Recent scientific evidence has made it clear that air pollution emissions may have environmental effects in regions much more distant from the source than previously believed possible. Oxides of sulfur and nitrogen produced in the burning of fossil fuels and in smelting operations may be carried hundreds or even thousands of miles through the atmosphere, chemically transformed in the process, and eventually returned to earth as sulfuric and nitric acids, often in rain or snow.

Cases of toxic substances pollution magnify complex legal and scientific problems in obtaining compensation through tort remedies. The complete report from which this monograph is excerpted addresses some central issues concerning recovery for toxic substances-related harms under six state tort systems. In the past decade, interest in compensation for environmental harm has grown along with awareness of the ecological stresses of development and conservation.

Section 101 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)¹ sets forth a clear statement of national goals and policies to protect and enhance the quality of our environment.

The principal statutes governing the administration of the federal lands¹ contain a mandate for multiple purpose management that conflicts with efforts by the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), operating under a variety of statutory directives, to identify and protect lands under review for wilderness classification.

An array of interest groups are now staking out and fortifying their positions in anticipation of a legislative struggle that promises to be even more arduous than the recent debate over the Alaska Lands Act—the reauthorization of the Clean Air Act.¹ Appropriations for implementing the Act extend only through October of this year and thus must be extended by that date.² However, in the upcoming debate authorization issues will be only a side-show.

On February 17, President Reagan took the most significant step yet in his administration's campaign to relieve the private sector of the burden of complying with federal regulations. Executive Order No. 12291,¹ entitled simply "Federal Regulation," is designed

to reduce the burdens of existing and future regulations, increase agency accountability for regulatory actions, provide for presidential oversight of the regulatory process, minimize duplication and conflict of regulations, and insure well-reasoned regulations. . . .²

With visions of polluted streams and mutilated mountain sides in Appalachia,¹ Congress enacted the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA),² to impose uniform federal reclamation standards on surface coal mining operations. The standards are to be enforced primarily by the states with backup authority by the Department of the Interior. In addition, the Act provides numerous and unique opportunities for public participation in the regulatory process.

In the 1977 Clean Air Act Amendments, Congress directed the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to establish a program for protecting visibility in pristine areas.¹ This action was a response to fears that the unique scenic vistas so much a part of the nation's heritage, especially in the West, would be irrevocably lost.

The extent, if any, to which the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)¹ applies to major federal actions affecting the environments of other countries remains one of the most persistent and perplexing questions regarding the scope of the Act's requirements. The courts, the agencies, and even Congress have grappled with the matter for years but have failed to reach a resolution with either broad support or lasting durability.

Each year hundreds of thousands of cancer deaths in the United States are attributed to exposure to the increasing quantities and types of hazardous chemicals present in the environment, including the workplace.¹ For a variety of reasons, victims of cancer caused by these substances face great obstacles in recovering damages from manufacturers, distributors, and users of the various products. Probably, the most important is that little is known about the biochemical processes that lead to the formation of cancer.