[dpierce9]

This is from 2016: https://www.bizjournals.com/sanantonio/blog/eagle-ford-shale...

It suggests the FAA’s role is consideration of launch failure and safety on the proposed plant. FERC also evaluated the proposal. FERC doesn’t really do environmental reviews.

Here is a document from April which at the time said EPA had no comment on the draft environmental impact statement as part of an interagency process: https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2021-03/SAR%20-%2...

In short, it looks as if all the usual players are engaged here. While I suspect the FAA has considered the impact of Oil and gas infrastructure on flight paths and airports, I would guess their involvement in this kind of process is an extra layer, not a circumvention.

[speedybird]

This makes sense. If the EPA is slacking and rubber-stamping things, that warrants investigation and criticism. But I'm not buying the angle that the FAA should be expected to enforce the EPA's rules. That's what the EPA is for.

[criley2]

The EPA was utterly gutted over the past 4 years. The sad part is that it takes much longer to rebuild than it does to tear down. The EPA being unable or unwilling to enforce environmental protections is by design.

[reddog]

Utterly gutted? How do you figure?

The EPA headcount was 14,779 in 2016 and was 14,172 in 2020.

https://www.epa.gov/planandbudget/budget

[speedybird]

Supposing the EPA is gutted as you suggest (my sibling comment suggests otherwise), it surely still has more capability and expertise when it comes to environmental regulation than the FAA. I think expecting the FAA to act as a surrogate EPA is expecting too much.