Since Mike Pechner brought up the issue of Lake's defense of the NCRA's appeal, maybe they should read the law carefully.

If NWP Co. owned the track and were funding the repair of the track, then Mike and Lake would have a point. Then STB jurisdiction would dominate. The STB could impose NEPA (or federal EIS) but they have no legal standing to impose state CEQA requirements. And Mike is right that when there have been repairs privately funded on operating rail lines, the STB has not imposed NEPA analyses.

But this legal argument really doesn't apply in this case. (It is what the NCRA is arguing but my interpretation of case history is they are going to lose badly at the appellate level.) The CEQA/environmental analysis requirements stem from the state funding. It has nothing to do with federal regulations. It has to do with a state-funded track repair project, which this clearly is. Also, the state has done EIRs on other state-funded rail improvements. (Mike knows this.)

Here's another question. If NCRA legal counsel thought that the NCRA would be exempt, why did
he claim that under state law the statute of limitations applied? If state law was irrelevant why didn't he just make the claim to begin with and be done with it?