Governmental actions that benefit the environment are threatened by an incorrect interpretation of NEPA requiring an EIS for actions based solely on beneficial significant effects. At least one circuit has reached this conclusion, with others entertaining the question in dicta. By analyzing the language of NEPA, its purposes, legislative history, and the implementing regulations of CEQ, the conclusion is reached that NEPA was not intended to be interpreted to frustrate government actions that benefit the environment, by requiring an EIS. Agencies can best protect themselves from litigation, by amending their own NEPA implementing regulations to clearly indicate that an EIS is not required for actions with no significant adverse effects.
|Advisor:||Paddock, LeRoy C.|
|School:||The George Washington University|
|School Location:||United States -- District of Columbia|
|Source:||MAI 53/01M(E), Masters Abstracts International|
|Keywords:||Beneficial, EIS, Effect, Impact, NEPA, Policy|
Copyright in each Dissertation and Thesis is retained by the author. All Rights Reserved
The supplemental file or files you are about to download were provided to ProQuest by the author as part of a
dissertation or thesis. The supplemental files are provided "AS IS" without warranty. ProQuest is not responsible for the
content, format or impact on the supplemental file(s) on our system. in some cases, the file type may be unknown or
may be a .exe file. We recommend caution as you open such files.
Copyright of the original materials contained in the supplemental file is retained by the author and your access to the
supplemental files is subject to the ProQuest Terms and Conditions of use.
Depending on the size of the file(s) you are downloading, the system may take some time to download them. Please be