Editors' Summary: This Article examines whether evidence of environmental contamination should be admitted in eminent domain valuation proceedings. The minority view holds that the evidence is inadmissible and that the condemnee should receive the full value of the property as if clean or remediated. The majority view allows the evidence to be admitted, and bases the property's value either upon its fair market value as contaminated or upon its value as remediated less the remediation costs. The author argues for a third view that addresses the competing interests of the condemnee and condemnor: a trust-escrow technique that would fully compensate the condemnee without providing an inappropriate windfall to either the condemnor or the condemnee because it would account for actual remedial costs.