I was struck, when practicing law, with how much of society's human talent and creative resources were being allocated to litigation processes that appeared to furnish little in the way of problem-solving outcomes. The results seemed certainly not commensurate with the amount of effort invested.

The 1986 Airlie House Conference of the Standing Committee on Environmental Law, entitled "The Expanding Role of Private Institutions in Public Environmental Decisionmaking," focused to a large extent on recent efforts to bring alternative dispute resolution procedures into the field of environmental law. Panels on standard setting by consent, negotiated rulemaking, and private facilitating dominated the day's discussions.

Editors' Summary: Fully one-third of the country—including nearly half of California—is owned by the federal government. Nonetheless, a shroud of mystique surrounds the public lands, the history of which is inextricably intertwined with the history of westward expansion. The very concept of federal ownership of land physically located within sovereign states logically leads to conflict concerning rights, responsibilities, and powers. Surprisingly, the Supreme Court has only rarely had to directly face state/federal conflicts involving the public lands.

Editors' Summary: When the federal government filed a Clean Water Act enforcement action in 1981 against a real estate developer for unauthorized filling activities on Chincoteague Island, Virginia, the government could not have realized that it had set in motion litigation that would change how federal environmental laws are enforced. Five years later, however, the developer's claim that he was entitled to a jury trial eventually reached the Supreme Court. In Tull v.

In the most dramatic fashion possible, the centenary Congress of the United States made the Water Quality Act of 1987 (WQA)¹ its inaugural piece of legislation. The law was enacted on February 4, 1987, after being vetoed by President Reagan on January 30, 1987.² The law represents the first major revision to the Clean Water Act (CWA)³ since 1977 by clarifying certain areas of the law as well as granting new powers and responsibilities to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and states.

Editors' Summary: The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) regulatory definition of "solid waste" in the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) has long been a source of controversy. Escape from the definition of "solid waste" and in most cases you have escaped from regulation under RCRA. To a large extent, in defining "solid waste" EPA is faced with often conflicting goals embedded in RCRA itself: RCRA regulates wastes, but "non-wastes" are frequently just as hazardous to humans and the environment.

Editors' Summary: One of the most serious tasks Americans face in the near future is electing a President to lead the nation into the 1990s. Environmental law and policy are heavily influenced by the decisions made by elected officials and their senior appointees, and environmental issues should command close attention as voters and opinion leaders approach the 1988 election.

Editors' Summary: Both plaintiffs and defendants in environmental enforcement litigation are discovering the benefits of creative remedies as part of a negotiated settlement, as alternatives to such traditional "remedies" as fines and forfeitures. The establishment of an environmental trust fund or the funding of a research project in lieu of civil or criminal penalties is often favored by plaintiffs, particularly citizens' groups, as a remedy that more directly compensates an environmental wrong.

Editors' Summary: The theory that a land use regulation may "go too far" and deny to the landowner the use of his or her property in derogation of the Takings Clause of the Constitution has long been an inexact, even confused, doctrine. In the term just ended, the Supreme Court was presented with three cases in which a land use regulation was alleged to have exceeded the police power and "gone too far," but in deciding the individual cases the Court did not successfully clarify the underlying theory.

Editors' Summary: New Jersey's Environmental Cleanup Responsibility Act (ECRA) is probably the leading state effort to address hazardous waste cleanup without direct expenditure of government funds. ECRA attempts to harness the business incentives involved in the sale or transfer of real property to clean the property as it changes hands. This Dialogue outlines ECRA's provisions and analyzes its implementation by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection.