The Nixon Administration's losing battle on the issue of impoundment was the subject of a comment in the July issue of ELR.¹ At that time, a number of courts had held that the Federal Water Pollution Control act Amendments of 1972 required the Administrator of EPA to allot the entire $11 billion authorized under the Act, and one court, while conceding that the government was not obligated to allot all authorized funds, ruled that the Administrator's impoundment of 55 percent of the $11 billion constituted a "flagrant abuse of discretion."

In recent years, technology has contributed significantly to the fight against pollution. The new mechanisms presently being utilized to mitigate the harmful effects of noxious emissions and to improve the quality of waste effluents are exemplary of technological gains in the environmental field. There is, however, in contrast to this progress, an increasing concern that the product of other purported technological advances actually poses a serious threat to human health and the environment.

On September 10, 1973, President Nixon issued Executive Order No. 11738, which provides that federal contracts, grants, and loans may not be awarded to persons or facilities violating the Federal Water Pollution Control and Clean Air Acts. This directive supersedes Executive Order No. 11602 of June 29, 1971, which applied only to the Clean Air Act, and restates that order's provisions regarding exemption procedures, designation of convicted persons and facilities, and enforcement.

The Statutory and Administrative Materials section of this month's ELR includes two executive orders issued on February 8, 1972, restricting the use of poisonous chemicals for predator control on federal lands and limiting the areas on public lands in which off-road vehicles, such as trail motorcycles and snowmobiles, may be used. E.O. No. 11643 directs the heads of all federal agencies to prohibit the use on federal lands of any chemical toxicant for the purpose of poisoning predatory mammals or birds.

Ever since the Forest Service in 1964 endorsed clearcutting as an acceptable method of harvesting trees on public lands, a running battle has been fought on the issue between conservationists and the timber industry. To the latter, the technique of logging all trees within a designated area, irrespective of their age, size, and health, is the most efficient way to meet the nation's timber needs in a time of rapidly climbing prices.

Environmentalists have long known that one of the causes of urban air pollution is the sprawl generated by shopping centers, entertainment areas, and airports that are inadequately served by mass transit. These centers encourage—indeed demand—numerous automobile trips. Therefore, environmentalists were pleased when the Environmental Protection Agency, in response to a suit by the Natural Resources Defense Council, promulgated regulations¹ that inject air quality control considerations into the heart of the planning process for such auto magnets.

Three environmental organizations recently filed suit seeking to force the Export-Import Bank of the United States and the Atomic Energy Commission to comply with NEPA requirements in the nuclear export program.¹ The suit raises a potentially significant and so far unlitigated question as to NEPA's applicability to agency activities outside the United States. If successful, the suit might set a precedent for requiring environmental analysis of other international programs, such as foreign aid, which so far have not complied with NEPA.

I will try to give you in a few moments one federal judge's view of certain recent developments in environmental law. It will necessarily be rapid-fire and broadly reportorial. I will follow with some thoughts on the role of litigation in safeguarding the environment. Despite the title of this talk, I come to you today with no gospel, no Word, very little sermon, but merely with a built-in set of biases and prejudices probably equivalent to those of the person sitting next to you, but not to your own.

A somewhat obscure provision (§9) of the 88-page Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of October 18, 1972 [Public Law No. 92-500] requires the president, acting through the Attorney General, to: (1) "[M]ake a full and complete investigation and study of the feasibility of establishing a separate court, or court system, having jurisdiction over environmental matters;" and, (2) Within one year from the date of the Act, "report the results of such investigation and study together with his recommendations to Congress."

Statutory standards for managing federal lands have not been adequately implemented by the land management agencies. The result is that environmental values are often severely damaged or completely overlooked. This Article examines the principal statutory management concept—multiple use—especially as it is applied by the Forest Service through the Multiple Use Act, and explores the few judicial attempts to control the multiple use concept.