In his recent Article advocating greater use of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) techniques by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in enforcement actions, Richard Mays thoroughly analyzed the benefits of ADR but failed to adequately discuss its drawbacks.¹ This Dialogue identifies problems associated with Agency promotion of ADR and recommends that the status quo of infrequent and highly selective use of ADR techniques is entirely healthy.

Editors' Summary: The question of to what extent Superfund cleanups must comply with RCRA's hazardous waste disposal requirements—often called the "RCRA/CERCLA interface"—is easily one of environmental law's most complex issues. It must be addressed at virtually every cleanup site, and millions of dollars of cleanup costs and months of delay can hang on its resolution. In this Article, the author describes the evolution of the doctrine that Superfund remedial actions must comply with the "applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements" (ARARs) of other laws.

On October 14, 1988, the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued an attorneys fees ruling¹ clarifying citizens' rights to challenge Corps of Engineers' determinations that areas are not wetlands and thus not subject to the permitting requirements of §404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA or the Act).² The decision comes in a case that may be the largest enforcement action, in terms of acreage, ever brought by government or citizenry.³ It was brought by the National Wildlife Federation and th

Editors' Summary: The Environmental Protection Agency's Superfund program is under increasing attack as slow, inflexible, and inclined toward inconsistent administration in various regions around the country. While EPA defends itself vigorously, asserting that these criticisms are exaggerated and that outsiders often do not acknowledge the complexities of hazardous waste cleanup, the fact remains that in its ninth year of implementation the Superfund program has still not lived up to public expectations.

Editors' Summary: The Environmental Protection Agency's Superfund program is under increasing attack as slow, inflexible, and inclined toward inconsistent administration in various regions around the country. While EPA defends itself vigorously, asserting that these criticisms are exaggerated and that outsiders often do not acknowledge the complexities of hazardous waste cleanup, the fact remains that in its ninth year of implementation the Superfund program has still not lived up to public expectations.

In the June 1988 issue of the Environmental Law Reporter,¹ Laura Kosloff concludes that the Supreme Court decision in Phillips Petroleum Co. v.

Beginning with enactment of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA),¹ and continuing through the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA)² and the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA),³ Congress has been engaged for almost a decade in a fundamental restructuring of environmental law.

Editors' Summary: Exactly 20 years ago this month, in February 1969, Senator Henry Jackson (D-Wash.) and Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.) introduced draft legislation that led the way to the ultimate enactment of the National Environmental Policy Act. A product of the growing environmental consciousness of American society during the 1960s, NEPA was Congress' first modern environmental law, and it set the tone for the complex superstrucure of federal environmental law that was to follow.

Editors' Summary: While the 1988 FIFRA Amendments are not the comprehensive reform package many had hoped for, the Amendments do address an issue at the heart of the pesticide program—EPA's reregistration of old pesticides. After unsuccessful attempts to amend FIFRA in 1982 and 1986, Congress passed a bill stripped of controversial issues such as groundwater contamination and farmer liability for contamination resulting from lawful pesticide use.

I rise (or, more appropriately, write) for a point of personal privilege! I have always wanted to use that phrase, filled as it is with righteous indignation. I am indebted to Professor Edward Brunet of the Lewis and Clark Law School for giving me the opportunity to do so.