Water policy in the United States has been significantly influenced in recent years by a number of high-profile environmental and water use conflicts, including disputes relating to California's Bay Delta, Florida's Everglades, the management of the Colorado River system, the Columbia/Snake system, and the Klamath and Trinity River Basins. For a variety of legal, institutional, and financial reasons, the federal government has played a major role in all of these matters, typically in partnership with state and local stakeholders.

 In November 1995, five federal agencies—the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Natural Resources Conservation Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration—issued joint guidance concerning wetland mitigation banking. The guidance's chief virtue is its detailed explanation of the approval process for the establishment and operation of mitigation banks. Its chief flaw, however, flows from the complexity of this approval process.

Talk about wetlands preservation today and you may soon be talking about private property and takings. The reason is simple enough: while the need for wetlands preservation is widely conceded, many are privately owned—in the case of the federal wetlands permitting program, almost 75% of the covered acreage in the lower 48 states. When a wetland owner is denied a permit to develop property (or offered a permit with very burdensome conditions), its value may drop substantially.

All companies today, whether large or small, need to be aware of the types and amounts of their air emissions. Based on the types and amounts of emissions, these sources may be required to obtain operating permits under the Clean Air Act's (CAA's) Title V program. This Article provides a detailed discussion of the Title V operating permit program and a review of the contents required in a Title V permit.

I. Introduction

The environmental movement has long held as its basic tenet the conservation of natural resources, but conservationists traditionally have sought to protect only the more obvious components of our ecological heritage, such as wilderness and scenic areas, waterways, wetlands, coastlines, wildlife, and clean air. Energy-producing materials such as coal, oil, and gas have all too often been taken for granted as inexhaustible reservoirs predestined to feed the appetite of an ever-expanding technology.

As everyone knows by now, the Clean Air Act, once a relatively innocuous expression of congressional good wishes,¹ was amended in 1970 to become what is still the most sweeping and consequential environmental legislation on the books.² The Energy Supply and Environmental Coordination Act of 1974³ (ESECA) contains the first amendments to the Clean Air Act to clear Congress since that date. These amendments arose out of the hurried congressional and national reaction to the "energy crisis" of last winter.

On October 18, 1972, Congress overrode President Nixon's veto of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, and enacted the broadest, most complex, and most costly legislation ever to deal with this country's water pollution problem.

Editors' Summary: The Special Committee on Environmental Law of the American Bar Association held its annual meeting in April, 1974, at Airlie House in the foothills of Virginia's Blue Ridge Mountains. The conference focused on the capacity of the federal administrative process to deal with environmental issues.This month, ELR is pleased to present a selection of the participants' remarks, beginning with an overview by Frederick R. Anderson, Executive Director of the Environmental Law Institute.

Federal agency decisionmaking that affects the environment is influenced by a variety of factors. Among them are the statutes and executive orders that define an agency's mandate; the standards of review applied by the courts; the attitudes of agency personnel; the agency's relationships with groups in the private sector, the congressional committees with jurisdiction over its programs, other federal agencies such as the Office of Management and Budget, and the public; and the priorities and politics of the administration in power.