In the early 1960s, biologists first publized the value of wetlands in coastal zone ecosystems. But proponents of preservation of Maryland's marshes were faced with a problem.

Maryland's Chesapeake Bay waters afford an almost perfect environment for the growing of oysters.¹ Vast expanses of bottom are covered with waters of hospitable temperatures and salinities. These sheltered waters afford relative freedom from predators and diseases that have substantially impaired oyster production in Long Island Sound, Delaware Bay, and Virginia waters.

On January 1, 1970, as his first official act of the new decade, the President signed into law the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). That symbolic step has highlighted a year and a half of unprecedented development of the law relating to protection of the environment.

The National Environmental Policy Act is two years old this month. In its short lifetime, NEPA has passed rapidly through several phases of administrative and judicial interpretation.¹ In retrospect, none of the court cases involving NEPA appears more important than Calvert Cliffs' Coordinating Committee v. AEC, 1 ELR 20346 (D.C. Cir. 1971).

The California Supreme Court has restated and clarified the law concerning the protection of lands subject to the public trust.¹ See Marks v. Whitney, 2 ELR 20049 (Cal. Dec. 9, 1971). For moving papers available from ELI, see ELR Dig. [187]. In Marks, the court explicitly expanded the public trust notion to include the preservation of lands in their natural state. Equally important, the court found that any member of the public has standing to raise the issue of threatened impairment of lands subject to the trust.

Litigation over the proposed construction of Interstate 40 through Overton Park in Memphis continues to make new law concerning judicial review of informal administrative action that affects the environment.¹ Attorneys will recall that on February 26, 1970, the federal district court for the Western District of Tennessee granted summary judgment for defendants, finding that Secretary Volpe had adequately considered alternatives to the use of parkland for the highway. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. 1 ELR 20053.

A recent Interior Department Board of Lands Appeals holding stands outside the current trend of federal agencies to provide wider protection for the public lands against private commercial uses. In In Re Alfred E. Koenig, 2 ELR 30002 (October 26, 1971), the Interior Board of Land Appeals held that the mining laws of the United States give the owner of a mining claim a nonexclusive right of access to the claim across public lands. Consequently, the claim owner does not have to obtain a special use permit before constructing an access road.

This month, ELR publishes the procedural compliance guidelines prepared by federal agencies to guide their implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). See Statutory and Administrative Materials, Table of Contents, at ELR 40000. These guidelines were prepared pursuant to Executive Order No. 11514, ELR 45003, and Guidelines issued by the Council on Environmental Quality on April 23, 1971, ELR 46049.

One of the earliest victories for environmentalists was achieved in Citizens Committee for the Hudson Valley v. Volpe, 302 F. Supp. 283, 1 ELR 20001 (S.D.N.Y. 1969). In that case, New York State was barred from constructing a highway along the Hudson River because necessary authorization, including the consent of Congress, had not been obtained for two structures that were to support part of the road bed—a dike along the river and a causeway linking the dike to an existing bridge across the river.

In Kalur v. Resor, 1 ELR 20637 (D.D.C. Dec. 21, 1971), the district court held that the Refuse Act Permit Program (RAPP), as implemented in regulations promulgated by the Army Corps of Engineers, conflicted with the 1899 Refuse Act and with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.