Because of criticism of the Environmental Protection Agency's implementation of its pesticide registration program, Congress is now considering amendments to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)¹ which are intended to streamline the regulatory process. The amendments pertain primarily to the use and disclosure of test data, compensation for data use, and generic and conditional registrations.

One aspect of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) which has attracted surprisingly little judicial attention is the requirement for preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS) on "every recommendation or report on proposals for legislation."¹ Commentators have suggested that the difficulty of formulating appropriate relief in a suit to compel preparation of such a statement is the principal reason for the dearth of litigation on this point.² Three recent court decisions in suits by private parties seeking to enforce thi

In the latest of a series of challenges to the integrity of New York's Adirondack Park, a New York Supreme Court judge has upheld the "reasonable" regulation of public lands within the Park that are constitutionally protected as "forever wild." The ruling reinforces earlier New York decisions affirming the validity of the Park and its management but raises potentially troublesome legal and tactical questions about the Park's future.

Ever since the first bill was introduced in 1940, attention has focused on the need to devise legislation that adequately addressed the environmental problems associated with strip mining for coal.

The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) attempt to use its regulatory powers under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA) Amendments of 1972 to limit the injection of industrial wastes into deep wells has apparently come to naught.

Going out on a shaking legal limb, the New York Court of Appeals on June 23 refused to overturn the historic landmark designation of New York City's Grand Central Terminal. The court decreed in Penn Central Transportation Co. v. City of New York¹ that the designation, which includes a scheme for transferring the development rights over the terminal to adjacent parcels, does not represent a deprivation of property in violation of the Due Process Clause.

In the proposed reorganization of his Executive Office,¹ President Carter rejected the suggestions of his Office of Management and Budget (OMB) reorganization team to abolish or greatly deemphasize the importance of the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). Mr. Carter decided instead to keep CEQ in its position of environmental advisor to the president and coordinator of government implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

Early this summer, Congress attached an amendment to the Housing and Community Development bill¹ eliminating restrictions on federally related mortgage and construction loans in flood hazard areas in communities which choose not to participate in the National Flood Insurance Program.² The amendment, sponsored by Sen. Eagleton (D-Mo.) and Rep. Taylor (D-Mo.), disappointed environmentalists who view the program as an important mechanism for promoting wiser land use in flood plains.

On August 4, Congress culminated nearly three years of intense legislative effort by accepting a conference committee report¹ of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977. President Carter then signed the measure into law² on August 7, terming it "a sound and comprehensive program for achieving and preserving healthy air."³

Background

In its first major decision interpreting Wisconsin's Environmental Policy Act,¹ the Wisconsin Supreme Court on July 1 announced unswerving support for the Act (known as WEPA) that promises to make environmental analysis an important component of Wisconsin agency decisions. Reviewing an electric utility rate proceeding, the court in Wisconsin's Environmental Decade, Inc. v.