The Justice Department is presently investigating the feasibility of establishing a separate court system having exclusive jurisdiction over environmental issues.Section 9 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 authorized the study that will culminate in a report to Congress by October 1973. As the keynote address of a two-day conference of the Special Committee on Environmental Law of the ABA, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Walter Kiechel Jr.

The Council on Environmental Quality estimates that the federal agencies will spend $65 million annually to administer the National Environmental Policy Act when its provisions are fully operable.¹ After some initial agency attempts to delegate substantially all of the burden of impact statement preparation, the Greene County case² reversed the trend by stressing that the federal agencies themselves were primarily responsible for preparing the impact statement.

A signed staff article in this month's issue discusses Izaak Walton League v. St. Clair, a recent Wilderness Act decision. The case raises anew the perplexing problem of how to resolve the contradiction between the policy and purposes of the 1964 Wilderness Act and the exemption for mining activities embedded in that Act.

The decision of a state administrative agency recently went a long way toward mitigating the worst of the environmental impacts associated with the New Melones Dam on the Stanislaus River in California. The decision by the California Water Resources Control Board gives a much-needed shot in the arm to litigation on the project in federal district court. The controversy illustrates how environmental protection efforts, even for a large federal project, may often proceed as energetically and forcefully on the state level as on the federal.

Judicial control of administrative discretion under the Multiple Use Act is the subject of a staff article in this issue by Mr. Durwood Zaelke, Assistant Editor of ELR. The article, which is entitled Controlling Forest Service Discretion Under the Multiple Use Act and appears at 3 ELR 50017, examines the Forest Service's procedures under the Multiple Use-Sustained Yield Act and explores the few judicial attempts to control the agency's discretion.

The Securities and Exchange Commission recently adopted rules requiring companies to disclose the financial effect of compliance with federal, state, and local environmental protection laws. The rules, which become effective July 3, 1973, also require disclosure of information regarding environmental litigation in which the companies are involved. Adopted pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the rules are expected to promote the purposes of NEPA.

On April 16, 1973, the EPA Administrator adopted two recommended decisions by his Chief Administrative Law Judge that cancelled the last remaining registrations of DDT for domestic agricultural use. He also denied a request for a new registration for use on stored sweet potatoes.The two recommended decisions and the Administrator's orders adopting them bring to an end an important phase of the long-standing effort to bring about effective federal administrative control of pesticides.¹

The Environmental Protection Agency has promulgated interim regulations² setting out procedures for obtaining an ocean-dumping permit under the Marine Protection. Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972.³ The Act makes it unlawful to depart from a port in the United States for the purpose of dumping material other than fish wastes in the ocean or territorial sea, unless the person engaged in the transport or dumping has obtained a permit from EPA.

The Federal Aviation Administration has recently issued a new sonic boom regulation tht bans nearly all supersonic flight by civil aircraft over the United States and its territorial waters. The regulation, which became effective April 27, 1973, prohibits the operation of civilian aircraft at speeds greater than March 1 without authorization from the agency.

After some initial hesitancy, EPA has agreed that the provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act¹ do apply to pollutant discharge permits issued by EPA under §402 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA). The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act requires any agency issuing a permit to consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service of the Department of the Interior regarding the conservation of wildlife resources.