A series of recent judicial decisions under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)¹ sheds light on an issue that has evaded serious scrutiny for the better part of the statute's existence: can the representations made within an environmental impact statement (EIS) be enforced? Stated differently, when a federal agency fails either to construct a project as "promised" within the EIS or to contain adverse environmental impacts within the prescribed levels, may injured parties obtain relief in federal court?

In its October Term, 1979, the United States Supreme Court was unusually active in the area of environmental law. For the most part, however, its record over the last year can be viewed as a series of housekeeping measures which resolved important but largely noncontroversial and narrow points of law. Indeed, in two of its eagerly awaited opinions, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration benzene standard and the California open-space zoning cases, it appeared to postpone rather than lay to rest the issues.

Amidst growing concern over the ocean dumping of increasing volumes of wastes of all kinds, Congress enacted the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972,¹ Title I of which is known as the Ocean Dumping Act.² The Act declares a national policy "to prevent or strictly limit the dumping into ocean wasters of any material which would adversely affect human health, welfare, or amenities, or the marine environment, ecological systems, or economic potentialities," and sets up a federal program for regulating these activities.

The application of cost-benefit analysis to environmental and health regulation is a highly charged issue that has embroiled both Congress and the regulatory agencies in recent years.¹ Because the United States Supreme Court had never been brought into the hostilities, it created quite a stir when it announced last year that it would review the Fifth Circuit's ruling in American Petroleum Institute v.

The Endangered Species Act (ESA)¹ is widely viewed as one of the most arbitrary and irksome statutory impediments to federal and federally-licensed construction projects. As enacted in 1973, the Act contained such a strict prohibition on federal activities interfering with endangered species that it could, at least in theory, bring the most massive public works project to a screeching halt if it were to jeopardize even the least conspicuous animal or plant.

The Federal Waster Pollution Control Act (FWPCA),¹ which doubtless contains the most intricate of all congressional directives governing the establishment of pollution control standards, is also one of the least fathomable of the federal environmental laws. Naturally, the Act's ambiguities and omissions have led to extensive litigation that has interfered with its implementation. A case in point concerns the role of compliance costs in applying nationwide effluent limitations.

After leaving a number of environmental issues unresolved after its first session,¹ the 96th Congress took significant strides in its second session to complete that work or to establish first-generation legislation in other areas. Congress deserves credit for finally enacting Alaska lands legislation to settle the issue of how much of these "crown jewels" should remain wild and low much can be opened for development of mineral and timber resources.

Recent scientific evidence has made it clear that air pollution emissions may have environmental effects in regions much more distant from the source than previously believed possible. Oxides of sulfur and nitrogen produced in the burning of fossil fuels and in smelting operations may be carried hundreds or even thousands of miles through the atmosphere, chemically transformed in the process, and eventually returned to earth as sulfuric and nitric acids, often in rain or snow.

Cases of toxic substances pollution magnify complex legal and scientific problems in obtaining compensation through tort remedies. The complete report from which this monograph is excerpted addresses some central issues concerning recovery for toxic substances-related harms under six state tort systems. In the past decade, interest in compensation for environmental harm has grown along with awareness of the ecological stresses of development and conservation.

Section 101 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)¹ sets forth a clear statement of national goals and policies to protect and enhance the quality of our environment.