It is time to demystify alternative dispute resolution (ADR). The confusion surrounding ADR stems from focusing on its theoretical potential and limitations rather than on its successful application to real-life programs and statutes. Now that there is a growing body of experience with mediation, and to a lesser degree with other forms of ADR,¹ the dialogue should be expanded to include the record and experience of people who are participating in building that record.²

ADR is a catch-all phrase for a variety of techniques and procedures³ used by third-party neutrals to help stakeholders in a dispute find a basis for agreement. As is the case with many good ideas, ADR's premise is simplicity itself: When traditional mechanisms used to resolve conflict fail or are otherwise unsatisfactory, a third party without a stake in the outcome may be involved to provide the needed guidance, communication, and problem solving often necessary to deal with differing interests and values. Environmental mediators are apt to be trained or experienced in the substance of the dispute (unlike judges and juries), which eliminates the need for educating the trier (or finder) of fact.