With visions of polluted streams and mutilated mountain sides in Appalachia,¹ Congress enacted the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA),² to impose uniform federal reclamation standards on surface coal mining operations. The standards are to be enforced primarily by the states with backup authority by the Department of the Interior. In addition, the Act provides numerous and unique opportunities for public participation in the regulatory process.

In the 1977 Clean Air Act Amendments, Congress directed the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to establish a program for protecting visibility in pristine areas.¹ This action was a response to fears that the unique scenic vistas so much a part of the nation's heritage, especially in the West, would be irrevocably lost.

The extent, if any, to which the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)¹ applies to major federal actions affecting the environments of other countries remains one of the most persistent and perplexing questions regarding the scope of the Act's requirements. The courts, the agencies, and even Congress have grappled with the matter for years but have failed to reach a resolution with either broad support or lasting durability.

Each year hundreds of thousands of cancer deaths in the United States are attributed to exposure to the increasing quantities and types of hazardous chemicals present in the environment, including the workplace.¹ For a variety of reasons, victims of cancer caused by these substances face great obstacles in recovering damages from manufacturers, distributors, and users of the various products. Probably, the most important is that little is known about the biochemical processes that lead to the formation of cancer.

The Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act of 1899¹ is one of the oldest federal statutes providing for control of water pollution and obstructions in navigable waters.

Ever since national programs to control pollution were first considered, policy makers and scholars have argued about whether the force of law, through regulation, or the force of the market, through economic incentives, would be the more effective and efficient approach.¹ The arguments for regulation are that it is a more direct and certain means of attaining environmental quality goals because it works through clear, measurable standards which specify exactly how much each polluter may emit, and that it demonstrates clearly the national moral commitment to eradic

In 1977, after seven years of intense debate, Congress passed the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA),¹ one of the most far-reaching federal land-use laws. The Act was intended to alleviate widespread environmental abuses caused by surface coal mining operations by imposing stringent uniform federal standards on mining operations. Enforcement of the standards rests with participating states through federally approved state programs, or with the federal government in lieu of states that do not want to assume that responsibility.

Given that the business of producing and transporting oil is "an enterprise which will eventually cause pollution,"¹ and that 60 percent of the oil produced in the world is transported on or across water,² it may not be surprising that an estimated 10,000 spills of oil and hazardous substances annually pollute the navigable waters of the United States.³ The recently aroused interest in off-shore oil production is certain to increase the incidence of oil spills.

Pesticides are used worldwide to control destructive plants and animals and are partially responsible for greater crop production, a decreased incidence of debilitating diseases such as malaria, and generally improved standards of living. Over 1.4 billion pounds of pesticides are produced annually, with approximately 1,400 active ingredients formulated into some 40,000 end-use products.¹ Development of these products and the necessary support data often requires many years of effort and an investment of millions of dollars.

The application of cost-benefit analysis to environmental health and safety regulation, although criticized for obstructing the achievement of legislated health and environmental goals,¹ has been hailed as the cure for the adverse economic impacts resulting from such regulation. Industry complaints that environmental regulation costs too much has led to congressional and administrative efforts to make regulations more "efficient" by requiring costs of controls to be justified by greater benefits.