Editors' Summary: Modern environmental law has relied almost exclusively on either mandating or forbidding certain conduct in order to reduce pollution. In addressing pollution that causes acid rain, the 1990 Amendments to the Clean Air Act adopted a new approach: Encouraging pollution reduction through market-based incentives. The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD or the District), which is responsible for regulating air pollution in the Los Angeles metropolitan area, adopted this approach in its Regional Clean Air Incentives Program (RECLAIM).

The U.S. Supreme Court handled an all-time high of over 7,700 cases in the 1993-1994 Term.¹ The number and variety of environmental law cases on which the Court acted reflects this achievement.

Editors' Summary: Under the Maastricht Treaty, the nations that are members of the European Union (EU) together must develop common European environmental policies. Toward this end, the European Commission has proposed EU-wide environmental laws that are meant to harmonize the various and diverging environmental laws and policies of EU member states. The laws attempt to overcome the various trade, environmental, and sovereignty concerns of member states that are obstacles to environmental unification. To date, these laws exist in essentially two forms: Mandatory and voluntary.

It is generally the responsibility of cities and other local governments — not states or the federal government — to provide residents with essential services such as sewage treatment, garbage disposal, drainage, and drinking water.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) "mixture rule for hazardous waste was vacated by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Shell Oil Co. v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.¹ The case took 12 years to litigate. The organizations involved in the litigation included EPA, environmental groups, and a large portion of American industry.

None of the citizen suit provisions of federal environmental laws bars a prevailing, for-profit corporate litigant from obtaining attorneys fees awards under those statutes' fee-shifting mechanisms. This is true even when a corporation brings the action to vindicate its own pecuniary interests rather than to benefit the public. In FallowfieldDevelopment Corp. v.

Can listed hazardous waste escape the requirements of Subtitle C¹ of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA),² without being delisted, simply by being mixed with other material? Under the mixture rule that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued in 1980,³ the answer is no. But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia invalidated the mixture rule in Shell Oil Co. v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,⁴ and the U.S.

Has environmental law come of age? I think the answer, overall, may be yes. In many senses it has done so; we have made a transition from classic judicial review of administrative action in which environmental advocates such as David Sive, in cases such as the Scenic Hudson or Storm King Mountain case,¹ more or less successfully sought to expand and deepen that review. The purpose was essentially to have the concept of what was in the "public interest" broadened to include environmental matters.

Editors' Summary: Environmental litigation is witnessing an increasing number of claims for "stigma" damages, which arise when the value of real property decreases due to a public perception that the property is contaminated or threatened with contamination. In the past, courts generally eschewed awarding such damages in the absence of other actionable harm. Recent decisions, however, reveal that courts have begun to recognize stigma damages in new contexts.

The 104th Congress opened with great attention to the Republican "Contract With America" (the Contract), which the House leadership promised would pass the House of Representatives within the first 100 days. The Contract was first fleshed-out on January 4, 1995, when 10 bills were introduced.¹ After a flurry of legislative activity, rushed hearings, and abbreviated floor debate, the House fulfilled its promise to act on all 10 bills, finishing more than one week ahead of schedule.²