Grasping the nettle that has recently troubled other courts, the California Supreme Court on December 17, 1976, ambitiously set out the factors that should govern judicial review of controlled-growth ordinances in a decision upholding a city's residential building moratorium. Associated Home Builders of the Greater Eastbay, Inc. v.

Formal and informal advisory committees have long been used to furnish expert advice, ideas, and diverse opinions to the federal government.¹ Their utility depends upon the balance and institutional and financial ties of members, especially when their advice is rendered in confidence. For present purposes, "balance" can be defined as broadly representative of sectors of society interested in the subject matter of the committee.

This Article examines the legal foundations for state and federal wildlife regulation in the United States. The first part explores the constitutional bases for federal authority over wildlife and the development of the doctrine of state ownership of wildlife, a judicially created doctrine which has furnished the basis for repeated challenges to the exercise of federal authority. The second part of the Article examines certain important limitations on the scope of state and federal regulatory authority.

Does the term "environmental law" have any significance beyond being a reference to an increasingly large group of statutes and court decisions? Does environmental law really represent a "new era," as Chief Judge Bazelon has proclaimed,¹ or is it instead very similar to the law taught in law schools (probably as administrative law) before the word "environment" had meaning for persons other than natural scientists?

On June 7, 1976, the United States Supreme Court unanimously extended the Winters doctrine¹ of implied federal reservation to apply to subterranean water as well as surface water. In addition to the fundamental significance of such an extension, the Court's decision in Cappaert v.

To the Congress of the United States:

This message brings together a great variety of programs. It deals not only with ways to preserve the wilderness, wildlife, and natural and historical resources which are a beautiful and valued part of America's national heritage: it deals also with the effects of pollution, toxic chemicals, and the damage caused by the demand for energy. Each of these concerns, in its own way, affects the environment; and together they underscore the importance of environmental protection in all our lives.

After a protracted conference reminiscent of the deadlock that preceded enactment of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977, Congress has finally passed a compromise set of revisions¹ to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (FWPCA).² The conference report was filed on December 6,³ and both houses approved the measure on December 15, 1977 and sent it to the White House for President Carter's signature.

On November 8, 1977, President Carter signed into law a joint congressional resolution¹ ratifying his selection of a proposal by the Alcan Company to construct a pipeline to transport natural gas from Alaska's North Slope to the lower 48 states. This event marked the culmination of a new and complex procedure established by the Alaska Natural Gas Transportation Act of 1976 (ANGTA)² to facilitate the identification of the most advantageous means of tapping this important new energy source.

Although the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) has been widely acclaimed as an instrument of decisionmaking reform, doubts have periodically been expressed regarding its effectiveness.¹ No legislation, however well intentioned or successful, should be exempt from periodic reexamination. Some criticisms of NEPA have been well-founded—prompting improvements in its implementation—but other criticisms have faulted the Act itself, claiming it to be counter-productive in relation to the purposes for which it was enacted.

An easement is a limited right, granted by the owner of real property, to use all or part of his property for specific purposes. A traditional legal use of an easement, for example, has been for owner A, on whose property a stream flows, to allow neighbor B to cross A's property in order to take water from A's stream.