NEPA watchers who were asked in late 1972 what they thought the chances were that the courts would review agency project decisions on their merits under NEPA's substantive provisions usually gave a pessimistic answer. By February, 1973, however, three (and possibly four) circuit courts appeared to have resolved the issue in favor of such review. In his article, The Substantive Right to Environmental Quality Under the National Environmental Policy Act (3 ELR 50028).

A 1972 decision of the Supreme Court of Wisconsin is rapidly becoming a landmark case in the law of land use regulation. In Just v. Marinette County, the court ruled that governmental regulation restricting the use of land to "indigenous and natural" uses is not a taking that requires compensation. Regulations that preserve presently enjoyed public rights are an exercise of the police power, said the court, while those that secure new benefits are a use of eminent domain.

The Environmental Protection Agency recently established a policy to preserve the nation's wetlands and to protect wetland ecosystems from destruction through wastewater or nonpoint source discharges. It need hardly be pointed out that wetlands, which include marshes, swamps, bogs, and other low-lying areas, have tremendous environmental value. They provide habitats for important fur-bearing mammals and many species of fish and waterfowl, moderate extremes in water flow, aid in water purification, maintain and recharge groundwater, and offer unique recreational opportunities.

In Los Angeles, a city perhaps more afflicted with air pollution than any other in the United States, citizens' groups are seeking a broader application of the Federal Communication Commissions' fairness doctrine that would brand all automobile advertising as a practice that in itself raises a controversial issue of public importance.If the groups are successful, Los Angeles television stations will have to provide air time for pointing out the environmental consequences of purchasing automobiles, as urged in commercials.

EPA recently issued final regulations implementing the discharge permit requirements of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.¹ The permit system is the basic enforcement mechanism for achieving the effluent and water quality standards established by the Act. The discharge of any pollutant into navigable waters requires a permit, either from the federal government or an EPA-approved state program. So far, California is the only state to have had its program approved.

A Comment in last month's ELR¹ described the decision of the District of Columbia Circuit in New England Power v. Federal Power Commission,² which struck down the FPC's attempt to make itself self-sustaining under the 1952 Act by assessing a proportional share of the agency's costs to every company subject to FPC regulation.

The discussion of the Convention on Nature Protection and Wild Life Preservation in the Western Hemisphere, begun by Thomas Guilbert in an article in the May issue of ELR, is completed this month in an article at 3 ELR 50044. Readers of the first article will recognize the Convention as a broadly phrased treaty including wilderness preservation provisions that Mr. Guilbert marshalled in support of the recent decision in Izaak Walton League v. St. Clair.

The Federal Highway Administration (FHwA) recently promulgated additional regulations for public hearings on highway locations and design and for consideration of social, economic, and environmental effects in the development of federal-aid highway projects.¹ These regulations codify earlier policies and procedures contained in Policy and Procedure Memorandum (PPM) 20-8² and Instructional Memorandums (IM) 20-3-72 and 20-4-72.³ The substance of those earlier documents has been brought over into the codification wit

(See Comment, Litigation Under the Clean Air Act, 3 ELR 10007, and Table, 3 ELR 10022.)

The decision of the Supreme Court last year in Sierra Club v. Morton¹ generated fears that the recent acceptance of broadened standing in environmental cases might be reversed. In its June 18th decision in United States v. SCRAP, the Court resolved some of the ambiguity inherent in Sierra Club v. Morton in favor of the trend toward liberalized standing requirements. The same day, however, the Tenth Circuit handed down a surprising decision in Natural Resources Defense Council v.