On April 23, 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency.¹ Commentators and land use planners were dreading the decision, fearing that the Court would continue its 15-year pattern of increasing property protections at the expense of state and local governments engaged in land use planning. But in a surprising moment, the Court ruled 6-3 in favor of the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency's nearly three-year moratorium on all development within the Lake Tahoe basin.

This Dialogue explores the legal and regulatory implications of the discovery, through more precise detection technology, of the presence of pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PPCPs)¹ and endocrine disrupting compounds (EDCs) in the environment, particularly in surface water and public water supplies. The effects of drugs and hormones and other PPCPs on aquatic life, and the effects of unintended human exposure, are largely unknown.²

On April 23, 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court released its decision in Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency,¹ ruling 6 to 3 that a temporary prohibition of the use of land does not effect a taking for which compensation is due under the Takings Clause of the U.S. Constitution. While it was widely anticipated that the Court would use Tahoe-Sierra to clarify some of the murkier areas of regulatory takings jurisprudence, the decision answers very few questions and obscures many others.

Introduction: Too Little Attention to Economic Underpinnings of Penn Central Test

On April 23, 2002, in Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency,¹ the U.S. Supreme Court rejected a regulatory taking claim based on a nearly three-year moratorium on development in the Lake Tahoe Basin. The Court split 6 to 3, with Justice John Paul Stevens writing the decision for the Court, and Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissenting.

How many lawyers, regulators, engineers, and contractors does it take to change a light bulb? Lots, if you happen to be changing the light bulb at a "stationary source" of pollution, and the bulb change counts as a "modification" of the source under the Clean Air Act (CAA).¹ According to that statute, any physical or operational change that results in an increase in the source's emission of certain pollutants triggers an exacting and costly set of permitting requirements.

This Article analyzes the potential impact on government regulation of private property rights of the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in Brown v. Legal Foundation of Washington.¹ That case upheld mandatory Interest on Lawyers' Trust Accounts (IOLTA) programs. While Brown ensures continued funding for legal services for low- and moderate-income persons, it is difficult to reconcile with the Court's existing property and takings doctrines.

Governments are currently negotiating rules to govern international greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions trading under the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).¹ Emissions trading is a critical element of climate policy because it can allow countries to implement emissions limitation commitments at a significantly lower cost than if such commitments had to be implemented solely from mitigation activities within each country's own borders.

Human-induced climate change is considered by many scientists to be one of the most pressing international problems facing our planet. Yet, international efforts to address greenhouse gas emissions have been repeatedly stymied by differences in national perspectives.

In September 1991, 25 people died at the Imperial Food Products plant in Hamlet, North Carolina, when they were trapped in a factory fire. Witnesses to the fire said the employees could not escape because the building doors were locked, apparently to prevent pilferage. The North Carolina assistant labor commissioner subsequently stated that the locked doors constituted "serious violations" of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act). The plant, however, had never been inspected for health or safety violations in its 11 years of operation.