Thousands of tired, nerve-shaken, over-civilized people are beginning to find out that going to the mountains is going home; that wilderness is a necessity; and that mountain parks and reservations are useful not only as fountains of timber and irrigating rivers but as fountains of life.

—John Muir (1898)

A walk in the park is one of our finest cultural opportunities, a value that people expect to find available in their community.

—National Association of State Park Directors

Cardiovascular diseases, epidemic obesity, and other major public health problems in the United States are strongly associated with physical inactivity and other life-style-related risk factors. With the increasing prevalence of obesity, and with physical inactivity high on the list of risk factors for obesity, cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, and a multitude of major health problems, clinical and public health experts have emphasized the critical importance of increasing levels of physical activity. While efforts to increase leisure-time physical activity have emphasized activities centered around the home and neighborhood, improving public health through increased physical activity may require additional, innovative approaches. Local and state governments and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) should consider new strategies and programs to encourage physical activity.

The systems of public parks operated by state governments throughout the Unites States are a potential public health resource for increasing levels of physical activity. Local and state governments could employ the roughly 8.5 million acres of state parks to promote healthy, risk-reducing activities that would help to improve public health.

Surprisingly, health advocates and park administrators only recently have begun to consider the role that public parks might play in public health. The previous lack of recognition may reflect traditional administrative divisions and institutional barriers: the government agencies that manage state parks typically have little interaction with the government agencies that service human health, and neither sector typically links public lands with the public's health. State park public relations materials sometimes mention recreation and, occasionally, fitness, but they do not connect recreation to health. The public attitude is similar: people perceive parks as places for nature conservation and public recreation, but they have not necessarily made the connection between recreation and health.

This Article focuses on the state of Georgia to examine the role state parks could play in public health. While a single state cannot serve as a universal model, it can provide a concrete focus for analysis, and may provide deeper insights than more general or abstract studies.

If we want to think about changes in local sustainability over the last 10 years, perhaps the best place to start is with Al Gore. In 1992, just before the Rio Earth Summit and before he was to be tapped as a vice presidential candidate, then-Senator Gore published a treatise on the environment called Earth in the Balance. The book was rightfully hailed as a work of "statesmanship, evangelism, and scientific exposition." While visionary in its scope and prescient in its analysis of such issues as global warming and energy alternatives, the book failed to mention the words "brownfields," "sustainable communities," "livable communities," "new urbanism," or "smart growth." In short, it failed to mention what would become a national movement since the 1992 Earth Summit.

What a difference 10 years makes! Al Gore would end up championing "livable communities" as a part of his domestic agenda as vice president and later as a plank in his 2000 presidential campaign. The Republican presidential candidate, George W. Bush, also claimed brownfields redevelopment as an important priority and vowed that we need "smart growth." The word "brownfields" was not even in the dictionary in 1992; it achieved that honor in 1999. The term "smart growth" did not exist in 1992. It is now arguably a movement.

In the past few years, owners of contaminated land, seeking to supplement possible causes of action under the Comprehensive Environmental, Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and under state common law and state statutes, increasingly have looked to §7002(a)(1)(B) of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) to shift responsibility for remediation costs to former owners or operators. Although some owners of contaminated land have used §7002(a)(1)(B) to request injunctive relief, many have asked courts to decide whether §7002(a)(1)(B) authorizes courts to award restitution of past costs to a private party. In March of this year, the U.S. Supreme Court decided, in Meghrig v. KFC Western, Inc., that §7002(a)(1)(B) does not entitle a private party to recover past cleanup costs. As a result of the Court's decision, owners of contaminated land seeking to force former owners or operators to remediate the contamination are limited to pursuing either injunctive relief under §7002(a)(1)(B) or cost recovery under CERCLA, state common law, or a state statute.

This Dialogue explores the practical consequences of the Meghrig decision in three contexts. First, the Dialogue discusses what parties can and should do to avoid purchasing contaminated land. Second, for those unfortunate enough to have purchased contaminated land, the Dialogue evaluates the causes of action that remain available to force a former owner either to perform or to pay for remediation. Third, the Dialogue discusses how owners of contaminated land should decide on an appropriate course of action. To lay the foundation for these discussions, however, this Dialogue begins with a critical analysis of the Court's decision in Meghrig.

Editors' Summary: One of the most important legal tools in the effort to remediate the nation's contaminated sites is state law that applies to such cleanups. In 1989, the Environmental Law Institute (ELI) conducted a study of this law, and last year, it completed its most recent update of that study. In this Article, two ELI Senior Attorneys discuss the results of that update as it concerns two key aspects of site remediation—voluntary and brownfield cleanup programs. The Article begins with a description of state voluntary cleanup programs, summarizing their legal structure, eligibility requirements, cleanup standards, cleanup activities, and incentives. It then examines state brownfield programs, discussing their inclusion criteria, cleanup activities, cleanup standards, and incentives.

Editors' Summary: It has become regular practice for federal legislators to insert into annual appropriations bills riders having little to do with the appropriations process. Last year, under the sponsorship of the Senate Majority and Minority Leaders, a bill that would have exempted recyclers from CERCLA "arranger" and "transporter" liability was almost enacted as a rider to the omnibus appropriations bill for fiscal year 1999. This Dialogue examines that rider and the changes it would have wrought to CERCLA. The Dialogue begins with a description of the rider's provisions, then analyzes the policy behind exempting recyclers from CERCLA liability. The Dialogue then examines the rider's distinction between certain kinds of CERCLA violations, as well as the likely impact of the rider's attorney fees provision and the consequences the rider's recycler exemption would have had for other liable parties. Finally, the Dialogue evaluates the rider's approach of exempting a particular type of party from liability without engaging in more comprehensive reform of the Superfund statute.

Although the 104th Congress did not begin officially until January 4, 1995, its significance was apparent as soon as the polls closed on November 8, 1994. When the votes were tallied, Republicans had acquired majorities in both the Senate and the House for the first time in 40 years. And they were quick to proclaim the beginning of a revolution in congressional lawmaking.

This Comment analyzes the consequences of this "revolution" and its effects on environmental legislation. The Comment begins with an overview of the new dynamics created when Republicans assumed the role of majority party in Congress and explores the immediate effect this change had on congressional business. It then examines the principal environmental bills that the 104th Congress considered, why certain bills succeeded, and why others failed. Finally, it considers the results of the November 1996 congressional and presidential elections and highlights the developments that bear watching during the 105th Congress.

Over the past several years, considerable public and private efforts in this country have been directed at reducing the risk of cancer that human exposure to high levels of radon gas poses. These efforts appear to have succeeded in raising public awareness of radon and in increasing testing for radon. For the most part, however, these efforts have been directed toward homeowners and have not addressed the problem of radon in residential rental properties. Yet, in 1989, nearly 34 million homes—over one-third of all housing units in the country—were rental units. The vast majority of these units are either single-family homes or are located at or below the second floor of a building, where experts believe radon is concentrated. This Dialogue explores the problem of high radon levels in rental housing and discusses some of the legal and policy tools available for reducing radon risks.

Editors' Summary: The recently completed 105th Congress provided the nation with a legacy of unparalleled legislative inactivity. Few, if any, of the legislative initiatives earmarked as priorities passed as bitter partisan debate ruled on Capitol Hill. This Comment analyzes how such partisanship and subsequent congressional lethargy created the environmental successes, controversies, and failures of the 105th Congress. Included in this analysis is the examination of the reauthorization of the Intermodal Surface Transportation and Efficiency Act and the passage of the Taxpayer Relief Act. The Comment also details the congressional debates inspired by the global climate change treaty and proposed particulate matter and ozone regulations. In addition, the Comment recounts Congress' inability to enact legislation addressing, among others, CERCLA, the ESA, regulatory reform, or electric utility deregulation. Last, the Comment considers the results of the 1998 elections and highlights the developments that bear watching in the 106th Congress.

There can be no sustainable development without sustainable transportation. It is an essential component not only because transportation is a prerequisite to development in general but also because transportation, especially our use of motorized vehicles, contributes substantially to a wide range of environmental problems, including energy waste, global warming, degradation of air and water, noise, ecosystem loss and fragmentation, and desecration of the landscape. Our nation's environmental quality will be sustainable only if we pursue transportation in a sustainable way.

It will be a challenge to bring this about. Over the next 25 years, the population in the United States is predicted to grow by some 60 million people; the gross domestic product is projected to approach $30 trillion (a 50% increase in real terms over today's levels); and annual passenger miles traveled in motor vehicles are expected to increase from 5 trillion miles in 2000 to 8.4 trillion miles in 2025. As the population and economy grow, Americans are likely to become increasingly more mobile, with increasingly larger impacts on the environment.

The federal public lands—national forests, parks, and rangelands—are widely known for their vast natural resources: timber; range; minerals; watersheds; wildlife; and sweeping vistas of incredible beauty and diversity. No less notable are the cultural resources found on the public lands. Some of the earliest withdrawals of public lands from homesteading or other disposition occurred because of their cultural and historic importance.

Preserving and allowing access to resources with cultural significance are critical to sustaining diverse, viable communities as well as our national, collective heritage. For American Indian people in particular, certain places, physical features, and objects on the public lands hold deep cultural and spiritual significance. Without ongoing relationships with a defined physical "place," the integrity of many contemporary American Indian societies could be jeopardized.