Under the Wetland Conservation subtitle of the Food Security Act of 1985, as amended, commonly known as "Swampbuster," wetlands may be used to grow crops provided they are not degraded by this practice. In the legislation, Congress has made an effort, by use of the "minimal effects" concept, to make precise just what farming practices are acceptable. If a farming practice has only a minimal effect on the wetland's function, then the farmer is not ineligible for participation in federal loan, commodity price and income support, and conservation programs.

The U.S. Supreme Court decision last term in Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (SWANCC), striking down the migratory bird rule for wetlands regulation, warrants some reading of the Court's environmental tea leaves. Some fine commentary in these pages still leaves murky whether the opinion seriously imperils other environmental laws and regulations. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist's SWANCC opinion for a five-Justice majority had worrisome implications that the new restrictive view of the U.S.

The sequencing of the human genome revealed that the variation in the genetic material between any two individuals averages approximately one variation for every 1,000 base pairs of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA).¹ Even though we are remarkably 99.9% genetically identical, there are still on average three million genetic differences between any two people, given that the human genome contains approximately 3.1 billion base pairs of DNA.

Editors' Summary: For over 15 years, the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) has required the federal government to pay private parties' attorneys fees and other litigation expenses when they prevail against the government in judicial or administrative adjudicatory actions. In 1996, Congress added new provisions to the EAJA, for the first time requiring awards of fees and expenses to certain nonprevailing "small entities" if the demand by the agency is substantially in excess of, and is unreasonable when compared with, the decision of the adjudicative officer or court.

In Acushnet Co. v. Mohasco Corp.,² the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed a district court's action in granting summary judgment to defendants on their C3100 contribution claims without first conducting a full "equitable allocation" hearing.

Roll on, thou deep and dark blue ocean . . . ten thousand fleets

sweep over thee in vain . . . but [man's] control stops with the shore.¹

Introduction

Editors' Summary: The CAA Amendments of 1990 established the first federal operating permit program for major sources of air contaminants.The Title V program strikes southern California with particular ferocity because Los Angeles is an extreme nonattainment area. Thus, any source with the potential to emit over 10 tons per year is considered major and subject to permitting requirements. Because so many sources in southern California are impacted by the operating permit program, the area's experience with the federal operating permit program is instructive.

Congress initially intended the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA or Superfund)¹ to provide a statutory framework for addressing what Congress believed to be a manageable number of sites presenting significant risks to human health and the environment.² CERCLA's liability scheme, however, has had an unanticipated chilling effect on the willingness of parties to purchase or otherwise use contaminated sites throughout the country.³

The 20th anniversary of Superfund¹ is a time to reflect upon the extraordinary history of this singular environmental law. This Dialogue begins with an overview of that history. It then offers some observations about Superfund's achievements and about the evolving societal strategy for addressing contaminated sites. Finally, this Dialogue examines some of the many challenges that still confront Superfund as it moves into its third decade.