7 ms·

Any disruptive technology for environmental impact assessments?

by lklkl30104 4y ago

jfoutz 4y ago
voting
- claytongulick 4y ago
- culi 4y ago
  The exact problem of California's High-Speed Rail is that individuals (as well as local municipalities) keep suing them. The original timeline and budget would probably not have been too far off if it weren't for this The current route has been modified a bunch to appease local municipalities that want, or don't want, part of the tracks or a stop near them. Maybe that can be stopped by voting, but the wealthy individuals will continue to sue and force more expensive litigative battles like the one that resulted in this environmental assessment needing to be cleared
  - Wowfunhappy 4y ago
    Legislators can pass laws which make lawsuits easier or harder.
  - AlbertCory 4y ago
    > individuals (as well as local municipalities) keep suing them OK, so do you have a solution to that?
    - old_hat 4y ago
      Pass laws which provide less grounds for suing these kinds of projects, or at least group them into one class action lawsuit instead of a smattering of actions. Provide abridged proceedings for infrastructure projects so judgements can be rendered more quickly. I'm thinking things like judge only trials, etc.
      - AlbertCory 4y ago
        I think these are great ideas, with not much chance of passing. Imagine all the environmentalist groups screaming that they're going to silence legitimate criticism, shut off debate, push through poorly thought-out projects, destroy our environment, etc. etc. I said "not much chance" rather than "no chance." Eventually, some watered-down version of a law like that might pass.
  - roenxi 4y ago
    In my experience, pro-environmental regulation is always passed over a chorus of screaming capitalists pointing out that it makes it very expensive and difficult to build things. There is a reason that China is the factory of the world - it is legal in China to build things cheaply. There are only a tiny handful of people who know how to build things that are compliant with the regulation (& demonstrate that compliance). So while the last step in the sequence of events is wealthy people suing, the actual problem here is probably that the CHSR may be illegal to construct and there are people with an interest in testing that theory.
  - runarberg 4y ago
    I don’t think that is the only thing that is keeping this slow and expensive. I think the first estimates were way to optimistic (especially in terms of costs and funding opportunities). I think the main thing that has been slowing things down is severe lack of funding, both from the state of California, and especially from the federal government. This is probably due to the fact that there was a lack of experience (both from the rail authority and especially from the legislator). Thankfully it looks like they have stopped withholding funds and at this point they have gained some experience. I doubt there will be another doubling of cost estimate nor much more delays (perhaps a year or two more at most).
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > The exact problem of California's High-Speed Rail is that individuals (as well as local municipalities) keep suing them. No, it's funding. The switch to exclusive focus on environmental clearance outside of a particular area of focus was based on funding, not lawsuits. HSR has always relied on massive additional funding besides it's dedicated bond fund, much of which was expected from the federal government, and which has not materialized.
    - runarberg 4y ago
      You can actually see that in action. The day before this EIS was cleared it was announced that contracts for advancing designs on the two remaining sections in the Central Valley (Madera to Merced and Shafter to Bakersfield; essentially preparing for construction packages 5 and 6, if I understand correctly). This news came just days after the federal government granted them 25M USD from the bipartisan infrastructure bill. It is not even 4 years since Gavin Newsom ordered the stop on any new construction packages (which ironically made this a train from nowhere to nowhere) because there simply wasn’t enough funding to finish anything that hadn’t already started. Thankfully it looks like this era is over now, and we can finally start seeing things get the funding it needs and deserves.
enviclash 4y ago
Are you aware that your comment could yield only irresponsible use of technologies, e.g. with the future generations?
- MichaelCollins 4y ago
  It could also yield a train.
- closeparen 4y ago
  Irresponsible uses like building suburbs when we could live in cities? Like flying when could be taking trains? Like driving when we could be biking? Environmental law is the main force requiring us to do those things.
  - enviclash 4y ago
    IMHO the problem is the absurd Kafka-esque administration Castle.
- S201 4y ago
  Sorry, what? Are you implying that streamlining the already absurdly long and frankly abused NEPA reviews so we can get them done in a more timely manner is somehow a bad thing?
  - enviclash 4y ago
    Perhaps I should clarify: "disruptive" in data-intensive and sensitive decision-making processes, e.g. involving ecosystems and environmental processes for which there is limited knowledge and very often unavailable information, means in practice "careless" rather than "timely".
qwertyuiop_ 4y ago
Communism served CCP style
Enginerrrd 4y ago
Civil/Environmental engineer here. No. And... I can't even imagine a way to bring hope or scale to the process. I appreciate the question, but it made me laugh. ...The best thing we could do would be to lobby to get regulators to: - increase the number and type of CEQA exemptions. - Add mandatory automatic approvals on things if there's no response after x number of days. CDFW does this sort of thing for Lake and Streambed Alteration Notifications. If they don't get back to you within 90 days, you get automatic approval. It's a beautiful thing. In practice, it keeps the agency running with much improved efficiency. They still try to stall occasionally by declaring your application "incomplete" for bullshit reasons, but that only resets the clock another 90 days, and if you respond with all requested information, they can't do shit. But... the political climate in CA is relatively unfavorable to such things. Lots of NIMBY's and environmental groups will oppose it.

Any disruptive technology for environmental impact assessments?

jfoutz 4y ago

voting

claytongulick 4y ago
culi 4y ago
The exact problem of California's High-Speed Rail is that individuals (as well as local municipalities) keep suing them. The original timeline and budget would probably not have been too far off if it weren't for this The current route has been modified a bunch to appease local municipalities that want, or don't want, part of the tracks or a stop near them. Maybe that can be stopped by voting, but the wealthy individuals will continue to sue and force more expensive litigative battles like the one that resulted in this environmental assessment needing to be cleared
- Wowfunhappy 4y ago
  Legislators can pass laws which make lawsuits easier or harder.
- AlbertCory 4y ago
  > individuals (as well as local municipalities) keep suing them OK, so do you have a solution to that?
  - old_hat 4y ago
    Pass laws which provide less grounds for suing these kinds of projects, or at least group them into one class action lawsuit instead of a smattering of actions. Provide abridged proceedings for infrastructure projects so judgements can be rendered more quickly. I'm thinking things like judge only trials, etc.
    - AlbertCory 4y ago
      I think these are great ideas, with not much chance of passing. Imagine all the environmentalist groups screaming that they're going to silence legitimate criticism, shut off debate, push through poorly thought-out projects, destroy our environment, etc. etc. I said "not much chance" rather than "no chance." Eventually, some watered-down version of a law like that might pass.
- roenxi 4y ago
  In my experience, pro-environmental regulation is always passed over a chorus of screaming capitalists pointing out that it makes it very expensive and difficult to build things. There is a reason that China is the factory of the world - it is legal in China to build things cheaply. There are only a tiny handful of people who know how to build things that are compliant with the regulation (& demonstrate that compliance). So while the last step in the sequence of events is wealthy people suing, the actual problem here is probably that the CHSR may be illegal to construct and there are people with an interest in testing that theory.
- runarberg 4y ago
  I don’t think that is the only thing that is keeping this slow and expensive. I think the first estimates were way to optimistic (especially in terms of costs and funding opportunities). I think the main thing that has been slowing things down is severe lack of funding, both from the state of California, and especially from the federal government. This is probably due to the fact that there was a lack of experience (both from the rail authority and especially from the legislator). Thankfully it looks like they have stopped withholding funds and at this point they have gained some experience. I doubt there will be another doubling of cost estimate nor much more delays (perhaps a year or two more at most).
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > The exact problem of California's High-Speed Rail is that individuals (as well as local municipalities) keep suing them. No, it's funding. The switch to exclusive focus on environmental clearance outside of a particular area of focus was based on funding, not lawsuits. HSR has always relied on massive additional funding besides it's dedicated bond fund, much of which was expected from the federal government, and which has not materialized.
  - runarberg 4y ago
    You can actually see that in action. The day before this EIS was cleared it was announced that contracts for advancing designs on the two remaining sections in the Central Valley (Madera to Merced and Shafter to Bakersfield; essentially preparing for construction packages 5 and 6, if I understand correctly). This news came just days after the federal government granted them 25M USD from the bipartisan infrastructure bill. It is not even 4 years since Gavin Newsom ordered the stop on any new construction packages (which ironically made this a train from nowhere to nowhere) because there simply wasn’t enough funding to finish anything that hadn’t already started. Thankfully it looks like this era is over now, and we can finally start seeing things get the funding it needs and deserves.

enviclash 4y ago

Are you aware that your comment could yield only irresponsible use of technologies, e.g. with the future generations?

MichaelCollins 4y ago
It could also yield a train.
closeparen 4y ago
Irresponsible uses like building suburbs when we could live in cities? Like flying when could be taking trains? Like driving when we could be biking? Environmental law is the main force requiring us to do those things.
- enviclash 4y ago
  IMHO the problem is the absurd Kafka-esque administration Castle.
S201 4y ago
Sorry, what? Are you implying that streamlining the already absurdly long and frankly abused NEPA reviews so we can get them done in a more timely manner is somehow a bad thing?
- enviclash 4y ago
  Perhaps I should clarify: "disruptive" in data-intensive and sensitive decision-making processes, e.g. involving ecosystems and environmental processes for which there is limited knowledge and very often unavailable information, means in practice "careless" rather than "timely".

qwertyuiop_ 4y ago

Communism served CCP style

Enginerrrd 4y ago

Civil/Environmental engineer here. No. And... I can't even imagine a way to bring hope or scale to the process. I appreciate the question, but it made me laugh. ...The best thing we could do would be to lobby to get regulators to: - increase the number and type of CEQA exemptions. - Add mandatory automatic approvals on things if there's no response after x number of days. CDFW does this sort of thing for Lake and Streambed Alteration Notifications. If they don't get back to you within 90 days, you get automatic approval. It's a beautiful thing. In practice, it keeps the agency running with much improved efficiency. They still try to stall occasionally by declaring your application "incomplete" for bullshit reasons, but that only resets the clock another 90 days, and if you respond with all requested information, they can't do shit. But... the political climate in CA is relatively unfavorable to such things. Lots of NIMBY's and environmental groups will oppose it.