RESPONDENT: Scenic Rivers Association of Oklahoma
LOCATION: Metropolitan Police Department
DOCKET NO.: 75-510
DECIDED BY: Burger Court (1975-1981)
LOWER COURT: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
CITATION: 426 US 776 (1976)
ARGUED: Apr 27, 1976
DECIDED: Jun 24, 1976
Andrew T. Dalton -
F. Paul Thieman, Jr. -
Howard E. Shapiro - for petitioners Carla A
Facts of the case
Media for Flint Ridge Development Company v. Scenic Rivers Association of OklahomaAudio Transcription for Oral Argument - April 27, 1976 in Flint Ridge Development Company v. Scenic Rivers Association of Oklahoma
Audio Transcription for Opinion Announcement - June 24, 1976 in Flint Ridge Development Company v. Scenic Rivers Association of Oklahoma
Warren E. Burger:
The judgments and opinion of the Court in 75-510, Flint Ridge Development Company against Scenic Rivers Association and 75-545, Carla Hills, the Secretary of Housing against Scenic Rivers Association will be announced by Mr. Justice Marshall.
These cases are here on writ certiorari to the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
They present the question of whether the Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development must file an environmental impact statement pursuant to the National Environment Policy Act, prior to allowing a disclosure statement filed with the secretary pursuant to the Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act in order to become effective.
The District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma ruled that the secretary must file such a statement and the Court of Appeals affirmed.
In an opinion filed with the clerk today, we reverse.
NEPA instructs all federal agencies to comply with it's impact statement requirement “to the fullest extent possible.”
Where a clear and unavoidable conflict in statutory authority exists, however, NEPA must yield.
Here we find that the secretary cannot comply with a duty to allow disclosure statements to become effective within 30 days after the filing and the same -- and simultaneously prepare an environment impact statement.
Accordingly the impact statement requirement is inapplicable to this situation.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed and these cases are remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Mr. Justice Powell took no part in the consideration or decision of these cases.
Warren E. Burger:
Thank you, Mr. Justice Marshall.