The Sixth Circuit has recently issued a decision in United States v. Riverside Bayview Homes, Inc. (Riverside Bayview) which suggests that the Corps of Engineers' §404 jurisdiction may be quite limited.¹ Last month's Comment on Riverside Bayview² argues that the apparently far-reaching effects of the decision can be dismissed as dictum and can be overcome by regulatory changes.

Editors' Summary: The "delisting" process is a controversial and important aspect of the implementation of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). When the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) lists a waste as hazardous, it brings the substantial weight and cost of RCRA's regulatory requirements to bear on companies that must dispose of that waste. The delisting process is a safety valve through which erroneous listing decisions can be reversed. The authors review the delisting procedures and EPA's delisting practice and argue that the safety valve is not functioning.

I have spent most of my professional career involved in the practice of environmental law and have watched it expand and grow from a cottage industry in the sixties into a significant, diverse area of practice in the eighties. The dramatic growth in environmental law has stemmed, of course, from the enactment during this period of numerous environmental protection and resource management statutes.

Editors' Summary: The Wisconsin v. Weinberger litigation over the Navy's extremely low frequency submarine communication facility has produced three views of the courts' equitable discretion to refrain from enjoining NEPA violations. The district court held it had little discretion, while the judges on the Seventh Circuit put forth two views granting the courts a freer hand in balancing public interests in granting relief.

Editors' Summary: This Article is the third in a three-part series on citizen enforcement suits. Mr. Miller discusses attorneys fee recovery under the statutes, presents a summary of a recent empirical study on citizen enforcement, outlines strategic lessons for plaintiffs and defendants, and proposes a model citizen suit provision.

Superfund. Superfund. Superfund. There is more to the world of environmental legislation than just reauthorization of Superfund, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act.

Keep telling yourself that. You may need to once the 99th Congress convenes late this month and its authorizing committees get down to the work of considering reauthorizations of the torrent of environmental legislation carried over from last year.

In their article Delisting Hazardous Wastes—Do the RCRA Amendments Spell Relief?¹ Ms. Compton and Mr. Patterson discuss the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) rules for delisting hazardous wastes under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA),² the Agency's implementation of these rules, and the recent statutory amendments dealing with delistings. Working at EPA, my biases naturally differ from those of the authors.

The 1990s mark the end of an era when pitched legislative battles can lead to either sound or timely public policy. Rather, the formulation of consensus by a critical mass of private-sector stakeholders is the only way to achieve the timely reauthorization of Superfund and may be the best (if not the only) way to break the gridlock that paralyzes other legislative debates.

Editors' Summary: The gray-bearded Clean-Air Act may appear to be enjoying a quiet slumber in the lull between its 1982 and 1987 deadlines for eliminating unhealthy air pollution, but it is not. The pages of the Federal Register and the federal court reporting services are crammed with legal developments under the Act. They receive relatively little attention in comparison to Congress' futile efforts to give the Act its second major overhaul since 1970, not to mention the general hullabaloo over hazardous waste, but they are important.

Editors' Summary: Most environmental statutes reflect a decision by Congress to split implementation responsibility between state and federal governments. The author asks whether this is wise. Focussing on the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) and its implementation, he compares experiences under the Act with direct federal regulations and state—federal "cooperation." The author argues that criticisms of direct federal regulation, while valid in some situations, do not carry sufficient force to justify abandonment of that model.