>>What they'll say is you can't build it right there. Then you say okay, how about over there? Nope that won't work either. Then you say, okay how about this other place? Nope.
Yes, you got it exactly right.
The arguments they make in their landscapes is always, "Well, this place has a drawback, so we can't do it here." Ignoring, of course, the fact that every place on Earth will have some form of drawback, and that a lot of the time, the people building the railway line or solar plant or whatever have situated it on the most optimal site they could find, balancing a lot of factors.
The fact that judges allow these suits to proceed let alone win indicates that we desperately need reform of how the judicial system conducts reviews of major projects. I'm not saying that we should throw out all lawsuits, as some have merits, but rather that judges should look more holistically at the process, and not just rule on the narrow question of, 'Will 25 lizards be killed by this solar plant?'