The State Environmental Policy Act in Washington (State) mandates EISs for actions that may significantly impact the environment. It is a truly beautiful statement of the need to protect and restore our environment.

It does not mandate or prohibit any specific action. It does not give the power for citizens to block any (or all) proposed developments. Rather, it is, at the core, a public disclosure requirement. It simply requires governments to identify the potential environmental consequences of their actions. No more. But that it the ultimate power. A public informed can be a public concerned.

Unfortunately, the Act is more often ignored that observed. Few judges know anything of substance about it. Governments, particularly those in areas dominated by developers, have developed sophisticated procedures to ignore the Act and, worse, to prevent citizens from challenging such evasions. Such governments routinely issue statements of "non-significance" regarding their actions. It is then up to citizens to appeal. Unfortunately, citizens must appeal to the very government entities that issue such statements before they can appeal to the courts. For the "privilege" of appealing to the local governments, citizens can be charged up to $500. If they should have the funds and then choose to go to court after the highly predictable rejection by the government entity, they must then hire a lawyer and endure endless maneuvers by governments to extend and prolong the process.
If they should be so fortunate as to have a case proceed to judgment, they may well encounter judges who assign a very low priority to environmental law and have, in a distressing number of instances, never even bothered to read the relevant legislation. This then means the even larger costs and stress of appeals to higher and, presumably, better informed judges.

So it is a pleasant shock to see that a few judges in a few places do recognize both the survival imperative of a healthy environment and, of equal importance, a healthy respect for law.