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, ; <=