Cases of toxic substances pollution magnify complex legal and scientific problems in obtaining compensation through tort remedies. The complete report from which this monograph is excerpted addresses some central issues concerning recovery for toxic substances-related harms under six state tort systems. In the past decade, interest in compensation for environmental harm has grown along with awareness of the ecological stresses of development and conservation. Preventive policies embodied in the Toxic Substances Control Act and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act seek to control the release of harmful substances and limit the adverse effects of such substances on public health and the environment. Yet, they require years to implement and fail to assist those who have already been harmed by hazardous substances. Effective compensation policies will provide such assistance and may also defer future harm.

Congress is currently considering several proposals to establish a "superfund" for facilitating the compensation of those injured by environmental pollution. Much of the legislative debate over the desirability, scope, and feasibility of such legislation has focused on the adequacy of existing state mechanisms for redressing toxic substances-related injuries. To obtain additional information on some of these issues the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works requested that the Congressional Research Service (CRS) of the Library of Congress conduct or commission a series of case studies on compensation for environmental pollution. CRS, in turn, asked the Toxic Substances Program of the Environmental Law Institute (ELI) to select and develop six case studies analyzing certain state mechanisms for compensating victims of hazardous substances. The pollution incident at Montague, Michigan, discussed below, is one of these studies. In reviewing the rapidly expanding field of "toxic torts," the committee report:

     • details several incidents of toxic substances pollution;

     • delineates the existing state legal mechanisms for providing compensation to victims in these incidents;

     • shows whether the parties causing the incidents were held or could readily have been held liable for damages sustained;

     • assesses wherever possible the adequacy of compensation obtained; and finally

     • identifies some legal and non-legal barriers to recovery in cases such as those reviewed here.