In a mixed portent for the future, California voters recently closed the first act in what is likely to be a long-running power play. On June 8th, California voted, by a two-to-one margin, against a ballot proposal, known as Proposition 15 or the California Nuclear Initiative, that was the first of a series of state plebiscites challenging the continue expansion—or even further use—of nuclear power as an energy source. Similar referenda are now on the ballot in Oregon and Colorado for the November election and are being put forward in about 20 other states.

The federal district court for the northern district of California has for the second time in two years upheld the constitutionality of state and local ordinances enacted to control noise around municipal airports in the face of claims that the restrictions illegally invade a field of regulation preempted by the federal government. The cases are noteworthy because they suggest that the seemingly broad federal preemption of aircraft noise regulation announced by Justice Douglas in City of Burbank v. Lockheed Air Terminal,¹ may in reality be quite narrow.

Because there is typically a long period between environmental release of a toxic substance and appearance of chronic adverse health and environmental effects, many industrial and commercial chemicals that initially appeared innocuous have turned out to be dangerous. It is thus not uncommon for companies to have engaged in widespread production of dangerous substances—and for government regulatory agencies to have sanctioned their wide use and disposal—in good-faith ignorance of their potential for harm.

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?