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. The Dialogue will identify and analyze four myths underlying Mays' conclusion that ADR should play a key role in environmental enforcement.