A series of recent judicial decisions under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)¹ sheds light on an issue that has evaded serious scrutiny for the better part of the statute's existence: can the representations made within an environmental impact statement (EIS) be enforced? Stated differently, when a federal agency fails either to construct a project as "promised" within the EIS or to contain adverse environmental impacts within the prescribed levels, may injured parties obtain relief in federal court?

Suppose that an EIS concerning the building of a dam were to provide that its environmental impacts would be mitigated by the enhancement and preservation of a large wetlands area. If the construction agency were to scrap the mitigation plan after the dam had been built, would affected parties have legal recourse? In three cases involving similar circumstances, plaintiffs have sought a range of equitable remedies from the courts, including restitution, project redesign, and damages. Although the bare results clearly favor the defendants, the judicial responses are best described as confused. A broader, more careful examination of the issues reveals that while NEPA itself is silent on the matter, the availability of carefully tailored post-project relief would serve to protect the integrity of the NEPA process without unduly impinging on agency prerogatives or activities.