The Supreme Court's decision earlier this month in Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe, __ U.S. __, 1 ELR 20110 (Mar. 2, 1971), is important to the developing field of environmental law on two levels. By its construction of two environmental protection sections of the federal highway statutes,¹ the Court has substantially restricted the availability of parklands and similar "green havens"² as sites for interstate highways.

Ohio v. Wyandotte, 1 ELR 20124, decided by the Supreme Court on March 23, 1971, puts to rest expectations that the Court might actively employ its original jurisdiction to hear environmental lawsuits brought by a state against citizens of another state.

Army Corps environmental statements rejected, and NEPA §102 favorably construed in Gillham Dam decision

The Soap and Detergent Association, a trade association for detergent manufacturers, recently filed a suit against the city of Akron, Ohio, Soap and Detergent Association v. Akron, 1 ELR Dig.

Two brief companion decisions of a unanimous Supreme Court, decided March 24, 1971, are of great importance to the determination of federal water rights in western states. Although deceptively simple on the surface, the opinions reaffirm the right of the United States to reserve water for federal lands independent of state water law.

While environmental groups challenging federal administrative actions have overcome judicial obstacles to standing in most of the federal circuit courts of appeal, the Ninth Circuit stands fast. Not only to contradictions and ambiguities exist between the Ninth Circuit and other circuit courts, but they exist among district courts within the Ninth Circuit itself as well. There the situation is likely to remain in limbo until the Supreme Court, which has granted certiorari in Sierra Club v. Hickel, supra, chooses to resolve the standing issue with finality. See Sierra Club v.

In its decision in Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe, __ U.S. __, 1 ELR 20110 (Mar. 2, 1971), the Supreme Court attempted to analyze and clarify the role of a reviewing court before which discretionary administrative action has been challenged.

On April 14, 1971, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia denied plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction in Environmental Defense Fund v. Hardin (Mirex), 1 ELR 20207. See also 1 ELR Dig. [44]. Plaintiffs sought to bar the Secretary of Agriculture from undertaking a program to control the imported fire ant in several southeastern states by aerial application of the pesticide Mirex. Defendant's motion to dismiss was earlier denied December 1, 1970.

On October 1, 1970, the Thomas J. Anderson, Gordon Rockwell Environmental Protection Act of 1970 took effect in the state of Michigan. See text of the act at 1 ELR 43001. Since that time, 13 lawsuits have been brought under the act, six of which were brought by units of state and county government. The first action filed under the act, a taxpayer's class action, has reached decision in a county court, which found portions of the act unconstitutional. See Roberts v. Michigan, 1 ELR 20227 (Mich. Cir. Ct. Ingham Co., May 4, 1971).

Among strategies for the improved abatement of pollution, Congress has overwhelmingly preferred the traditional regulatory approach, as exemplified in the standard-setting mechanisms of existing legislation for federal water and air pollution control. However, in recent years, proposals for federal legislation that creates economic incentives of various kinds have attracted congressional attention.