In recent years, the United States has finally awakened to the fact that its environmental assets are being rapidly and irreparably depleted due to lack of care and foresight, and that this destruction of our environment could ultimately result in our own collective demise. Many citizens consider the problem serious enough to merit constitutional recognition and have been pressing for such reform at both the state and federal levels. The federal government's attitude towards granting such recognition can hardly be described as enthusiastic. The White House has made no recommendations in this direction. The Congress, with several notable exceptions, such as Sen. Gaylord Nelson² and Rep. Richard Ottinger,³ has taken no action in this area. The federal courts have almost unanimously rejected all arguments that the 5th, 9th or 14th Amendments might be construed to contain a right to a decent environment.⁴ Furthermore, the Supreme Court's holding in Zahn v. International Paper Co.⁵ (that diversity suits cannot be maintained under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) on behalf of unnamed plaintiffs whose claims do not meet the jurisdictional amount requirements even though those of named plaintiffs do) will make it extremely difficult for environmental class action suits to be brought in federal courts.

However, efforts to incorporate environmental provisions into state constitutions have met with considerable success. This is due at least in part to the tremendous rise of interest in state constitutional reform within the last twenty-five years.6 Since 1950, state constitutions have received more official attention than in any similar period in the nation's history excepting possibly the Civil War and Reconstruction,7 and one of the most prevalent subjects of constitutional reform has been the environment. In fact, a survey on substantive changes in state constitutions from 1966 through 1972 found that a higher percentage of proposed amendments concerning the state functions of conservation and protection of the environment were passed than of proposals in any other area surveyed.8 Second place went to amendments to the Bills ofRights,9 several of which declared a right to a healthful environment.10 The fact that brevity is a feature common to all new state constitutions11 places these facts in an even more startling perspective. The noticeable trend towards ridding these documents of unnecessary subject matter is in striking contrast with the inclusion of one new subject—the environment—in all new or revised constitutions.12 The frequent inclusion of this heretofore largely neglected subject is an unusual development on the state constitutional scene; while it is a result of increased interest in constitutional reform, it is also an anomalous exception to the current tendency to excise material from constitutions.