95th Congress: Midterm Progress on Environmental Issues Reflects Conflicting Priorities

After its first session, the 95th Congress can take credit for completing work on long-standing controversies in several major fields of environmental protection.The new amendments to the air and water pollution control laws represent a partial retreat from the strict statutory standards they replaced, but this retrenchment may be a result of both the pressures of economic uncertainty and a widespread inability to comply with past ambitious antipollution restrictions. Even the new strip mining law, considered a victory by environmental advocates who had pushed for such legislation for a decade, is less protective of the environment than was a similar measure vetoed by President Ford. In other areas, notably energy, there was much congressional activity in the form of hearings and debates, but the end result was a failure to put new laws on the books because of disagreement with Carter Administration proposals or an inability to iron out differences in committees.

Overall, the environmental record in the first half of the 95th Congress is positive, considering that the objectives of environmental protection and other national priorities are still perceived on Capitol Hill, as well as in some parts of the nation, as being mutually exclusive. The bad news is that Congress chose to defer resolution of many important environmental issues until 1978, an election year in which political considerations and the pressures to spend time campaigning may make enactment of needed environmental legislation even more difficult.

Strip Mining Law

The basic aim of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 is to assure the restoration of mined land to a "condition capable of supporting the uses which it was capable of supporting prior to any mining, or higher or better uses."¹ A state-run program requiring submission of reclamation plans prior to permit issuance achieves this goal. Initial regulation, however, will be carried out by the Department of the Interior, and if a state's proposed permit program is not approved by the Department within 18 months, the federal government will establish and operate its own program within the state until the state's plan meets federal approval. Surface mining on federal lands will be federally regulated, but where a state has received federal approval of its program a cooperative agreement for joint federal-state regulation of federal lands within the state can be instituted.

Regulation under the Act will take two general forms: special treatment for various categories of land and specific performance standards. States may designate as unsuitable for surface mining areas where reclamation is neither technologically nor economically feasible. In addition, strip mining is flatly prohibited in wilderness areas, wildlife refuges, the national trails system, near wild and scenic rivers, and national recreation areas. Surface mining is also generally outlawed in national forests but can be allowed in western national forests if there are "no significant recreational, economic, timber or other values which may be incompatible" with such operations.

Prohibitions against mining on alluvial valley floors and prime agricultural land emphasize protection of agricultural productivity. These restrictions are weakened, however, by a provision allowing mining if it will not interrupt or prevent farming, and by another provision permitting any mine operator to exchange land where mining is prohibited under this Act for federally owned coal lands elsewhere if he already has made substantial commitments to develop the land. In addition, grandfather clauses exempt existing commercially productive mines or those which have state permits and allow mining on prime agricultural land where the permit applicant can demonstrate the technical ability to restore the land in a reasonable time to provide equal or higher yields than nearby non-mined prime farmlands.

Performance standards are aimed at the restoration of mined land to its "approximate original contour" and require the use of native vegetation to prevent erosion. Additional standards prohibit toxic mine drainage and off-site flows of suspended solids.The original contour restoration requirement is modified as to Appalachian lands because of the high costs of restoring hilly terrain. Mine operators in that region may create a leval plateau if the land can support postmining uses. Although retention of highwalls at the end of steep-slope mining in the East poses a landslide threat, the Act permits variances from its highwall restriction and original contour restoration standard if the land will be suitable for residential, commercial, industrial, or recreational postmining uses.

Several other provisions of the Act provide additional protections against the problems of strip mining. For example, any domestic, agricultural, or industrial water supply must be replaced by the responsible operator if it is contaminated or diminished by surface mining activity. Also, the current surface owner's consent is required for the strip mining of coal under his land. Finally, the federal government is authorized, in an emergency constituting a danger to the public health, safety, or general welfare, to enter on private property and take any reclamation measures necessary to abate the adverse effects of surface mining.

While acknowledging the destructive effects of strip mining on the industrial, residential, and recreational [8 ELR 10005] value of land and attempting to "protect society and the environment" from such adverse effects, the Act expressly strikes a balance between "protection of the environment and agricultural productivity and the Nation's need for coal as an essential source of energy." Thus, the Act puts flexible restrictions on mining in certain fragile areas, such as farmlands and alluvial valley floors. The statute also provides for more uniform regulation of surface mining and is in structure and substance much better than the preexisting inadequate and often inconsistent state provisions in this area. Even though the President, in signing the new law, stated that the bill was weaker than what he had sought and would need improvement, it is unlikely that Congress will heed his call. Rather, environmentally successful regulation of strip mining will depend upon the Department of the Interior's Office of Surface Mining, which is just gearing up to begin implementing the Act.²

Clean Air Act

The second major accomplishment of the 95th Congress in the environmental field was passage of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977.³ The ambitious clean-up deadlines established by the 1970 amendments were not attained, and a number of other regulatory problems that had been the subject of much judicial and administrative consideration were in need of statutory resolution. Although the postponement of certain clean-up deadlines was a disappointing retreat, other elements of the new law, such as the significant deterioration and emissions offset provisions and the new economic enforcement mechanism, reflect a deeper congressional understanding that the national commitment to clean air must take economic realities into account.

Industry failure to develop the necessary control technology resulted in three extensions of the original 1975 and 1976 deadlines for compliance with the statutory auto emissions reductions. Following a defeat by filibuster of a proposed one-year extension in 1976, labor and management engaged in an intense lobbying effort in 1977 to obtain a further extension and permanent relaxation of the auto emissions standards. The result was, in effect, a two-year extension of the scheduled 1977 reduction in hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide emissions, followed by two further years of graduated reductions. The original 1976 deadline for nitrogen oxides was retained only as a non-binding research objective.⁴

Another important controversy involved the issue of significant deterioration. Congress essentially adopted the classification system used by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) when it promulgated regulations allowing specific incremental increases of ambient sulfur dioxide and particulates in clean air areas of the nation. The smallest increases are allowed in Class I (pristine) areas, which include wilderness areas and large national parks. Moderate industrial development is allowed on Class II lands, and within Class III areas intensive development is permitted. Deterioration increments are specified in all instances, but the national primary and secondary standards represent floors below which ambient air quality will not be allowed to fall. State implementation plans must include a program to prevent significant deterioration, and the "best available control technology" must be used by new polluting sources. The protection afforded Class I areas may be diminished by a procedurepermitting variances from the sulfur dioxide incremental standards for up to 18 days per year, but an additional Class I safeguard mandates protection of visibility where it represents an important value of such an area.

Congress also adopted EPA's emissions offset policy, which permits further industrial development in areas failing to achieve the national primary ambient air quality standards by mid-1977. Under the policy, emissions from new sources are allowed if they are more than offset by reductions in emissions from existing sources. As a condition for permitting new source construction, however, states must revise their implementation plans so as to assure reasonable and regular progress toward attainment of the health-related primary ambient standards by the end of 1982. This deadline is pushed back even further to 1987 for urban areas with especially severe oxidant and carbon monoxide problems The 1970 law's emphasis on transportation controls proved particularly troublesome to the states. This difficulty has been eased not only by the extension of deadlines but by reductions in the authority of EPA to require such controls through indirect source review.Compliance deadlines were also extended for individual stationary sources, plants using innovative control technology, and facilities converting from oil or natural gas to coal.

Despite the implications of these delays, several positive changes are found within the new law. Federal facilities must now comply with state procedural and substantive pollution control requirements, and they may be sued in state courts and subjected to state enforcement sanctions for failure to do so.⁵ Another provision of the new law classifies emissions of radioactive substances as air pollutants,⁶ although an interagency agreement with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission must precede any regulatory action by EPA. Finally, to remove the economic incentives favoring delay, a noncompliance penalty was unveiled which provides for the imposition of a quarterly fine equal to the net economic benefit that the [8 ELR 10006] source owner or operator receives by not complying with the requisite pollution control standards.

Overall, the 1977 Clean Air Act Amendments represent a retreat from the environmentally ambitious "technology-forcing" standards of the 1970 Act in recognition of the realities of compliance feasibility and continued industrial growth. Environmentalists may take solace, however, in the adoption of other provisions that are both strong and sensible, notably the programs for the prevention of significant deterioration and emissions offsets in nonattainment areas as well as President Carter's pledge that the new deadlines are firm and will be vigorously enforced.

Clean Water Act

The other environmentally significant accomplishment of the first half of the 95th Congress is the passage of the Clean Water Act of 1977 which amends the Federal Water Pollution Control Act by extending compliance deadlines and modifying the requirement for achieving the best available technology of pollution control. As with the Clean Air Act, this measure has the effect of diminishing the ambitiously protective goals of the former law. The § 404 permit program for regulating dredge and fill material discharges was also modified, but broad federal jurisdiction over the nation's wetlands was essentially preserved. A Comment analyzing the new Act appears in this issue of the Environmental Law Reporter.⁷

Energy

Despite the monthsof publicity, discussion, cajolery, and hearings in a number of congressional committees, the failure of Congress to produce comprehensive energy legislation must be marked as its major environmental shortcoming of 1977. The President and Congress must share the blame. On the Administration's part, the National Energy Plan was announced in the spring with much fanfare but was immediately attacked from all sides.⁸ Subsequently, President Carter and his associates failed to work closely with Congress and to respond to problems or build a strong network of supporters on the Hill. Despite the high priority given the energy issue by some members of Congress, notably Speaker O'Neill, the Senate and the House developed legislation along very different lines, with the latter attempting to preserve as much of the President's original proposals as possible. Finally, the dismal progress of the energy plan is inevitably due in large part to the lack of full public recognition of and commitment to resolving the energy crisis.

Even the one notable success to date, the creation of the new cabinet-level Department of Energy, was one more of form than substance. Secretary Schlesinger, the President's energy "czar," is not completely trusted on the Hill because of his failure to adhere to political protocols and inconsistencies in his arguments and statements concerning the energy issue. A number of key departmental positions have yet to be permanently filled, notably that of the Assistant Secretary for the Environment. Several nominees have run into strong opposition, including the nominees for General Counsel and Assistant Secretary for Energy Technology. Other appointees have been criticized for their backgrounds in nuclear energy and the military, on the grounds that the Energy Department already appears to be biased against energy conservation and solar energy.

Much of the work on nontax energy conservation proposals has been completed and several have been approved in conference and can be expected to be enacted into law. Large gas and electric utilities will play a major role in helping customers finance home insulation, and government loans will also be available for insulation. All homeowners will be eligible for loans to install solar heating and cooling equipment. Conservation demonstration grants will be available; federal buildings will be showcases for conservation efforts; and energy efficiency standards will be applied to a number of household appliances. The major sticking point, however, is the treatment of large, fuel-inefficient automobiles. Following the Administration's lead, the House favors a tax on gas guzzlers. The Senate, on the other hand, approved an outright ban onnew cars with substandard efficiency but may be willing to compromise on this issue.

Natural gas pricing and supply is one major roadblock to progress on the entire energy package. Though there is agreement on the goals of increased production through producer incentives, increased availability of gas throughout the country, and protection for the consumer from substantial price increases, the methods favored by each house to achieve these goals differ. The House and the President favor continuing the federal regulation of natural gas prices but at a higher than current price level, and extending such regulation to intrastate gas sales in order to make the nation's gas available to all regions on an equal basis. Backed by the natural gas producing industry, the Senate voted to remove all price controls on newly discovered gas to end artifically low prices and to provide greater incentives for new exploration.

Another major issue is the crude oil equalization tax. This tax would encourage conservation by artifically raising the price of domestic oil to the OPEC-set world price. The House and the Administration favor rebating the tax proceeds to consumers, but the Senate supports passing on a high proportion of the increased revenues to the oil companies, again to encourage new discovery and production. A compromise may be reached by giving tax credits to the producers along with the equalization tax.

The conflict between the two houses of Congress runs especially deep on the issue of electric rate reform. The House-passed bill (H.R. 4018) follows the President's proposal by directing the establishment of nationwide standards to encourage reduced and off-peak energy use,⁹ reflecting a belief that electric rates should be based on the marginal cost of service. Environmentalists have argued that such rates would reduce the need for new generating plants. The utilities and industrial users oppose this concept on the grounds that it would force industries [8 ELR 10007] to subsidize residential users. In addition, the House bill gives the federal government authority to require utilities to participate in a variety of power-sharing arrangements, such as wheeling and pooling, to make use of surplus generating capacities. The Senate bill (S. 2114), which has yet to reach a floor vote, would block federal interference with the traditional state role of governing electric utility rates except for a provision allowing the Department of Energy to act as an advocate of reform in state utility commission proceedings, but without enforcement power or the right to appeal to a higher court. The Senate bill would also limit compelled sharing arrangements by allowing the federal government to order two utilities to connect their power lines only if one of the utilities or a utility commission had requested such an order.

Tax credits encouraging residential insulation and the use of new technology seem certain to be enacted, and Congress will begin fuller exploration of the coal conversion program when it resumes deliberations this month. Several committees will be trying to iron out differences over this program. The horizon, however, is cloudy as to whether a comprehensive energy program will emerge with the dispatch that the Administration has requested. Furthermore, the final legislation may bear little resemblance to the President's original plan, although the three original objectives, reduction of the quantity of imported oil, a decrease in the growth rate of domestic energy use, and a shift to consumption of renewable or nonscarce energy sources, continue to be pursued.

Public Lands

Section 17(d)(2) of the 1971 Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act¹⁰ directed that up to 80 million acres of Alaska's 375 million acres be set aside in one of the four land conservation systems (national parks, forests, wildlife refuges, or wild and scenic rivers). The deadline for this withdrawal is the end of 1978, and its purpose is to preserve a large portion of the nation's remaining frontier as public lands. So far, extensive congressional hearings have been held to study a number of alternatives in what has developed into a classic conflict between conservationists and timber and mineral development interests. Progress has been slow, and it will be important for Congress to move with greater speed in 1978 to avoid hasty compromises as the deadline nears.

Conservationists are seeking the protection of 114 million acres, but the Republican congressional delegation from Alaska, backed by the governor, would add only 25 to 37 million acres to the federal land preservation systems. The Carter Administration, giving the highest environmental priority to disposition of the Alaska d-2 lands, proposed that 92 million acres be set aside, arguing that too little preservation would result in permanent losses but that too much preservation could be remedied in the future. Although the Senate hearings were suspended, the House Interior Committee has prepared a compromise draft (H.R. 39) calling for 102 million acres of new conservation lands, 81 million of which would be earmarked for wilderness designation or study, thereby precluding all development. Preservation of Alaska's lands will doubtless be one of the most important environmental issues facing Congress in 1978.

The 95th Congress also considered, but again without taking final action, bills to expand the 58,000-acre Redwood National Park. Additions of 48,000 acres were proposed (S. 1976 and H.R. 3813) in order to off-set the damage caused by adjacent timber cutting, and President Carter has supported this expansion. The timber industry does not want to be deprived of a valuable resource, however, and the threatened loss of less than 1,000 jobs in the timber industry in northern California, where unemployment is already high, has become a thorny political issue. Proposals have been made for federal funding of job retraining and compensation, and there is doubt whether the estimate of threatened lay-offs is really accurate.

Controversy has also swirled around Minnesota's Boundary Waters Canoe Area (BWCA), the largest wilderness area east of the Rockies. Representative Fraser (D.-Minn.) proposed (H.R. 2820) a complete prohibition of logging and power-boating, activities now permitted in certain portsion of the area, a unique exception to typical wilderness protection. Representative Oberstar (D.-Minn), on the other hand, has proposed (H.R. 8722) dividing the BWCA into a wilderness area and a national recreation area where power-boats would be allowed on several large lakes to preserve the livelihood of area resort owners. Final legislation is expected in 1978.

In other public lands actions, the Land and Water Conservation Fund¹¹ was amended¹² to double to $900 million the amount of money available in fiscal years 1978 and 1979 to acquire new federal park lands and related areas. Separate bills to create "instant wilderness" in western national forests were passed in the House (H.R. 3454) and Senate (S. 1180) and will be reconciled in conference during the second session. Finally, an increase in the fees charged for livestock grazing on the public lands, a proposal recommended by the Departments of the Interior and Agriculture to approach the fair market value of this privilege (rate charged for grazing on private lands),¹³ may be side-tracked by bills from western Congressmen to place a one-year moratorium on grazing fee increases. Further action on the moratorium is expected in 1978.

Noise

Congress has consistently given a low priority to overcoming the problems that have slowed implementation of the Noise Control Act of 1972,¹⁴ such as the failure of the Federal Aviation Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency to work together as the Act directs.The Senate reauthorized a one-year funding extension (S. 1511) of the Act through fiscal 1978, and a floor vote in 1978 is expected on a House bill (H.R. 8729) aimed at reducing excessive aircraft noise. [8 ELR 10008] This bill provides funds for airport development and land use planning programs to abate noise and directs creation of a trust fund, through an increase in airline ticket prices, to replace noisy engines or buy quieter aircraft.

Water Resources

The first big environmental controversy faced by the Carter Administration was the issue of funding dams and water resource projects that the Administration viewed as expensive and environmentally questionable congressional pork barrel activities. The outcome was an unsatisfactory compromise that withdrew funding for half the projects on the President's "hit list," but opponents of the cutbacks will likely push for reinstatement in appropriations bills this year. Opponents of the projects felt that the Administration backed down unnecessarily from a strong environmental stand.

User charges to help recover federal expenses in building and maintaining the nation's inland waterway transportation system is an idea whose time has come but it was not reflected in a House-passed bill (H.R. 8309) that would recover only six percent of the federal costs. By contrast, a Senate bill (S. 790) that was later tabled by the House proposed waterway tolls that ultimately would finance 50 percent of waterway construction costs and 100 percent of the operating costs. Athough President Carter favors "substantial" user charges, the shape of the legislation that will finally emerge in 1978 is unclear.

A major disappointment in the first session of the 95th Congress was the inclusion of a provision within the new Housing and Community Development Act¹⁵ removing federal limits on private loans for floodplain construction. The program had been used to promote wise floodplain management, but proponents of the change urged that it unnecessarily limited development in flood hazard areas. Although the 1977 drought in midwest and western agricultural areas failed to produce a significant legislative response, water resources policy is expected to be a high congressional priority in 1978 because of the Carter Administration's great interest in the matter.

Congressional attention was also caught by the recent announcement by the Department of the Interior of proposed regulations¹⁶ that would strictly enforce the Reclamation Act of 1902,¹⁷ which imposes a 160-acre single-owner limitation upon lands receiving water from federal projects. This development sparked a strong reaction from representatives of the heavily capitalized and energy-intensive western agribusinesses and promises to be a continuing source of controversy in the second session.

Pesticides and Genetic Research

Amendment of the 1972 Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act was expected this past session,¹⁸ but due to end-of-session difficulties with energy legislation, the Senate was not able to meet the House in conference to iron out differences between divergent bills. Controversial topcis include conditional registration prior to the completion of safety testing, which some argue makes a mockery of the law's intent to protect the public from unsafe substances, and exclusive data use provisions which are intended to protect the huge investment in research and development by the large chemical companies. Despite tremendous publicity, federal controls on genetic research failed to materialize in 1977. Disagreement over the extent of possible threats to human health and the environment and fears that too much regulation would diminish the freedom of scientific research introduced complexities into the controversy for which Congress had not been prepared.

Oceans and Coastal Waters

Differing approaches to the problem of oil spills from ocean-going tankers were adopted by the two houses of Congress, and the second session may witness final passage of new law on the subject. The Senate's emphasis (S. 682) was on upgraded construction and safety standards, including authority for barring substandard tankers from United States ports, and vessel traffic control systems. The House approved legislation (H.R. 6803) extending and increasing the liability of vessels and facilities for oil spill damages and clean-up costs. Senate action on the liability question was limited in the first session to approval of the upgraded requirement of the new Clean Water Act.¹⁹

Legislation on outer continental shelf oil and gas was passed by the Senate (S. 9), but the House has failed to bring a similar bill (H.R. 1614) to a floor vote after extensive hearings. Crucial issues include the extent of federal involvement in exploration, a dual leasing procedure to separate exploration from actual development and production, alternative bidding systems to minimize the advantage of large oil companies, and federal assistance to coastal states for dealing with the on-shore impacts of OCS development. The alternative methods of providing such assistance include either grants through the Coastal Zone Management Program or a sharing of OCS-generated revenues. Finally, the issue of the mining of minerals on the ocean floor was aired in committee hearings considering guarantees or insurance for investments of United States corporations against losses resulting from an unfavorable international treaty. Because the United Nations law of the Sea Conference has failed to arrive at a treaty satisfactory to both developing and developed countries, Congress may decide to go ahead with its own legislation on this matter in 1978.

Pipelines

Although Congress ratified the President's decision on a pipeline for transporting Alaska natural gas to the lower 48 states, action was put off on two other energy pipeline systems. Because of a developing glut of Alaskan oil on the west coast, two pipelines have been proposed to move the oil to the East, one from a port on the [8 ELR 10009] Washington coast to the Midwest and the other from southern California to Louisiana. Congress is expected to take action to facilitate construction of at least one of the pipelines early in 1978. A coal slurry pipeline running from Wyoming to Arkansas has been proposed (H.R. 1609), but it was stalled in subcommittee. The rail industry opposes the slurry pipeline because of the competitive threat and is joined by environmentalists who question the proposal's tremendous added demand on scarce western water supplies and the fact that once the water has been used to move the pulverized coal, it will be too polluted to be used for any other purpose. Proponents of the slurry pipeline claim that the necessary water need only be drawn from an underground acquifer whose water already is unsuitable for general uses.

Wildlife

In the area of wildlife conservation, Congress created a lot of smoke, but little of substance was accomplished. Section 6 of the Endangered Species Act²⁰ was amended (H.R. 6405) to facilitate federal-state cooperative agreements for the management of wildlife by making discretionary the previous requirement that a state agency have the authority to conserve resident species determined to be threatened or endangered. The much-publicized attack on § 7 of the Act, which prohibits federal actions from jeopardizing the existence of endangered species and which was the basis of the Sixth Circuit's decision halting a Tennessee Valley Authority dam just prior to completion because of a threat to the snail darter,²¹ failed to develop. The case will be argued before the Supreme Court this spring, however, and a decision strongly affirming § 7 may incite congressional amendment of the Act.

The Marine Mammal Protection Act's restrictions on the incidental taking of porpoises during commercial tuna fishing came under attack in the House of Representatives because of threatened economic harm to the tuna fishermen who felt the quotas for allowed porpoise kills were too low.²² Although the House raised the quotas, the measure was ignored in the Senate. The controversy has apparently died down because the conservation measures have proven less onerous to the tuna fisherman than once feared and because the industry in enjoying a successful year. Finally, although the Senate received the migratory bird protection treaty negotiated with Russia in 1976,²³ it has failed to act on ratification.

General

Congress did not disapprove the reorganization of the Executive Office of the President, which preserved the Council on Environmental Quality with a minimal reduction in functions.²⁴ Meanwhile, a proposed reorganization of the entire Executive Branch is being studied by the Office of Management and Budget and may include a recommendation for a new cabinet-level Department of the Environment and Natural Resources. One of the important issues will be whether the Environmental Protection Agency should be preserved as an independent regulatory agency or subsumed in the proposed new Department.

International

Congress' concern with protection of the international environment has traditionally been incidental to other concerns, and 1977 was no exception. One positive development was a provision in the International Development and Food Assistance Act of 1977²⁵ which authorizes the Agency for International Development (AID) to aid less developed countries in the protection and management of their natural resources. Thus, in addition to AID's authority to assist rural development, agriculture, health, education, population planning, and the integration of women into the national economies, the agency is directed to undertake special efforts "to maintain and where possible restore the land, vegetation, water, wildlife, and other resources upon which depend economic growth and human well being, especially that of the poor." The conference report noted that "in the development and implementation of U.S. assistance programs, the President shall take into account their effect on the natural resource base of the aid-receiving countries."²⁶

In addition to the issues noted above, Congress in 1978 may also try to rewrite the 1872 Mining Law, which provides for patent ownership of surface and subsurface hardrock mineral discoveries on federal lands.²⁷ Reformers would substitute a leasing-royalty system, similar to that in use for coal and oil and gas reserves, and add environmental safeguards. Also, there probably will be efforts to pass new legislation for the siting and licensing of nuclear power plants. President Carter is known to favor streamlining the present process, and the proposals may take the form of transferring responsibility from the federal government to the states.

The 95th Congress pass some sensible legislation in 1977 amidst a heavy barrage of environmentally sensitive questions, but resolution of many issues has been held over to the second session. The direction for 1978 is unclear. Commentators have noted a drifting to the right of the national political mood, but the various polls which have been conducted show little diminution of the public's concern for a healthy environment that developed in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Once again, Congress and the President will find themselves caught among the priorities of the "four Es": economy, employment, environment, and energy. Although there is a [8 ELR 10010] natural and healthy tension among these objectives, the protection of the environment and the conservation of our natural resources need not necessarily imply a sacrifice of the others. The task before the second session of the 95th Congress will be to continue to strike a harmonious balance.

1. Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, § 515(b)(2), 33 U.S.C. § 1265(b)(2), ELR STAT. & REG. 42416. See generally Comment, The Strip Mining Law: Conflicting Goals Underlie Balanced Regulatory Requirements, 7 ELR 10160 (Sept. 1977).

2. Last December 13, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement in the Interior Department issued the final interim regulations under the new strip mining law. 42 Fed. Reg. 62639 (Dec. 13, 1977). The regulations amend 30 C.F.R. Chap. VII. One problem that is temporarily delaying the work of the Office of Surface Mining is that a blanket appropriations bill (H.R. 9375) providing over $30 million for the Office for fiscal 1978 has been stalled in conference.

3. Clean Air Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 7401-7642, ELR STAT. & REG. 42201. See generally Comment, The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977: Expedient Revisions, Noteworthy New Proviions, 7 ELR 10182 (Oct. 1977).

4. See Table in Comment, 7 ELR at 10183.

5. This essentially overrules the Supreme Court's decision in Hancock v. Train, 426 U.S. 167, 6 ELR 20555 (1976).

6. Radioactive emissions were ruled not to be water pollutants under the FWPCA in Train v. COPIRG, 426 U.S. 1, 6 ELR 20549 (1976). See Comment, High Court Concludes Water Act Was Not Intended to Affect Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Jurisdiction, 6 ELR 10169 (1976).

7. See Comment, Congress Passes "Mid-Course Correction" Amendments to the FWPCA, 8 ELR 10010 (Jan. 1978).

8. See Comment, The National Energy Plan: Hitless After the First Inning, 7 ELR 10119 (July 1977).

9. For a discussion of electric utility rate reform, see Comment, Energy Conservation Through Rate Structure Reform: Electricity Rates Based on Marginal Costs, 6 ELR 10221 (1976).

10. 33 U.S.C. § 1616(d)(2).

11. 16 U.S.C. §§ 460l-4-460l-11, ELR STAT. & REG. 41417. See Howard, Further Land and Water Recreation Resources and the Fund That Supports Them, 7 ELR 50034 (Apr. 1977).

12. Pub. L. 95-42, 91 Stat. 210, June 10, 1977.

13. This was called for in the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, § 401, 43 U.S.C. § 1751, ELR STAT. & REG. 41470.

14. 42 U.S.C. §§ 4901-4918, ELR STAT. & REG. 41501.

15. Pub. L. 95-128, 91 Stat. 1111, Oct. 12, 1977. See Comment, Develop if You Dare: Congress Relaxes the Economic Sanctions of the Flood Insurance Program, 7 ELR 10171 (Sept. 1977).

16. 42 Fed. Reg. 43044 (Aug. 25, 1977). See Comment, Excess Land Regulations Finally Enforce Limits on Federal Water Project Benefits, 7 ELR 10189 (Oct. 1977).

17. 43 U.S.C. § 431.

18. See Comment, FIFRA Amendments: Getting the Pesticide Program Moving, 7 ELR 10141 (Aug. 1977).

19. See Comment, 8 ELR 10010. For a discussion of the oil spill tanker issue, see Comment, Oil spills: Expected Reforms in Tanker Standards and Liability, 7 ELR 10099 (June 1977).

20. 16 U.S.C. § 1535, ELR STAT. & REG. 41827.

21. Hill v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 549 F.2d 1064, 7 ELR 20172 (6th Cir.), cert. granted, 46 U.S.L.W. 3322 (Nov. 14, 1977). See Comment, Wildlife Protection: Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act Comes of Age, 7 ELR 10049 (Mar. 1977).

22. See Comment, Wildlife Protection: Marine Mammals, Endangered Species Threatened in Congress by Economic Concerns, 7 ELR 10124 (July 1977).

23. See Comment, Migratory Bird Treaty with Russia: Continued International Wildlife Protection, 7 ELR 10026 (Feb. 1977).

24. See Comment, Reorganization: Council on Environmental Quality Emerges Stronger, Review of Federal Agencies Continues, 7 ELR 10168 (Sept. 1977).

25. Section 113, Pub. L. 95-88, 91 Stat. 533, Aug. 4, 1977.

26. S. REP. NO. 95-501, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. 30-31 (1977).

27. 30 U.S.C. § 22, ELR STAT. & REG. 41410.