Editors' Summary: In 1986, in an effort to expedite cleanups at Superfund sites, Congress enacted SARA, which among other things added §113(h) to CERCLA. Section §113(h) bars "preenforcement" challenges to response actions under §104 and cleanup orders issued under §106. SARA also amended CERCLA by adding §120, which provides for cleanup at federal facilities. Although §113(h) does not explicitly apply to §120 cleanups, the question has arisen whether it nevertheless does apply to them.

Editors' Summary: The Municipal Settlement Policy, an EPA guidance that addresses CERCLA settlements with municipalities that owned co-disposal landfills or were generators or transporters of waste disposed of at such sites, has been the subject of considerable opposition from industry groups. Although a federal district court rejected a facial challenge to the policy based on EPA's statements that it did not intend to apply it inflexibly, in the first decision examining the policy "as applied" a district court recently rejected the proposed settlement.

Editors' Summary: Relying on federal courts to allocate a major contaminated site's Superfund liability can take years, and "quick and dirty" efforts to allocate liability are rarely successful. Faced with these harsh realities, over 30 parties potentially responsible for contamination underlying the eastern San Fernando Valley near Los Angeles, California, decided to rely on scientists to allocate liability for the cleanup of the Glendale operable units. In this Dialogue, the author describes this novel approach of placing Superfund liability determinations in the hands of scientists.

Throughout recorded time, many have attempted to rewrite history to soften the harsh realities of the "good old days." Without question, hindsight remains 20/20 in reflecting upon how this country's modern, industrialized enterprises have adversely impacted the environment, including natural resources. The dilemma now facing businesses relates to natural resource damage liabilities resulting from past industrial progress and prosperity. Through the years, these businesses have paid for past wrongs through the remediation of contaminated media. Clearly, U.S.

Editors' Summary: For over three years, Congress has been trying to reauthorize and revise CERCLA. Reauthorization bills introduced in the 103d, 104th, and 105th Congresses have proposed extensive changes intended to "fix" a program that many people consider to be "broken." In this Article, an Assistant Attorney General for Natural Resources in the New Mexico Office of the Attorney General suggests that the Superfund program is not as flawed as its critics charge. He argues that the statute only needs some fine-tuning.

The Sad State of the Policy Debate

Since its creation in 1980, the Superfund program has overcome a number of obstacles. It survived embarrassing political scandals in its first few years. It endured a failure to reauthorize the underlying statute in 1985, a lapse that led to widespread disruptions at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and set the program back significantly. It has persevered in the face of attacks from many sides.

Editors' Summary: In the last several years, CERCLA has been the subject of a multitude of proposals for revising its more controversial provisions. One of the groups with a major interest in efforts to revise the statute is composed of state attorneys general. This Dialogue contains the text of a speech on CERCLA reform delivered by a former Attorney General of New Mexico, who is currently the U.S. Representative from the Third District of New Mexico. The Dialogue begins by explaining the origins of the statute and describing some of its key provisions.

By the beginning of the 106th Congress, comprehensive legislative reform of the Superfund statute had consumed six fruitless years of effort. Adopting a new approach, the Administration decided to seek narrow, targeted legislation. In testimony that would be repeated several times in 1999, the U.S.

On July 1, 2001, Colorado Senate Bill 01-145 (SB 145) took effect. The statute creates an "environmental covenant" as a mechanism for enforcing use restrictions imposed in connection with the remediation of contaminated sites. The environmental covenants contain use restrictions that were relied upon in the remedial decision. Such restrictions are commonly known as "institutional controls." Colorado enacted this law because it was not clear whether existing mechanisms (such as common-law covenants and easements) would be legally enforceable in relevant circumstances.