Editors' Summary: Federal district courts are nearly unanimous in holding that the right to trial by jury under the Seventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution does not apply to CERCLA cost-recovery and contribution actions, because those actions are for equitable restitution rather than legal damages. The author suggests that the district courts have erroneously concluded that these actions seek equitable restitution. The Article begins by discussing the U.S.

Editors' Summary: This Article addresses the effect of the U.S. Constitution's Takings Clause on the government's authority to protect environmental resources. An earlier Article, published in the May 1994 of ELR, analyzed bases for government regulation provided by limitations inherent in the property right itself. In contrast, this Article focuses on an emerging doctrine of sustainable use, rooted in background principles of nuisance law and the government's complementary police power.

Editors' Summary: Environmental regulation has come under increasing attack from those who argue that governmental limitations on property use violate constitutional restrictions on regulatory takings of property. The author addresses this controversy by focusing on the background limitations on owners' rights that are inherent in property law itself, as opposed to the external controls that government may impose under the doctrines of police power and nuisance.

Is an intentional temporary deprivation of the use of land not a "temporary taking"? This proposition was asserted by a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency. The Ninth Circuit denied en banc review, despite a strong dissent by Judge Alex Kozinski. Perhaps because it had never explicated the meaning of "temporary taking," and perhaps in part because its interest was kindled by the Kozinski dissent, the U.S. Supreme Court recently granted certiorari. The question is limited to:

Editors' Summary: An information-sharing arrangement with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency gives teeth to the Securities and Exchange Commission's warning that companies that do not satisfy environmental disclosure requirements will be subject to enforcement actions. This Article provides companies a framework from which they can develop a strategy to meet those requirements. After briefly reviewing the relevant law, regulations, and guidance in this area, the authors offer insight into crafting and executing an effective environmental disclosure strategy.

Editors' Summary: Human exposure to lead is one of the most serious environmental health threats today. Lead causes a variety of adverse health effects and is particularly harmful to children. Unfortunately, the current regulation of lead exposures is fragmented and often unsuccessful. California's Proposition 65, a right-to-know initiative, however, has achieved some noteworthy successes in reducing public exposures to lead.

The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR or the Bureau) observed its centennial in 2002, and celebrated 100 years of building dams and supplying water for irrigation and other purposes in the western United States. In 2003, the U.S. Department of the Interior (the Interior) and the Bureau shifted their focus to the future of the West and its water supply needs, producing a document called Water 2025: Preventing Crises and Conflict in the West.

Editors' Summary: When Congress enacted CERCLA in 1980, it put potential site owners and operators on notice that contaminating sites with hazardous substances can have severe consequences. Four years later, however, at least one company failed to heed that warning. In 1984, the Summitville Consolidated Mining Company, Inc. began operations at the Summitville mine site in Colorado. The result was a classic case of regulatory and corporate failure to prevent environmental disaster. In this Dialogue, the authors examine the reasons for the disaster at the Summitville site.

In New York v. SCA Services, Inc., the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York rejected the notion that a transporter cannot be an arranger under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). This Dialogue reviews the parties' arguments and the court's opinion. It then analyzes the impact this case will have on transporters.

Editors' Summary: This is the second of a three-part series explaining pesticide regulation. This installment discusses requirements for registration of pesticide producers, producer recordkeeping, end user requirements including those related to restricted use pesticides, enforcement authority, and EPA rulemaking and judicial review. The previous installment, which appeared in last month's issue, 24 ELR 10449, examined federal jurisdiction over pesticides, labeling and packaging requirements, pesticide registration, and related regulatory authorities.