Barring the introduction of a radical new energy technology that will ease the use of fossil-fuel and nuclear-powered electric generating plants, energy conservation is both the most pragmatic method of reducing the adverse environmental consequences of electricity generation and the best way of assuring that the demand for electricity does not outpace our capability to generate it.

The California legislature has finally ended four years of suspense by enacting the Coastal Act of 1976,¹ which permanently establishes a permit program governing land use along the 1,100-mile California shoreline.

Two of the most significant public lands laws in many years came out of the end-of-session logjam in the 94th Congress. Under the new laws, both the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management, whose practices have been the foci of criticism from environmentalists in recent years, have obtained broad new statutory guidance in carrying out their duties. (At press time, the President had not signed either bill, but no problems were anticipated.)

The proposed Clean Air Act Amendments of 1976, a product of almost two years of legislative effort, died on the last day of the 94th Congress, because of a Senate filibuster of the final version agreed to by Senate and House conferees. The legislation addressed numerous policy issues which have arisen during implementation of the original statute, including significant deterioration of currently clean air, the necessity for urban transportation controls, and control of air pollution from federal facilities.

On October 11, 1976, five years after initial introduction of federal legislation to regulate toxic substances, President Ford signed into law the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).¹ Although the regulatory scheme established by the TSCA is in some respects cumbersome and fragmented, due in large part to the close balance of opposing forces in the 94th Congress, the Act is probably the most significant piece of environmental legislation to be enacted in the last two years.

The Tax Reform Act of 1976, Pub. L. No. 94-455, signed by President Ford on October 4, 1976, includes among its hodge-podge of some 1,500 pages several provisions of interest to those involved with environmental protection. The Act establishes new lobbying rules for tax-exempt charitable organizations, adds tax incentives to encourage the preservation of historic structures, and changes the tax treatment of pollution control facilities.

In one of the first direct judicial responses to the Supreme Court's discussion last term in Kleppe v. Sierra Club¹ of NEPA's programmatic impact statement requirements, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals has denied² a motion for rehearing of its earlier decision in Natural Resources Defense Council v.

Overlooked for many years as an enforcement tool, the doctrine of federal common law of water pollution rocketed to national prominence following the Supreme Court's historic decision in Illinois v. City of Milwaukee.¹ Although the Court declined to exercise its original jurisdiction over the allegation by Illinois that Milwaukee caused a public nuisance by its discharge of raw sewage into Lake Michigan, it did hold that the word "laws" in the federal question statute, §1331(a),² embraces federal court-created common law.

A number of judicial decisions have made 1976 a watershed year in the area of federal wildlife law, presaging increased litigation over the balance to be drawn between animals (particularly where Congress has mandated special consideration) and those forces that tend to promote commercial use of resources at the inevitable expense of wildlife. It is a battle that has been fought for years on the grand scale of the preservationists versus the developers, but now that greater interest has focused on the problem, the conflict has become particularized.

Successful referenda on the ballot in recent elections have added Michigan and Maine to the growing number of states that require deposits on beverage containers¹ and mark a significant gain toward improved control of solid waste. The new laws follow fairly closely the 1972 Oregon bottle bill, which is generally considered to be quite successful, and in combination with a very close race in Massachusetts indicate that the example set by Oregon may be catching on.²