Editors' Summary: In April 1985, ELR published an article by Thomas Ulen, Mark Hester, and Gary Johnson arguing that the Minnesota state version of Superfund and similar laws embodied responsible, cost-effective approaches to hazardous waste problems and that liabilities under such laws should be insurable. This Dialogue, though not written in response, presents a contrasting view: that the federal Superfund Act as implemented is inequitable and inefficient and that its expansive, unexpected liabilities coupled with enormous litigation costs are forcing insurers from the market. The author argues that the government's litigation-oriented implementation strategy tends to delay remedial action, that litigation is burning up funds better devoted to cleanup or prevention, and that the liability scheme is inherently unfair.