Alternative Dispute Resolution and Environmental Enforcement: A Noble Experiment or a Lost Cause?

March 1988
Citation:
18
ELR 10087
Issue
3
Author
Richard H. Mays

Editors' Summary: Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) is an umbrella phrase that includes a variety of techniques designed to avoid expensive and time-consuming litigation. ADR techniques such as mediation and arbitration have been used successfully for years to resolve disputes among private parties. However, attempts to apply ADR to environmental enforcement cases have met with resistance from the federal government and the private sector. Even a memorandum from EPA Administrator Lee Thomas transmitting EPA's new ADR guidance document and strongly encouraging agency officials to promote the use of ADR in enforcement cases has had little impact. The author, a former EPA senior enforcement attorney who participated in the development of EPA's ADR guidance, examines the need for ADR in environmental enforcement and the obstacles to its use. He concludes that ADR should play a key role in environmental enforcement as EPA's docket of judicial and administrative cases continues to grow, but that support from government and private sector leaders is essential to overcome the obstacles to the use of ADR.

Mr. Mays is an attorney employed at ICF Incorporated, a national environmental consulting firm headquartered in Fairfax, Virginia. He is a proponent of the use of alternative dispute resolution techniques. Mr. Mays was formerly Senior Enforcement Counsel and Acting Assistant Administrator for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in Washington, D.C., where he participated in the development of EPA's Guidance on the Use of Alternative Dispute Resolution Techniques in Environmental Enforcement Cases. This article is written by Mr. Mays in his private capacity, and the opinions expressed herein are solely his own.

Article File