noting railroad's prior statements from legislative audit about nature of agreement
How later courts described this case
- noting railroad's prior statements from legislative audit about nature of agreement
- collecting cases and stating that “[t]here is a presumption against construing a statute so as to render it ineffective”
- agency considers ban on DDT
- "Courts should make every effort to reconcile allegedly conflicting statutes and to give effect to the language and intent of both, so long as doing so does not deprive one or the other of its essential meaning."
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
WILKEY, Circuit Judge
(concurring in part and dissenting in part):
I concur in Parts I, II, III and IV of the court’s opinion. Regrettably, the would-be builders of the Alaska Pipeline sought from the courts rather than Congress clearly necessary changes in the statutory restrictions on the use of public lands.
I dissent from Part V of the court’s opinion insofar as it relates to the Environmental Impact Statement. I agree with Judge MacKinnon that it was sufficient, as the District Court found, that to the extent that any alternatives were presented adequate consideration was given to them, and that this whole vital project would be expedited (in whatever form it eventually takes) by our so ruling now.