noting on rehearing that "we overlooked" an argument made "in [the] briefs on appeal"
How later courts described this case
- noting on rehearing that "we overlooked" an argument made "in [the] briefs on appeal"
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
JAMES M. CARTER,
Circuit Judge, concurring specially:
I concur in the above opinion. Hancock v. Train, 426 U.S. 167 , 96 S.Ct. 2006 , 48 L.Ed.2d 555 (1976), and Environmental Protection Agency v. California ex rel. State Water Resources Control Board, 426 U.S. 200 , 96 S.Ct. 2022 , 48 L.Ed.2d 578 (1976), make improper, under existing statutes, any state requirements in the nature of permits. The cases hold that is is for the Congress to explicitly determine whether to subject federal agencies to state permits.
I would suggest, however, that it may be one thing for the Congress to provide that a state may require a permit to assure proper air or water quaity standards of a federally-owned or operated installation; it is quite another thing to permit a state to require permits for the very operation of such a facility. I cannot envision the Congress providing that the states, by a permit process, may control the operation of federally constructed, funded, and oprated water and power projects.