In his Comment¹ on United States v. Maryland Bank & Trust Co.,² Phillip Reed suggests, "[L]ike other landowners and hazardous waste generators who have learned too late just how broad CERCLA's liability scheme can be, they [banks and other creditors] may simply have to pay the piper."³ Without intending to be contentious, I believe the contrary is true. Banks and other creditors will only have to dance to a new tune. The public will end up paying the piper.

Four or five years ago, I tried to fit the time into my schedule to write an article on the possibility of negotiating regulations. I figured that no one would ever take it seriously, and that I would then move on to the practice of law. Today, I am still trying to escape and move on to the practice of law: People did take the idea seriously; many seminars have been held to discuss the concept, and several agencies have used the process. I think it has been established as a viable alternative to traditional notice-and-comment or hybrid rulemaking.

Horse trading is a process as old as the hills of Virginia. Negotiated rulemaking, however, is a horse of a different color. The nag that the parties end up with is one that we all have to ride. It is therefore particularly important that these negotiations result in a rule that is sound and based on the input of every major interest affected by the rule.

Editors' Summary: The coastal areas of this country provide more than just a place to spend a vacation. They have always supported a substantial proportion of the country's population, are the source and support of much of its fishing industry, and provide the potential for substantial energy resources. But the conflicts associated with increasing population growth and economic prosperity have seriously degraded coastal areas in recent years. In 1972 Congress enacted the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) in an attempt to prevent further deterioration of the coasts.

In the July 1987 Environmental Law Reporter, I was particularly interested in Professor Lawrence Susskind's description of his efforts with the Camden County Municipal Utilities Authority (CCMUA) issue.¹ Unfortunately, Professor Susskind's article leaves several misimpressions that deserve to be corrected.

Let me turn to the subject of the environmental liabilities imposed on landowners, tenants, and lenders, and the question of how far those can, and should, extend.

The multilateral development banks (MDBs)¹ spend more than $20 billion annually to promote economic development in less developed nations, and leverage billions more. The MDBs are the world's largest institutions financing economic development.

Editors' Summary: Although NEPA has been with us for nearly two decades, the precise extent of the statute's application remains cloudy. The courts continue to struggle with the scope of "Federal action," particularly where proposed federal conduct with little direct environmental effect will make possible nonfederal activities of great environmental consequence. Mr. Ellis and Mr. Smith examine the case law on this issue, identifying two different analytical trends reflected in the various decisions.

Editors' Summary: The public trust doctrine is an amorphous legal concept that generally provides that states hold certain submerged land and tidelands in trust for their citizens. In Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Mississippi, the Supreme Court held that state ownership of lands subject to the public trust includes nonnavigable lands that are subject to the influence of the tide. This Comment analyzes the Court's decision, which could bring millions of acres of wetlands within the reach of the public trust.

Editors' Summary: With virtual certainty, one of the two Dialogues that follow is the environmental views of the next president. Choosing between them is one of the most important environmental decisions that Americans collectively will make over the next several years.