Established in over 65 countries and territories, marine protected areas (MPAs) embody a range of habitats, enable the provision of fundamental ecosystem services, protect marine biodiversity and cultural resources, and provide spaces to conduct cutting-edge research and implement innovative policies. Yet management of MPAs can face challenges, including the lack of adequate tools, the need for rules to secure comprehensive monitoring, the vastness of the ocean, and more.

Editors' Summary: TSCA provides EPA with broad authority to address potential hazards posed by the manufacture, processing, distribution in commerce, use, and disposal of chemical substances and mixtures. In this first of a three-part series, the authors begin a detailed examination of the statute and regulatory program. They review the origins, objectives, and key components of TSCA, and then analyze TSCA's scope -- focusing particularly on definitional issues and exclusions.

Access to water is a fundamental climate change issue in North America and internationally. It is related to significant political, social, and ecological struggles that indigenous peoples face, and governments and courts so far have done little to address these inequities.

In the western United States, the management of surface water quality and quantity is highly compartmentalized. This compartmentalization among and within state and federal authorities is not inherently objectionable. To the contrary, it likely is necessary. Yet, the degree of compartmentalization appears to have so divided management of this resource that damage has been done to both sides. Opportunities exist for cooperation, coordination, and a more holistic perspective on water management with little or even no change in law.

In two major Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) opinions, United States v. Atlantic Research, Inc. and Burlington Northern & Santa Fe R.R. v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court provided long-sought guidance for parties litigating hazardous waste cleanup issues under CERCLA.

On May 4, 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its decision in Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. United States. The decision is of major significance with respect to two areas of Superfund jurisprudence--"arranger" liability, and divisibility or apportionment of harm. This Article is concerned only with the latter issue and, moreover, only with one specific element of that issue.

This past May, the U.S. Supreme Court for the first time addressed two issues that the U.S. Congress left open in the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA). These issues are: (1) the scope of "generator" or "arranger" liability under the language of CERCLA §107(a)(3); and (2) the circumstances under which a liable party under §1073 may be held jointly and severally liable. Rejecting the position of the U.S.

Editors' Summary

I. Introduction and Overview