The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the Clean Water Act (CWA), and the Clean Air Act (CAA) represent federal regulatory regimes for protecting the environment. Although each statute initially places administrative responsibility in the hands of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), each encourages states, to varying degrees, to take primary responsibility for implementing the statutory regime.

In Environmental Federalism Part 1: The History of Overfiling Under RCRA, the CWA, and the CAA Prior to Harmon, Smithfield, and CLEAN, the history of judicial and administrative decisions relating to overfiling under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the Clean Water Act (CWA), and the Clean Air Act (CAA) was analyzed. The history showed that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), with limited exceptions, generally was understood to have overfiling authority under RCRA, the CWA, and the CAA. The limited exceptions focused on two situations.

In the span of just a few years, the U.S. Supreme Court has brought the venerable constitutional concept of federalism back to life with a vengeance. In the 1999 Term alone, the Rehnquist Court struck down three federal laws for violating basic principles of federalism and narrowly construed a fourth to avoid any conflict with those precepts.

Editors' Summary: In recent years, vindication of private-property rights has been the rallying cry of various citizen groups and politicians who believe that certain regulatory restrictions—especially environmental protection measures—have "gone too far" and that the Fifth Amendment is an insufficient safeguard of private-property rights.

On June 29, 2001, the last day of the October 2000 term, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider "whether the [Ninth Circuit] Court of Appeals properly determined that a temporary moratorium on land development does not constitute a taking of property requiring compensation under the Takings Clause of the [U.S.] Constitution?" The case, Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, provides the Court with an opportunity to clarify its opinions in First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale v.

Editors' Summary: With their often substantial assets, parent corporations make attractive targets for parties seeking to remedy environmental harm. However, by challenging a court's jurisdiction over the parent, the parent may force a change of forum or, ultimately, a dismissal of the claims. This Article examines the scope of a parent's liabilities for the actions of its subsidiaries and discusses the jurisdictional issues.

Editors' Summary: Defining the scope of parent corporation liability under CERCLA has been a source of disagreement between appellate courts for years. This Article examines this disagreement and how it led to the U.S. Supreme Court decision in United States v. Bestfoods. First, the Article examines the two contradictory lines of cases that spawned the disagreement. Courts using the remedial purpose doctrine have held parent corporations directly liable under CERCLA based on general involvement with the business and not due to specific involvement in the polluting activities.

Editors' Summary: This past summer, the U.S. Supreme Court rendered its decision in Ohio Forestry Ass'n v. Sierra Club, 118 S. Ct. 1665, 28 ELR 21119 (1998). The Court held that an environmental group's challenge to a U.S. Forest Service land and resource management plan for the Wayne National Forest in Ohio was not ripe for review. This Article examines how this decision affects the rules for judicial review of national forest plans.

While the Republican's Contract With America has disappeared from the political landscape, many of its ideas continue to percolate in the 105th Congress. Development interests continue to promote federal legislation to expand opportunities for "takings" claims against the government. Through such takings claims developers or private landowners seek to be compensated for not polluting or not building on protected land.

Under the public welfare doctrine, certain regulatory crimes require no showing of the traditional mens rea, or "guilty mind," as a predicate to criminal liability. The doctrine has been used to relax intent requirements in criminal statutes when the public welfare is at stake and is predicated upon the fact that the defendant had notice that the dangerous activity is regulated. A majority of courts place the criminal provisions of the Clean Water Act (CWA) within the public welfare doctrine.