In two recent decisions, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit found violations of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in the conduct of federal agencies concerning the 1976 sale of outer continental shelf oil and gas leases in the Gulf of Alaska¹ and the approval of construction of a joint railroad line for the transportation of coal out of the Powder River Basin in Wyoming.² The court, however, refused to grant injunctive relief pending full compliance with NEPA's requirements.

Several cases recently decided by or pending before courts in New York,¹ California,² and Maine³ signal the reemergence of a difficult legal issue which is of major significance to state and local governments: the regulation and/or elimination of billboards. Although superficially not subject which stirs the emotions, outdoor advertising clearly possesses and frequently realizes the potential to degrade the visual quality of the human environment.

As the federal government increasingly concerns itself with activites posing environmental dangers, federal initiatives increasingly preempt the traditional exercise of local police power to curb these activities.¹ When conflicts between state and federal regulatory efforts inevitably arise, the courts are often called upon to determine the extent to which federal regulation has supplanted this local authority to restrict activities that cause local harm.

In order to promote westward expansion after the Civil War, the federal government adopted a policy of encouraging private extraction of the mineral riches lying west of the Mississippi River. This policy decision culminated in the passage of the General Mining Law of 1872,¹ which effectively legitimized existing mining claims on public domain² lands in the West and allowed any citizen to stake and hold a new claim with little difficulty.

As promised in the National Energy Plan and after months of delay and indecision, the Carter Administration has finally submitted to Congress a bill designed to hasten the process of licensing nuclear power plants. Entitled the Nuclear Siting and Licensing Act of 1978 (NSLA),¹ the legislation proposes reforms in all stages of this process, from the earliest utility planning to the continuing jurisdiction of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) over plant operations.

In a development with interesting new implications for wildlife protection law, two federal courts recently have ruled that a conviction for killing waterfowl protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA)¹ does not require proof of scienter, or an intent to kill. Defendants, who sprayed pesticides on farmland in one case² and inadvertently allowed pesticides to escape into a waste water pond in the other,³ were held criminally liable for a number of resulting but unintentional bird deaths.

In an opinion of widely disputed but potentially substantial impact on the law governing judicial review of administrative decision making, the United States Supreme Court on April 3 reversed two opinions of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit which had remanded to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) separate decisions to license two nuclear power plants. Amid stern criticism of the appeals court for overzealous activism amounting to "judicial intervention run riot," the High Court in Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v.

In a decision which promises to add momentum to a significant recent trend in zoning law, the Washington Supreme Court has invalidated a city's rezoning of farmland because the zoning body failed to consider or attempt to mitigate the adverse environmental and fiscal impacts of the action on the surrounding region. The court's ruling in Save a Valuable Environment v.

The extent to which the environmental impact statement (EIS) requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)¹ apply to federal actions abroad has become one of the most controversial NEPA questions now concerning the federal courts and agencies.

On May 15, 1978, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit tried its hand at resolving the thorny question of the applicability of the National Environmental Policy Act's (NEPA's) environmental impact statement (EIS) requirements to the federal budget process. The court ruled in Sierra Club v.