3.
Duty to Consider OpposingViews,
In Committee for Nuclear Responsibility v. Seaborgd,
3 ERC 1126 (D.C. Cir. 1971), the Court of Appeals
considered the duty to discuss opposing views under
NEPA.
The Court observed that in order for the 102
statement to meet adequately the “full disclosure"
requirement, it must "set forth the opposing views"
on siqnificant environmental issues raised by the
proposal.
To omit from the statement any reference
whatever to such views would be “arbitrary and
impermissible." Again, however, the court noted
that "only responsible views needbe included."
What is required is "a meaningfulreferencethat
identifies the problem at hand" for the agency
decisionmaker.. 3*ERC at 1129.
ete
-TT
- eases
=
att
-°..
<-
.
(Sl Sac
fee ee, Sam: fa te eee
San earlieraistaict ‘
: court -epinion, ‘StreSsed“this. -o>
- requirement im*evén- stronger terms:
~ -
ee
-¥
Where experts, or concerned public or
private organizations, or even ordinary
lay citizens, bring to the attention of
the responsible agency environmental
impacts which they contend will result
fromthe préposed agency action;-.then “.= 7
the §102 statement should set forth
these contentions and opinions, even if
the responsible agency finds no merit.
in them whatsoever. Of course, the
§102 statement can and should also
contain the opinion of the responsible
agency with respect to all such viewpoints. The record should be complete,
EDF v.
1267
Corps of Engineers,
(E.D. Ark. 1971).
a
2 ERC 1260,
;
<=