A California state court recently interpreted the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),¹ one of the strongest environmental statutes in the country, in a manner which apparently limits the utility of that statute as a powerful substantive tool for environmental protection.Like the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)² on which it is modeled, CEQA requires that an environmental impact report (EIR) be prepared for proposed government and government-licensed projects affecting the environment.

In contrast to the environmental record of the 95th Congress in its first session, which displays an emphasis on pollution prevention, the focus of attention in the second session clearly shifted toward natural resources conservation. Though some significant accomplishments in this area were recorded in 1978, the luster of these gains was dimmed by lack of action on several important issues and the failure to fully protect environmental values in some instances.

In a classic legislative "quick fix," the 95th Congress on the next to last day of its second session rushed through to passage an amendment to §311 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA)¹ that breathes new life into the federal program for the regulation of hazardous substances spills into the nation's waters. The program had been plunged into a state of suspended animation by a recent federal district court decision in Manufacturing Chemists Association v.

Whether federal agencies have implicit power to fund the participation of particular groups or parties in their administrative proceedings in the absence of explicit statutory authorization remains one of the most controversial issues in administrative law.¹ The Second Circuit's en banc ruling last year in Greene County Planning Board v.

In a dramatic announcement on December 1, 1978,¹ President Carter made good on his pledge that protection of the environmental values of the vast "national interest" lands² in Alaska is the most important environmental goal of his administration.

Given that legislative and administrative controls on environmental pollution involve considerable economic sacrifices, a crucial underlying question is whether the prices paid for environmental protection by taxpayers, consumers, and industry are justified. Lawmakers have traditionally eschewed this difficult question, dismissing it as unanswerable. Within the last year or so, however, environmental, health, and safety regulations have been widely blamed for contributing to a uniquely pernicious and malignant economic malady: Inflation.

The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, signed into law on August 3, 1977, authorized the Department of the Interior to issue regulations implementing the Act's environmental protection provisions.¹ The Secretary of the Interior was required to promulgate interim regulations within 90 days of the date of enactment² and to issue permanent regulations within one year.³

The search for a viable national policy toward the marine environment has been an elusive one.

On November 29, 1978, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) opened a new chapter in the implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)¹ by issuing final regulations² establishing substantially revised NEPA compliance procedures. The rules replace CEQ's 1973 Guidelines,³ which some agencies and reviewing courts considered merely advisory,⁴ with binding requirements that envision a set of uniform and streamlined procedures applicable to all federal agencies.

During the past year, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has come under increasing pressure to rectify what some segments of industry, the public, and the Carter Administration see as the excessive compliance costs and overly intrusive character of certain environmental standards and requirements.