Federal law divides the responsibility of enforcing federal environmental regulations between federal agencies, typically the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and state agencies.¹ Generally, state programs receive formal approval or authorization from EPA to administer the federal environmental program.² EPA usually combines the delegation of authority to the states with retained enforcement authority for themselves.³

To those who have wearied of an environmental regulatory system that manages to combine sluggish bureaucracy with partisan rancor—and the list of the disenchanted appears to include just about everybody involved in the environmental field—contracts may seem to provide an attractive alternative. Because contracts are flexible, collaborative, and enforceable, they offer an opportunity to bypass litigation while addressing the failures of command-and-control regulation. Why, then, are they so little used?

There are many aspects of the Enron saga that would give pause to someone who thinks about the environment and its problems. One of the most obvious is the concern that allowing unregulated trading of energy might not account for the costs of environmental externalities that are concurrent with energy production and usage.¹ Another worry is that reducing the cost of energy may increase consumption and accelerate environmental degradation.

People's right to know about and participate in decisions that could affect their quality of life is increasingly recognized as a critical element of sustainable development.¹ In this context, the environmental matters have been a "wedge issue," allowing advocates to open up government processes and make them more accountable.² Natural resources and the environment play a fundamental role in ensuring a safe, healthy, and productive life, thus people are more likely to demand opportunities to be involved in decisions that affect these natur

The debate between free traders and environmentalists has increasingly been drawing global attention throughout the last decade. It centers, generally speaking, around the question of how best to resolve the often conflicting goals of international trade liberalization on the one hand, and an increasing need for global environmental protection on the other. Measures to protect the environment often affect trade between different states, while at the same time trade measures might affect environmental conditions.

Modern federal environmental law has a built-in dynamic of tension that since its inception has led to challenging relations between the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the states. On the one hand, the U.S. Congress enacted numerous environmental statutes in the early 1970s because of widespread dissatisfaction with state efforts to protect the environment. Congress made EPA ultimately accountable for achieving the mandates of federal law.

In May 2002, biologists made a surprising discovery—snakehead fish had proliferated in a small pond in Crofton, Maryland.¹ Snakeheads are a native fish of China and Korea, capable of tolerating extreme environmental conditions.² They are also fierce predators with the ability to disrupt native ecosystems through predation and competition.³ Immediately, concern arose over the presence of the snakeheads in Maryland due to their non-native status and highly invasive tendencies.

As members of the legal profession should well know, few legal controversies can be adequately and fairly resolved without the assistance of an attorney. The U.S.

This Article attempts to unpack the meaning and significance of the recent decision in Brown v. Legal Foundation of Washington,¹ in which the U.S. Supreme Court rejected a takings challenge to Washington State's Interest on Lawyers' Trust Accounts (IOLTA) program.

One of the many devastating, and often overlooked, effects of armed conflict is impact on the environment. An inevitable casualty of military conflict is destruction of land, water, air, and other natural resources.