The recent passage of two bills by the United States House of Representatives¹ is forcing environmentalists to reassess the importance of requiring that environmental impact statements be prepared by the "responsible federal official," rather than by state agencies. Both bills would in effect permit state officials to prepare NEPA impact statements, so long as federal officials involve themselves in the process in a supervisory capacity.

One bill, H.R. 3130, reported favorably by the Committee on Merchant Marines and Fisheries, would amend NEPA itself, by adding a clause which provides that environmental impact statements "shall not be deemed to be legally insufficient solely by reason of having been prepared by a state official or agency" and requires that the responsible federal official furnish guidance, participate in preparing the statement, and evaluate it independently prior to its approval and adoption. The other, H.R. 3787, would amend Title 23 of the United States Code (a compilation of the various highway acts) by providing that impact statements prepared on federal aid highway projects by state officials in New York, Vermont, and Connecticut (the three states in the Second Circuit, the one Circuit that strictly construes the NEPA mandate that the EIS be prepared by the "responsible federal official") shall be deemed to be prepared by the Secretary of Transportation for the purposes of NEPA, once subjected to analysis, evaluation, and adoption by the Secretary. Both bills apply to all impact statements prepared after January 1, 1970. The measures are now before the Senate, where the conflicting and redundant approaches in the House-passed bills are expected to be resolved in favor of H.R. 3130.²