National Wildlife Federation v. Snow

561 F.2d 227 (D.C. Cir. 1976)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

The challenged regulation permits state highway departments to be reimbursed for right-of-way parcels that they have acquired in advance of any public hearing or environmental analysis of the location or desirability of the planned highway. Such acquisitions are allowed in 'exceptional circumstances,' defined as 'hardship acquisitions' and acquisitions involving 'protective buying.' Hardship acquisitions are purchases necessary to 'alleviate particular hardship to a property owner . . . because of an inability to sell his property.' Protective buying is buying necessary to 'prevent imminent development and increased costs of a parcel which would tend to limit the choice of highway alternatives.' To make the advance acquisition authorization operational, Congress in 1968 established a right-of-way revolving fund and authorized advances to a state agency - to be charged against the state's future federal highway fund allocations - for advance acquisitions of right-of-way parcels. The 'advance' acquisitions were limited in time terms -to parcels acquired no less than 2 nor more than 10 years prior to actual construction. Congress amended Section 128(a)'s public hearing requirement, to mandate consideration of social and environmental effects of a highway location and its consistency with community urban planning objectives. There was no provision whether, in order to give effect to the public hearing section of the Act, a hearing is a necessary precondition to any advance acquisition otherwise authorized by the Act. P brought this case to challenge these regulations. P alleged that the regulations should have been promulgated in accordance with the notice and comment rulemaking requirements. The District Court held that the regulations were exempt from those requirements. Ps also alleged that the regulation permitting the advance acquisition of highway right-of-way parcels, without any public hearing on issues of location or any environmental impact statement, violated the public participation requirement of the Federal Aid Highway Act, the National Environmental Policy, and the Clean Air Act. The District Court dismissed holding that the issue was not ripe for decision. P appealed.