Editors' Summary: In November 1989, the Army Corps Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency signed a Memorandum of Agreement outlining mitigation requirements for Federal Water Pollution Control Act § 404 permits. The White House delayed the Memorandum's effective date twice, responding to criticism from the Departments of Energy and Transportation, the oil and gas industry, and development interests in Alaska.

In November 1989, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) signed a Memorandum of Agreement¹ on requirements for mitigating losses to wetlands under §404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA).² The Memorandum's goal of "no net loss" of wetlands was openly endorsed by the Bush presidential campaign but had not since been made a written policy. The Memorandum set off a firestorm.

Editors' Summary: The Clean Air Act requires the states and EPA to aggressively attack the problem of air pollution in the nation's cities. The Act's 1977 Amendments directed states to adopt and implement plans, including transportation controls and other measures, to ensure attainment of health standards by 1982 (or in some cases 1987). Despite the statutory mandate, many states have failed to adopt adequate plans, and others have failed to implement the plans that have been adopted.

Editors' Summary: The 1986 Superfund Amendments required EPA to make substantial changes in the national contingency plan, EPA's principal rulemaking under the Superfund program. Congress imposed potentially conflicting mandates on EPA, such as requirements to maximize treatment and to ensure cost-effective remedies. EPA's proposed NCP revisions, issued in December 1988, were analyzed in ELR's March 1989 issue by the EPA attorney who played a principal role in drafting the proposed revisions.

When the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA)¹ was enacted in October 1986, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) was still in the early stages of development as a new entity in the Public Health Service.² Staff had to be recruited; an organizational structure had to be developed; working arrangements with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), and the states had to be defined and implemented; and a host of policy decisions had to be resolved.

Editors' Summary: RCRA reauthorization bills are currently moving through Congress. While RCRA Subtitle C provisions, addressing hazardous waste, continue to garner the lion's share of legislative attention, the author examines why Subtitle D provisions, dealing with solid waste; must be given greater attention and regulatory oversight. Specifically, the author focuses on industrial waste, which may represent as much as 94 percent of municipal, hazardous, and industrial wastes combined.

Editors' Summary: A principal purpose of CERCLA is to fix liability for cleanups on "responsible parties" through prompt response actions and settlements. Liability of all responsible parties connected with a CERCLA facility is joint and several, and consequently EPA's remedial investigations make little effort to ascertain all responsible parties and their proportional liability. Rather, EPA typically moves against a few large contributors, leaving the allocation of individual responsibility and enlargement of the class of potentially responsible parties (PRPs) to those entities.

Editors' Summary: Superfund's remarkable growth over the last 10 years has produced the equally remarkable growth of "the Superfund industry": a collection of high-technology companies and consultants whose business is the cleanup of hazardous waste sites. The industry's success has stemmed in part from the Superfund statute's liability scheme, which has found money in deep pockets to pay the high cost of waste site cleanup. Ironically, that same liability scheme threatens to suck the Superfund industry itself into the vortex of cost recovery litigation.

Editors' Summary: In an effort to fulfill President Bush's no net loss of wetlands policy, the Department of the Army and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in November 1989 entered into an agreement that clarified mitigation requirements of the Clean Water Act's §404(b)(1) guidelines. The implementation of the agreement was delayed three times in response to concerns raised by oil and gas interests and the development community. After much interagency debate and amidst continued controversy, the Army and EPA signed a new agreement on February 6, 1990.

As we mark the 20th anniversary of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), more than a dozen federal environmental statutes have been passed since the Agency was created in 1970. Congress' method for solving environmental problems has been to enact more laws, often in reaction to catastrophes.¹ Pending legislation to create a cabinet-level Department of the Environment represents a unique opportunity to restructure federal laws and environmental regulatory programs.