The principal statutes governing the administration of the federal lands¹ contain a mandate for multiple purpose management that conflicts with efforts by the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), operating under a variety of statutory directives, to identify and protect lands under review for wilderness classification.

An array of interest groups are now staking out and fortifying their positions in anticipation of a legislative struggle that promises to be even more arduous than the recent debate over the Alaska Lands Act—the reauthorization of the Clean Air Act.¹ Appropriations for implementing the Act extend only through October of this year and thus must be extended by that date.² However, in the upcoming debate authorization issues will be only a side-show.

On February 17, President Reagan took the most significant step yet in his administration's campaign to relieve the private sector of the burden of complying with federal regulations. Executive Order No. 12291,¹ entitled simply "Federal Regulation," is designed

to reduce the burdens of existing and future regulations, increase agency accountability for regulatory actions, provide for presidential oversight of the regulatory process, minimize duplication and conflict of regulations, and insure well-reasoned regulations. . . .²

With visions of polluted streams and mutilated mountain sides in Appalachia,¹ Congress enacted the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA),² to impose uniform federal reclamation standards on surface coal mining operations. The standards are to be enforced primarily by the states with backup authority by the Department of the Interior. In addition, the Act provides numerous and unique opportunities for public participation in the regulatory process.

In the 1977 Clean Air Act Amendments, Congress directed the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to establish a program for protecting visibility in pristine areas.¹ This action was a response to fears that the unique scenic vistas so much a part of the nation's heritage, especially in the West, would be irrevocably lost.

The extent, if any, to which the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)¹ applies to major federal actions affecting the environments of other countries remains one of the most persistent and perplexing questions regarding the scope of the Act's requirements. The courts, the agencies, and even Congress have grappled with the matter for years but have failed to reach a resolution with either broad support or lasting durability.

Each year hundreds of thousands of cancer deaths in the United States are attributed to exposure to the increasing quantities and types of hazardous chemicals present in the environment, including the workplace.¹ For a variety of reasons, victims of cancer caused by these substances face great obstacles in recovering damages from manufacturers, distributors, and users of the various products. Probably, the most important is that little is known about the biochemical processes that lead to the formation of cancer.

The Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act of 1899¹ is one of the oldest federal statutes providing for control of water pollution and obstructions in navigable waters.

Ever since national programs to control pollution were first considered, policy makers and scholars have argued about whether the force of law, through regulation, or the force of the market, through economic incentives, would be the more effective and efficient approach.¹ The arguments for regulation are that it is a more direct and certain means of attaining environmental quality goals because it works through clear, measurable standards which specify exactly how much each polluter may emit, and that it demonstrates clearly the national moral commitment to eradic

In 1977, after seven years of intense debate, Congress passed the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA),¹ one of the most far-reaching federal land-use laws. The Act was intended to alleviate widespread environmental abuses caused by surface coal mining operations by imposing stringent uniform federal standards on mining operations. Enforcement of the standards rests with participating states through federally approved state programs, or with the federal government in lieu of states that do not want to assume that responsibility.