Editors' Summary: Much attention has been focused on the role of statutes in environmental enforcement. This focus is understandable, given the huge arsenal of environmental statutes that have been enacted. But the courts have not forgotten the common law, and as this article points out, neither should litigants. Approaching the subject from the perspective of the state enforcement official, the article discusses the applicability of the common law concept of public nuisance to modern-day environmental problems, particularly those caused by hazardous waste and toxic substances.

Editors' Summary: The tragic release of deadly methyl isocyanate gas from a Union Carbide facility in Bhopal, India, followed shortly by the release of a toxic gas from Union Carbide's plant in Institute, West Virginia, sharply focused the public's attention on the risk of sudden, accidental releases of hazardous chemicals in this country. Federal, state, and local governments, as well as the chemical industry itself, have responded with various initiatives designed to reduce the risks.

The Tax Reform Act of 1986¹ provides a significant turnaround in the environmental implications of U.S. tax policy. Congress approved a number of major tax code changes to eliminate subsidies for destruction of wetlands, cultivation of highly erodible lands, and centralized energy facilities.

Editors' Summary: The Burger Court, in its final Term, issued seven major decisions on environmental law. These opinions construed provisions of the Clean Air Act, the FWPCA, CERCLA, and the Bankruptcy Code. The opinions also involve the availability of attorneys fees under environmental statutes, the investigatory power of agencies that enforce environmental law, and the future of two species of wildlife. The author reviews these decisions and notes the further development of patterns established by the Court in recent years.

Editors' Summary: One of the major focuses of environmental protection programs over the next several decades will be on limiting our exposure to toxic substances. Residents of certain geographic areas, especially older industrial areas, can be exposed to these substances through several pathways. The traditional environmental control structure was not designed to address these site-specific, multi-media exposure problems. The author of this article argues that Congress intended to address precisely this problem when it passed TSCA in 1976.

Editors' Summary: On June 19, 1986, President Reagan signed the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1986 into law. Among the many changes made by the Amendments, three stand out. First, EPA must issue drinking water standards for a significantly increased number of contaminants. Second, the Amendments strengthen the Act's enforcement provisions by giving EPA authority to issue administrative orders and by the addition of language providing that EPA "shall" take enforcement action in certain situations. Third, the Amendments establish two new groundwater protection programs.

While there are undoubtedly fascinating stories of the dynamics that shaped the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA) waiting to be written, interpretation of SARA as a statute must be governed by its language, by relevant legislative history in the committee reports, and to some extent by the legislative debates. The volume of this material is daunting.

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA)¹ requires federal agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings on properties eligible for or listed in the National Register of Historic Places.

With the 100th Congress taking its place in Washington, now may be an appropriate time for the environmental community, broadly defined, to consider the increasingly contentious relationship which has evolved between the Congress and the executive branch on environmental matters. Indeed, the "relationship" has become more akin to a series of confrontations in which the greatest uncertainty is whether any specific incident might lead the Congress to precipitate legislative action.

Editors' Summary: Environmental statutes frequently leave important policy and implementation issues to subsequent rulemaking by the Environmental Protection Agency. In practice, however, the EPA does not have a free hand in promulgating regulations; it has often needed to convince the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) of the wisdom of its proposals. In this article, the author outlines the legal basis of OMB involvement and describes the strengths and weaknesses flowing from OMB's authority.