due to expedited project approvals.
- Potential negative impacts on local communities and ecosystems.
- Possible conflicts with other environmental laws and regulations.
Constitutional Alignment
The bill's constitutional alignment is complex. Congress has the power to regulate commerce and manage federal lands under Article I, Section 8. However, the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause could be relevant if environmental damage leads to the taking of private property without just compensation.
The Tenth Amendment could also be invoked, concerning the balance of power between the federal government and the states, particularly if states feel their environmental regulations are being undermined. The bill does not appear to violate any explicit constitutional prohibitions, but its effects could raise constitutional questions regarding property rights and federalism.
Furthermore, the bill does not directly infringe upon any of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights.
Impact Assessment: Things You Care About ⓘ
This action has been evaluated across 19 key areas that matter to you. Scores range from 1 (highly disadvantageous) to 5 (highly beneficial).