Section 309,¹ a little-known but broad-ranging provision of the Clean Air Act of 1970, empowers the EPA Administrator to review and comment upon all environmental impact statements prepared by other federal agencies. In addition, the section provides a "referral" mechanism by which the Administrator can apply leverage against the sponsoring agency to have an environmentally harmful project modified or dropped altogether.

The courts generally do not favor private nuisance actions for air pollution; the dire prospect of shutting down a polluting industry usually prevails over individual plaintiffs' comparatively insubstantial environmental rights. Often, however, the court's task of balancing the partics' relative equities is eased by defendant's transigence, e.g., where it neither seeks to alleviate the complainants' suffering nor to perform functions that are particularly vital to the economic health of society.

The federal government's commitment to environmental protection has weakened considerably since 1970-1971. Perhaps nothing better symbolizes this shift than Secretary of Transportation William Coleman's recent decision to permit the Concorde supersonic transport (SST) to land in the United States.¹ This authorization contrasts with Congress' 1971 vote to cancel federal funding of a United States SST.

On March 12, following an unprecedented request by the state of North Carolina, Interior Secretary Thomas S. Kleppe designated a 26.5-mile stretch of the New River in North Carolina as a component of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers system.

In the first significant judicial reaction¹ to last year's amendment² to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Second Circuit Court of Appeals has repudiated its earlier "hard line" view³ that NEPA prohibits delegation of environmental impact statement preparation to state agencies.

The California Legislature is currently debating one of the most important issues it has ever confronted: the proposed California Coastal Plan.¹ The outcome of this legislative fight may determine not only the future of the 1,100-mile California coast, but also the national destiny of comprehehensive resource management and innovative developmental controls.

In the first two appellate decisions¹ interpreting the Endangered Species Act of 1973,² the Fifth and Eighth Circuit Courts of Appeals recently reiterated the Act's placement of responsibility on all federal agencies to ensure that their actions do not jeopardize the continued existence of endangered forms of wildlife.

In a mixed portent for the future, California voters recently closed the first act in what is likely to be a long-running power play. On June 8th, California voted, by a two-to-one margin, against a ballot proposal, known as Proposition 15 or the California Nuclear Initiative, that was the first of a series of state plebiscites challenging the continue expansion—or even further use—of nuclear power as an energy source. Similar referenda are now on the ballot in Oregon and Colorado for the November election and are being put forward in about 20 other states.

The federal district court for the northern district of California has for the second time in two years upheld the constitutionality of state and local ordinances enacted to control noise around municipal airports in the face of claims that the restrictions illegally invade a field of regulation preempted by the federal government. The cases are noteworthy because they suggest that the seemingly broad federal preemption of aircraft noise regulation announced by Justice Douglas in City of Burbank v. Lockheed Air Terminal,¹ may in reality be quite narrow.

Because there is typically a long period between environmental release of a toxic substance and appearance of chronic adverse health and environmental effects, many industrial and commercial chemicals that initially appeared innocuous have turned out to be dangerous. It is thus not uncommon for companies to have engaged in widespread production of dangerous substances—and for government regulatory agencies to have sanctioned their wide use and disposal—in good-faith ignorance of their potential for harm.