CHAPTER 13 LOCAL, STATE, AND FEDERAL PERMITTING THROUGH COORDINATED REVIEW: A BETTER WAY

• Jurisdiction: United States

Mineral Resources Permitting
(Mar 1981)
CHAPTER 13
LOCAL, STATE, AND FEDERAL PERMITTING THROUGH COORDINATED REVIEW: A BETTER WAY
Harris D. Sherman
Arnold & Porter
Denver, Colorado

Environmental reviews for major energy and industrial projects continue to be characterized by controversy, lack of government agency coordination, and wasteful, prolonged review. Congress has tried (and failed) to address this issue through the proposed Energy Mobilization Board. Some states have enacted facility-siting laws, only to realize the frustrations of incorporating federal and local government requirements into their programs.

Quietly, over the past two and one-half years, Colorado has established an innovative approach to the federal/state/local permitting maze, an approach that appears to be working and that merits careful consideration. The Colorado Joint Review Process ("JRP") is gaining favorable attention as a logical answer to the Energy Mobilization Board. It is also being studied for its conflict resolution and public participation features.

[Page 13-2]

Identifying Problems

The JRP was developed in response to recognition of past problems associated with the permitting of major energy facilities. During the last decade, there has been a proliferation of environmental laws and regulations at all levels of government. Usually these laws were framed incrementally, with little attention paid to their interrelationships. Because implementing agencies have few formal links to each other, they have often worked in an administrative vacuum. The lack of coordination among agencies has affected the quality of environmental review.

Equally frustrating has been the sequential nature of the review process. Rather than agency reviews occurring concurrently or jointly, applicants have been forced to proceed one agency at a time. This sequential process has resulted in confusion and enormous waste. The sequential process has also failed to integrate federal and state environmental reviews into subsequent regulatory actions so that data collection and analysis can be done once, rather than multiple times. Projects capable of expedited review are often bogged down; delays have

[Page 13-3]

turned once-viable projects into white elephants because of inflationary pressures and spiraling construction costs.

The existing permitting system has also discouraged dialogue between the applicant, agencies, and the public. More often than not, the public is...