Editors' Summary: The Clinton Administration's proposed Superfund amendments—the Superfund Reform Act of 1994 (SRA)—were introduced in both the House and Senate in early February. Steven M. Jawetz of Beveridge & Diamond, reviews several key provisions of the bill's first five titles, including proposals to increase delegation to states, narrow defenses to EPA administrative orders and cost recovery actions, institute a nonbinding allocation process, and modify the remedy selection process. Mr.

The demise of efforts by a broadly based coalition of stakeholders to reauthorize Superfund in the 103rd Congress leaves the legislative field open for reconsidering all the key assumptions underlying the "consensus" bill that dominated last year's debate. Unless the coalition remains unified, and the Administration supports it aggressively, the substance will begin to unravel, the process will become chaotic, and Congress could easily miss the December 1995 deadline to reauthorize the statute.

November 1, 2010

Dear Mr. Feinberg,

We write today to emphasize the importance of restoration as an appropriate and necessary goal of the Deepwater Horizon compensation fund, and to note the centrality of the concept of ecosystem services to the proper assessment of compensation for environmental harms and strategies for achieving ecosystem restoration. To the extent that the existing Trust authority is not sufficient to take account of these concepts, we encourage you to seek broader authority.

Restoration as Part of Compensation

Editor's Summary: In 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its most recent pronouncement on the executive foreign affairs preemption doctrine in American Insurance Ass'n v. Garamendi. In this Article, Kimberly Breedon argues that lower courts are prone to overbroad applications of Garamendi because the Court assumed the presence of three elements when it developed the standard for executive foreign affairs preemption of state law: (1) formal source law; (2) nexus to a foreign entity; and (3) indication of intent by the executive to preempt the state law under challenge.

Editors' Summary: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on three takings cases in its 2004 term: Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc.; Kelo v. City of New London; and San Remo Hotel, Ltd. Partnership v. City & County of San Francisco. In Lingle, the Court struck down the "substantially advance" test set forth in Agins v. City of Tiburon. Kelo, which gained attention from the media and public, upheld the use of eminent domain for economic development purposes. And San Remo involved a relatively straightforward procedural issue.

Oysters are an integral part of the Gulf of Mexico. They clump together to act as coral reefs that protect, shelter, and form vital nursery grounds for other aquatic species. They act as natural water purifiers, filtering anywhere from 25 to 50 gallons of water per day in the bays and estuaries where they dwell. Often referred to as the "backbone of marine life," oysters fall near the bottom of the food chain, providing nourishment for all types of sea life, including birds at low tide.

Editors' Summary: Parties undergoing cleanups at contaminated sites under CERCLA that have also been served with a notice of a citizen suit under RCRA face ambiguity and uncertainty as they try to make sense out of these two statutory schemes.The recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Cooper Industries, Inc. v. Aviall Services, Inc., has further increased this statutory friction, particularly for those undertaking cleanups of contaminated sites pursuant to administrative orders on consent, unilateral administrative orders, or other administratively ordered means.

The U.S. Supreme Court's decision to grant review of the en banc decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in the Aviall Services, Inc. v. Cooper Industries, Inc. case was something of a surprise. After all, in the view of many Superfund lawyers, the en banc decision had gotten it right, vacating a panel decision that was contrary to the general understanding of the Superfund bar.

Editors' Summary: On February 28, 2005, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated and remanded portions of EPA's concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFO) rule. The ruling was not a win for either side of the debate, as it requires permitting authorities to review and incorporate nutrient management plans into their permits, but prevents EPA from requiring CAFOs to apply for permits based solely on their potential to discharge pollutants to U.S. waters.

On September 30, 1993, President Clinton signed Executive Order 12866,¹ a new executive order (E.O.) on regulatory planning and review to replace E.O.s 12291² and 12498.³ At the signing ceremony, he identified several objectives of the new E.O., including "get[ting] rid of useless, outdated and unnecessary regulations"; implementing a regulatory review process that would be "fair, streamlined, responsive, and much more straightforward"; eliminating "the days of back-door access to undermining the regulatory proces