In the 1970s, the newly created U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) embarked on three different regulatory approaches for reducing pollution. First, the Clean Air Act1 mandated that EPA set ambient-based standards that protect human health and welfare. These standards require existing industrial sources of air pollution to install pollution control equipment only to the extent necessary to meet ambient standards.
Environmental news, like most news today, is enmeshed in the scare-of-the-week syndrome: "If it bleeds, it leads."1 Reporters, seeking facts instead of truths, usually leave little room for in-depth coverage of scientific or environmental issues. At the same time, environmental stories have grown to be among the stories most widely reported on.2
Editors' Summary: Of cultural and environmental significance, Indian reservations present unique jurisdictional problems. This Article explores the implications of two Supreme Court cases—one on zoning authority and one on criminal jurisdiction—for EPA's implementation of environmental statutes on reservations. After discussing two doctrines of Indian law and the two cases, the author focuses on Justice Stevens' opinion in Brendale v.
Editors' Summary: On May 21, 1990, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in California v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission that the Federal Power Act provides FERC with the exclusive authority to determine minimum instream flow rates for hydroelectric power projects. In so doing, the Court refused to upset the longstanding line of cases, beginning with First Iowa Hydro-Electric Cooperative v. Federal Power Commission, which established the tenuous balance in favor of federal authority over hydropower regulation.
A serious threat to our nation's fundamental environmental charter emerges in the fight over the future of the remaining ancient forests of the Pacific Northwest.
Editors' Summary: Radon exposure in the home poses one of the greatest cancer risks of any environmental pollutant. However, responses by homeowners to the radon threat have been complacent. In this Article, the author discusses the reasons for this complacency and describes current efforts to educate the public about radon. The author concludes that existing efforts are inadequate and recommends a two-part national strategy that makes radon testing and disclosure an integral part of home sales.
Editors' Summary: The far-reaching effects of the nation's hazardous waste laws have become legendary. Manufacturers, insurers, bankers, senior corporate managers, and even cleanup contractors now worry about their liability under CERCLA. For the most part, Congress has left CERCLA's liability provisions intact since first enacting them in 1980. But Congress did make some changes in its 1986 amendments to CERCLA, and the meaning of some of these changes is only now emerging.
On August 18, 1990, President Bush signed into law the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA),1 the most comprehensive federal legislation ever dealing with oil spill liability, compensation, prevention, response, and research. Nowhere in the statute will you find the word "federalize";2 read between the lines and into the legislative history, however, and you will discover federalization is a major theme throughout the law.
On July 23, 1990, the U.S. Claims Court found in two separate decisions that the federal government had unconstitutionally taken private property without just compensation.1 In both, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) had denied Clean Water Act §4042 permits to fill wetlands.
Keynote Presentations: The Values Underlying Our Environmental Regulatory System
Panel Discussion: The Governmental Regulatory System
Corporate Compliance With Environmental Regulation: Striking a Balance
Panel Discussion: The Corporate Compliance System
Panel Discussion: The Communication/Feedback System
Panel Discussion: Completing the Loop