The purpose of the National Environmental Policy Act, in the words of the Senate Committee Report on it, was to establish a "clear statement of the values and goals which we seek . . . a set of resource management values which are in the long-range public interest and which merit the support of all social institutions . . .

I. Introduction

Over fifty percent of the drinking water in use today has its source in underground water supplies.¹ These groundwater sources are hydrologically related to surface waters, however, since surface water charges groundwater reservoirs and groundwater feeds springs and surface streams.² Protection of one of these water sources, therefore, is meaningless without concomitant measures to protect the other.

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.