Section 9 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972¹ requires that the president, acting through the Attorney General, report to the Congress on the feasibility of establishing a separate court, or court system, with jurisdiction over environmental matters.

The past few years, and the last year in particular, have seen dramatic shifts in one of the most hotly contested, and crucially important, areas of public interest law: the award of attorneys fees to public interest litigants. This process of development has had to overcome two major barriers, the traditional "American rule" under which winning parties normally do not receive counsel fees,¹ and the federal statutory prohibition against awards of counsel fees against the government.

On December 17, 1973, President Nixon issued Executive Order 11752¹ concerning the prevention, control, and abatement of environmental pollution at federal facilities. The Order supersedes Executive Order No. 11507,² which was issued February 4, 1970, and dealt only with standards adopted pursuant to the Clean Air Act and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. Executive Order No.

Although possible for many years, recovery of oil from shale has only recently become economical. Rising prices of crude oil on the world market and concern over the foreign policy implications of the United States' increased reliance of foreign sources has heightened interest in oil shale.

In recent years, the class action has become a favorite tool of public interest lawyers and of small plaintiffs attacking large corporate defendants. It has, however, fallen into disfavor in many federal courts because of its potential for abuse. In December 1973, the Supreme Court dealt a not unexpected blow to the Rule 23(b)(3) class action, ruling in Zahn v. International Paper Co.¹ that all members of the class, not merely the named plaintiffs, must satisfy the $10,000 jurisdictional amount for diversity suits in federal courts.

Solid waste disposal presents one of the most pressing, though least glamorous, environmental issues today. Environmentalists have long urged that comprehensive recycling programs can achieve three important goals: reducing the mountains of refuse which must be disposed of by incineration, ocean dumping, or landfills; preserving the natural resources that must be used to make the discarded steel, glass, paper, etc.; and conserving the energy required to process raw materials.

A see-saw battle to save a Florida Swamp is being fought in the federal courts;¹ it stems from President Nixon's 1970 decision to terminate construction of the Cross-Florida Barge Canal.

At a time in our history when governmental secrecy based on a claim of privilege has come under close scrutiny, it is surprising to find any court expanding, rather than narrowing, the government's power to withhold information from the public. It is still more surprising to find this power sustained in a case in which the information sought was already in large part in the hands of the public. By a curious turn of logic, however, when the government summarizes facts already in the public record for the purpose of making a decision, that summary can be kept secret, according to the U.S.

One issue disputed by environmentalists and poverty lawyers has been that of exclusionary zoning. Advocates of controlled land use have long supported legislative restrictions on indiscriminate development of land resources. Population density, with its correlates of air, water, and noise pollution, and of aesthetically offensive high-rise apartments, has often been cited as justifying drastic restrictions upon prospective users of existing sanitary facilities as well as use of other methods of development control.

Russell Train, EPA Administrator, told the Senate Subcommittee on Environmental Pollution on April 10, 1974, that the Agency he heads will henceforth prepare full-fledged impact statements on its major actions.¹ Since January 1 of this year, EPA had been issuing "environmental explanations," designed to serve the function of an impact statement without seeming to concede that NEPA obligated EPA to prepare statements.² In his testimony, Train held to the position that impact statement preparation was not required by law, and said that the d