As we mark the 20th anniversary of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), more than a dozen federal environmental statutes have been passed since the Agency was created in 1970. Congress' method for solving environmental problems has been to enact more laws, often in reaction to catastrophes.¹ Pending legislation to create a cabinet-level Department of the Environment represents a unique opportunity to restructure federal laws and environmental regulatory programs.

On March 8, 1990, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published the revised national contingency plan (NCP) in the Federal Register.¹ In early June 1990, Pennsylvania and eight other states filed suit challenging the revised NCP. In New York v. EPA,² the states raise issues that go to the heart of EPA's approach to legal liability for responsible persons in several of its environmental programs.

Editors' Summary: During the last two decades, state and local governments have tried to find places to dispose of their share of the 160 million tons of garbage produced annually in the United States. Faced with landfill closings, local opposition to siting new landfills, and strict environmental regulations, they search beyond their geographic boundaries for disposal sites. In response, state and local jurisdictions with adequate disposal capacity have banned waste generated outside their jurisdiction.

In the 1970s, the newly created U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) embarked on three different regulatory approaches for reducing pollution. First, the Clean Air Act¹ mandated that EPA set ambient-based standards that protect human health and welfare. These standards require existing industrial sources of air pollution to install pollution control equipment only to the extent necessary to meet ambient standards.

Environmental news, like most news today, is enmeshed in the scare-of-the-week syndrome: "If it bleeds, it leads."¹ Reporters, seeking facts instead of truths, usually leave little room for in-depth coverage of scientific or environmental issues. At the same time, environmental stories have grown to be among the stories most widely reported on.²

Editors' Summary: Of cultural and environmental significance, Indian reservations present unique jurisdictional problems. This Article explores the implications of two Supreme Court cases—one on zoning authority and one on criminal jurisdiction—for EPA's implementation of environmental statutes on reservations. After discussing two doctrines of Indian law and the two cases, the author focuses on Justice Stevens' opinion in Brendale v.

Editors' Summary: On May 21, 1990, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in California v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission that the Federal Power Act provides FERC with the exclusive authority to determine minimum instream flow rates for hydroelectric power projects. In so doing, the Court refused to upset the longstanding line of cases, beginning with First Iowa Hydro-Electric Cooperative v. Federal Power Commission, which established the tenuous balance in favor of federal authority over hydropower regulation.

A serious threat to our nation's fundamental environmental charter emerges in the fight over the future of the remaining ancient forests of the Pacific Northwest.

Editors' Summary: Radon exposure in the home poses one of the greatest cancer risks of any environmental pollutant. However, responses by homeowners to the radon threat have been complacent. In this Article, the author discusses the reasons for this complacency and describes current efforts to educate the public about radon. The author concludes that existing efforts are inadequate and recommends a two-part national strategy that makes radon testing and disclosure an integral part of home sales.

Editors' Summary: The far-reaching effects of the nation's hazardous waste laws have become legendary. Manufacturers, insurers, bankers, senior corporate managers, and even cleanup contractors now worry about their liability under CERCLA. For the most part, Congress has left CERCLA's liability provisions intact since first enacting them in 1980. But Congress did make some changes in its 1986 amendments to CERCLA, and the meaning of some of these changes is only now emerging.