The application of cost-benefit analysis to environmental and health regulation is a highly charged issue that has embroiled both Congress and the regulatory agencies in recent years.¹ Because the United States Supreme Court had never been brought into the hostilities, it created quite a stir when it announced last year that it would review the Fifth Circuit's ruling in American Petroleum Institute v.

The Endangered Species Act (ESA)¹ is widely viewed as one of the most arbitrary and irksome statutory impediments to federal and federally-licensed construction projects. As enacted in 1973, the Act contained such a strict prohibition on federal activities interfering with endangered species that it could, at least in theory, bring the most massive public works project to a screeching halt if it were to jeopardize even the least conspicuous animal or plant.

The Federal Waster Pollution Control Act (FWPCA),¹ which doubtless contains the most intricate of all congressional directives governing the establishment of pollution control standards, is also one of the least fathomable of the federal environmental laws. Naturally, the Act's ambiguities and omissions have led to extensive litigation that has interfered with its implementation. A case in point concerns the role of compliance costs in applying nationwide effluent limitations.

After leaving a number of environmental issues unresolved after its first session,¹ the 96th Congress took significant strides in its second session to complete that work or to establish first-generation legislation in other areas. Congress deserves credit for finally enacting Alaska lands legislation to settle the issue of how much of these "crown jewels" should remain wild and low much can be opened for development of mineral and timber resources.

Recent scientific evidence has made it clear that air pollution emissions may have environmental effects in regions much more distant from the source than previously believed possible. Oxides of sulfur and nitrogen produced in the burning of fossil fuels and in smelting operations may be carried hundreds or even thousands of miles through the atmosphere, chemically transformed in the process, and eventually returned to earth as sulfuric and nitric acids, often in rain or snow.

Cases of toxic substances pollution magnify complex legal and scientific problems in obtaining compensation through tort remedies. The complete report from which this monograph is excerpted addresses some central issues concerning recovery for toxic substances-related harms under six state tort systems. In the past decade, interest in compensation for environmental harm has grown along with awareness of the ecological stresses of development and conservation.

Section 101 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)¹ sets forth a clear statement of national goals and policies to protect and enhance the quality of our environment.

The principal statutes governing the administration of the federal lands¹ contain a mandate for multiple purpose management that conflicts with efforts by the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), operating under a variety of statutory directives, to identify and protect lands under review for wilderness classification.

An array of interest groups are now staking out and fortifying their positions in anticipation of a legislative struggle that promises to be even more arduous than the recent debate over the Alaska Lands Act—the reauthorization of the Clean Air Act.¹ Appropriations for implementing the Act extend only through October of this year and thus must be extended by that date.² However, in the upcoming debate authorization issues will be only a side-show.

On February 17, President Reagan took the most significant step yet in his administration's campaign to relieve the private sector of the burden of complying with federal regulations. Executive Order No. 12291,¹ entitled simply "Federal Regulation," is designed

to reduce the burdens of existing and future regulations, increase agency accountability for regulatory actions, provide for presidential oversight of the regulatory process, minimize duplication and conflict of regulations, and insure well-reasoned regulations. . . .²