Infrastructure Past, Present, and Future Casebook/Unita Basin Railway

Introduction

This is a case study about the Uinta Basin Railway by Yulisa Escobar, Daya, Kevin, and Jermiah as part of the Infrastructure past, present and future: GOVT 490-003 / CEIE 499-005 Spring 2025 at George Mason University. Instructed by Jonathon Gifford.

Overview

Uinta Basin Railway Map

The Uinta Basin Railway is a proposed Rail with a length of 88-miles which is located in Utah. This project aims to connect the oil rich Uinta Basin into the national rail network. The rail will primarily be used to transport oil and goods in a good condition to different places. Over the past few years the project has been through a lot of legal challenges.

The Seven County Infrastructure Coalition is the organization that is in charge of this project. Over the course of 2021, the Surface Transportation Board gave its approval to this project, which has an estimated value of $1.5 billion. In the year 2022, the United States Forest Service provided its support to the project. Environmental and community concerns regarding wildfire danger, spills of oil, and climate change led to decisions given by a federal appeals court in 2023 that revoked the project's approval, alleging an inadequate environmental evaluation. This decision was made despite the fact that the project had received plenty of support. The matter was brought before the Supreme Court of the United States in 2024, and a final decision is anticipated to be handed down in 2025. This decision has the potential to not only settle the status of the railway, but also to have an impact on future infrastructure projects that are governed by federal environmental law.

Annotated List of Actors

- Seven County Infrastructure Coalition (SCIC): A public organization pushing for the railway to improve the economy of eastern Utah.

- Rio Grande Pacific Corporation: The private company selected to operate the railway.

- Drexel Hamiltion Infrastructure Partners (DHIP): A private firm helping with funding and construction.

- Surface Transportation Board (STB): The federal agency that approved the project in 2021.

- U.S. Forest Service: Approved the railway's route across national forest land.

- Center for Biological Diversity and Sierra Club: Environmental groups leading lawsuits against the railway.

- Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation: Supporting the railway for economic benefits but also concerned about land and environmental impacts.

- Bureau of Land Management (BLM): Manages federal land affected by the railway's path.

Timeline

• 2018: The Uinta Basin Railway project started.
• 2019: The project environmental review process begin with a Notice of Intent (NEPA). During the same year public meetings and comments took place.
• 2020: They released a environmental draft document for review, along with public meetings and comments.
• 2021:The final environmental document, along with public comments, was released (Final EIS). At the end of the year, The Surface Transportation Board approved the Uinta rail project.
• 2024: Eagle County in Colorado and the Center for Biological Diversity filed petitions in the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit challenging the permits.
• 2024-25: The Supreme Court agreed to hear this case during its 2024-25 term, which starts in the fall.

Institutional Arrangements

Unita Basin Railway project in Utah involves a complex key actors and institutional arrangements that reflect the intersection of local development, federal regulation, and private industry interests. At the core of the project is the Seven County Infrastructure Coalition (SCIC) a regional government body composed of seven eastern Utah counties which has championed the railway as a means to boost economic development by facilitating the transport of crude oil out of the landlocked Uinta Basin. The coalition contracted with Drexel Hamilton Infrastructure Partners, a private equity firm, to finance and oversee the development of the railway through a public-private partnership model. On the federal level, the Surface Transportation Board (STB) plays a significant regulatory role, as it is responsible for approving the construction and operation of new railroads under the interstate. The STB issued its approval in 2021 after a multi-year review, which included environmental impact studies under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), conducted in coordination with the U.S. Forest Service, and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). institutionally, the project demonstrates a layered governance structure involving federal agencies, regional coalitions, state permitting processes, private investors, and civil society organizations. The multi-jurisdictional framework has resulted in both collaboration and legal conflict, illustrating how large infrastructure projects like Unita Basin Railway navigate regulatory complexity , political pressure, and competing stakeholder interests.

Policy Issues

Uinta Basin Railway faces several complex policy challenges that reflect broader tensions between infrastructure development, environmental protection, and tribal sovereignty. A key issue is the conflict between economic growth and environmental regulation. While proponents argue the railway will boost the region's oil transport capacity and economic prospects, opponents highlight the concerns over increased greenhouse gas emissions, risk to wildlife habitats, and long-term climate impacts. These concerns have led to lawsuits and delays, illustrating the difficulty of advancing fossil fuel infrastructure in an era of heightened climate policy scrutiny. The land use and permitting policy: This policy present obstacles, as the railway traverses federally managed lands requiring complex interagency approvals and environmental reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Critics argue that the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) approved by the Surface Transportation Board (STB) failed to fully consider these long-term climate and environmental consequences. As a result, multiple lawsuits have been filled by environmental groups and local governments, challenging the adequacy of the review process. These legal and regulatory hurdles have delayed the project and could set important precedents regarding how fossil fuel-related infrastructure is assessed under federal law, particularly in the context of the Biden administration's climate goals. In addition to environmental concerns, the railway raises policy challenges related to federal land use and tribal sovereignty. The involvement of the Ute Indian Tribe introduces another layer of policy sensitivity, as federal agencies must navigate tribal consultation requirements while balancing development goals with respect for indigenous sovereignty and land rights. U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Lands, triggering a complex permitting process. These dynamics challenges of reconciling federal infrastructure priorities with tribal self determination and environmental stewardship; and not only shape the pace and scope of the project but also set precedents for how similar infrastructure efforts will be evaluated in the future.

Performance Analysis

Evaluating the Uinta Basin Railway through Elinor Ostrom’s five performance criteria offers a clearer understanding of the project’s strengths and weaknesses.

Looking at efficiency, the railway has the potential to provide a more efficient method of transporting oil from the Uinta Basin. Compared to long-haul trucking, rail transport can move larger volumes of oil at a lower cost per barrel and with fewer carbon emissions per unit of oil transported. In theory, this could streamline regional logistics and open up new markets. However, efficiency depends heavily on consistent demand for oil. If global oil prices fall or if demand shifts toward renewable energy, the railway could become an underused asset, making its construction and maintenance costs harder to justify.

Fiscal equivalence is where the project faces tougher questions. Fiscal equivalence means that the people who pay for a project should be the ones who benefit from it. In the case of the Uinta Basin Railway, most of the financial burden is being shifted onto taxpayers and public institutions through tax-exempt bonds, while the primary beneficiaries would be private oil companies and investors. This creates a fairness problem. Local governments argue the railway would bring jobs and growth to the region, but critics point out that national taxpayers are subsidizing a project that may not serve broader public interests.

When considering redistribution, the railway again raises concerns. The benefits are highly concentrated in a small number of players: the oil industry, construction firms, local Utah counties, and investors. Broader national or even statewide benefits are unclear. Environmental costs, like increased greenhouse gas emissions or risks of oil spills, could be distributed more widely, impacting people far from the Uinta Basin. This imbalance between who benefits and who bears the risks makes redistribution one of the project’s major weaknesses.

Accountability has also been a key issue throughout the project’s development. Although the Surface Transportation Board and U.S. Forest Service conducted environmental reviews, lawsuits have revealed that many believe these reviews were not detailed or transparent enough. Critics argue that important long-term risks, such as climate change impacts and the potential for wildfires caused by increased oil shipments, were not fully addressed. The fact that a federal appeals court overturned the project’s approval shows that legal accountability mechanisms are working, but it also highlights that earlier stages of review may have lacked the thoroughness needed to build public trust.

Finally, adaptability measures how well a project or institution can adjust to new information, changing conditions, or unforeseen problems. So far, the Uinta Basin Railway project has struggled to adapt. Legal challenges, environmental opposition, and changes in federal climate policy have exposed weaknesses in the project’s initial planning. Instead of adjusting its scope or conducting more robust environmental reviews in response to criticisms, project leaders largely stayed the course, leading to court delays and possible project cancellation. Moving forward, infrastructure planners might need to build more flexible timelines and adaptive strategies into major projects, especially those that are vulnerable to legal and environmental challenges.

Lessons Learned

The Uinta Basin Railway served several important lessons for future infrastructure policy and implementation. This underscores the need for early and meaningful stakeholder engagement, particularly with tribal nations and local communities, to ensure that development projects align with broader social, environmental and economic priorities. This project also illustrates the imporatnce of comprehensive and transparent environmental review processes that can withstand legal scrutiny and build public trust. Moreover, the controversy surrounding the railway demonstrates the growing impact of climate policy on infrastructure planning, signaling that future projects must increasingly account for long-term environmental consequences and align with national decarbonization goals. The railway's delays and legal challenges reveal the complexity of navigating multi-agency coordination and permitting on federal lands, suggesting a need for streamlined yet accountable processes to balance infrastructure development with environmental and cultural protection.

Funding and Finances

The Uinta Basin Railway is supported through a public-private partnership, implying collaboration between governmental entities and businesses for funding and construction of the project. The Seven County Infrastructure Coalition (SCIC) represents eastern Utah's local governments and is in charge of the project, while Drexel Hamilton Infrastructure Partners (DHIP), a private firm, has been selected to manage funding and construction. Rio Grande Pacific Corporation will manage the railway once it's finished. According to estimates, the whole cost of the project will fall somewhere in the range of $1.5 billion to $2.9 billion. In order to assist in funding it, the SCIC was granted permission to issue up to two billion dollars in tax-exempt private activity bonds. These bonds are a method of soliciting financial support from investors by providing them with a reduced tax rate on the interest that they earn. A maximum of 350,000 barrels of oil are anticipated to be transported by the railway on a daily basis, and the funds that are generated from the transportation of this oil would be used to reimburse the investors. Nevertheless, there are worries that the project's financial success could be affected by variations in the price of oil as well as unresolved legal problems.

Discussion Questions

- How should federal agencies balance tribal sovereignty when approving infrastructure projects on indigenous lands?

- Is it fair for taxpayers to help fund private projects like the Uinta Basin Railway through public bonds? Why or why not?

- How can future infrastructure projects better navigate environmental laws like NEPA?

- How might future climate policies affect the viability of projects like the Uinta Basin Railway?

Acknowledgement

This casebook is a case study on Uinta Basin Railway by Yulisa Escobar, Daya, Kevin, and Jermiah, created as part of Infrastructure Past, Present and Future: GOVT 490 (Synthesis Seminar for Policy & Government) and CEIE 499 (Special Topics in Civil Engineering) at George Mason University. This project is under the instruction of Professor Jonathan Gifford at the Schar School of Policy and Government and the Volgenau School of Engineering’s Sid and Reva Dewberry Department of Civil, Environmental, and Infrastructure Engineering.