The question of whether and how to control growth has come to the fore in the last several years as one of the broadest and most serious environmental issues facing the United States.¹ In the area of land use, this abstract question reduces to the dilemma of managing or controlling the rapid and chaotic development at the perimeters of metropolitan centers that has drastically reshaped the face of our nation since 1945.

A pair of amendments to the National Environmental Policy Act has recently been signed into law. One of the acts, Public Law No. 94-83, seeks to clarify federal and state roles in preparing environmental impact statements, and will have a significant bearing on future litigation directed at NEPA statements on federal aid highway projects and other federal actions. The second act authorizes 1976 appropriations and several minor administrative changes for the Council on Environmental Quality, of interest primarily to the Council itself.

In a landmark decision¹ that may have far-reaching effects on the U.S. Forest Service's management of the nation's timber resources, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld a lower court ruling that the Organic Act of 1897² bans clearcutting on federally owned land in the Monongahela National Forest in West Virginia. Conservationists have strenuously objected to the use of this harvesting technique, which consists of felling all trees within a designated area regardless of size, age, or health, in national forests.

The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), now approaching its sixth year as the cornerstone of legal efforts to protect the environment, is still under attack by federal agencies seeking to limit, transfer, or avoid their NEPA workload.

WILLIAM DRAYTON: How do we solve the problems society faces? We are not going to solve them with capital. The cost of capital has been rising gradually over the last several decades as we have moved into a world capital market. Capital is seeking higher returns elsewhere, and we are saving less. Nor will solutions come through further, more aggressive exploitation of natural resources. Our per unit cost of the natural resources we use is also gradually rising—as the very need for environmental protections demonstrates.

Editors' Summary: The primary focus of environmental litigation is on liability issues, and few tax issues have been specifically addressed or dispositively resolved in the environmental law context. This Article explores many tax issues lurking in environmental cases. First, it analyzes the deductibility of environmental litigation costs, including criminal penalties and civil fines, consent decree penalties, natural resources damages, enforcement and oversight costs, and legal fees.

Editors' Summary: NWF v. Lujan, the Supreme Court's landmark decision that amplifies the injury-in-fact standing requirement and the ripeness test determination of whether an agency action is final, reveals more than when an environmental group can go to court. Justice Scalia's opinion indicates a paradigm shift in the view of the proper role of the judiciary from that of securing public law principles to that of prescribing private law constructs derived from Marbury v. Madison. NWF v.

When Congress enacted the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA or the Superfund),¹ it "intended that those responsible for problems caused by the disposal of chemical poisons bear the costs and responsibility for remedying the harmful conditions they created."² Unfortunately, the combination of remedial costs, which greatly exceed available funding,³ and CERCLA's imprecise language, which is susceptible to broad interpretation,⁴ have allowed the En

After the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit issued its recent decision in United States v.

"The time has come," the Walrus said, "to talk of many things."

—Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking-Glass

The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)¹ regulatory regime contains more than 600 pages of complex regulations governing the management of waste. Economic estimates suggest that the RCRA system requires expenditures of $3-$ 6 billion per year for compliance. Whether these expenditures are obtaining the maximum environmental benefit is unclear.