A more substantive precautionary principle of international law is evolving as new treaties articulate new measures of precaution in different contexts. Although there is considerable controversy over how to articulate or define a precautionary "principle" of law, the goal is to ensure that the mere lack of scientific knowledge about risks cannot justify a failure to take appropriate precautions. Where we have sufficient evidence of risk, we often take precautions, despite a lack of certainty about those risks.

Editors' Summary: Although the Clean Air Act is the primary tool used for controlling air toxics, the dramatic increase in toxic tort cases brought under common-law theories such as nuisance, trespass, negligence, and strict liability for ultrahazardous activities has raised concern in the industrial community that compliance with regulatory requirements may not protect industry from large-scale toxic tort liability. This Article analyzes the implications of common-law liability on the selection of air quality controls.

The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the Clean Water Act (CWA), and the Clean Air Act (CAA) represent federal regulatory regimes for protecting the environment. Although each statute initially places administrative responsibility in the hands of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), each encourages states, to varying degrees, to take primary responsibility for implementing the statutory regime.

In Environmental Federalism Part 1: The History of Overfiling Under RCRA, the CWA, and the CAA Prior to Harmon, Smithfield, and CLEAN, the history of judicial and administrative decisions relating to overfiling under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the Clean Water Act (CWA), and the Clean Air Act (CAA) was analyzed. The history showed that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), with limited exceptions, generally was understood to have overfiling authority under RCRA, the CWA, and the CAA. The limited exceptions focused on two situations.

In the span of just a few years, the U.S. Supreme Court has brought the venerable constitutional concept of federalism back to life with a vengeance. In the 1999 Term alone, the Rehnquist Court struck down three federal laws for violating basic principles of federalism and narrowly construed a fourth to avoid any conflict with those precepts.

Editors' Summary: In recent years, vindication of private-property rights has been the rallying cry of various citizen groups and politicians who believe that certain regulatory restrictions—especially environmental protection measures—have "gone too far" and that the Fifth Amendment is an insufficient safeguard of private-property rights.

On June 29, 2001, the last day of the October 2000 term, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider "whether the [Ninth Circuit] Court of Appeals properly determined that a temporary moratorium on land development does not constitute a taking of property requiring compensation under the Takings Clause of the [U.S.] Constitution?" The case, Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, provides the Court with an opportunity to clarify its opinions in First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale v.

What is an appropriate regulatory response to the enormous growth of pesticide use in developing countries? The question falls within the broader issue of how developing countries deal with the consequences of their application of technological packages to agricultural production. As developing countries step up efforts to improve agricultural production, there are rising concerns about the social and economic costs of their agricultural development in terms of the negative health and environmental impact that pesticides are or are likely to cause.

In late 1999, the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) proposed an expansive ergonomics standard. Its genesis, however, goes back to 1979, when OSHA hired its first ergonomist. Now, more than 20 years later, OSHA is moving forward with a proposed standard that is both extremely far-reaching and, in many ways, unique among health and safety requirements. The proposal, however, suffers from a number of serious deficiencies, including inherent ambiguities within the regulatory language itself.

Editors' Summary: Pfiesteria piscicida, a sometimes toxic microorganism, is responsible for the death of millions of fish in Delaware, Maryland, North Carolina, and Virginia. Although the problem of Pfiesteria-related fish kills is associated with the Mid-Atlantic region, other toxic microorganisms have threatened fish and marine wildlife throughout the world. Scientists attribute this "global epidemic" of toxic microbes to excessive nutrient loading from nonpoint sources of pollution.