The preservation of open space has captured the public's imagination. Taxpayers are lining up to vote in favor of referenda authorizing their local or state governments to borrow funds to purchase open land or its development rights. Environmental groups are forming coalitions to support public acquisition of open space and the adoption of laws regulating development in and around open lands. Opponents of urban sprawl target the loss of open space as one of the major impacts of runaway development.

Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc. may prove to be the most important environmental decision since Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council. Laidlaw's primary significance lies in its discussion of the injury component of the U.S. Supreme Court's now familiar three-part standing test.

In its first week of business during the new millennium, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc., and provided important clarifications about the law of standing in environmental citizen suits. Specifically, the Court rejected the narrow view of environmental injury-in-fact advocated by Justice Scalia and instead adhered to the broader view of injury-in-fact established in a nonenvironmental context by the Court's decision in Federal Elections Commission v. Akins.

As law students frequently discover during exams, the law of standing is easy to state but hard to apply. The basic rules are simple and well-settled. Under Article III of the U.S. Constitution, in order to invoke federal jurisdiction, the plaintiff must demonstrate the existence of an "injury-in-fact" that is "legally cognizable," "fairly traceable" to the defendant, and capable of being "redressed" by the court. Each of the terms in quotation marks seems clear enough on the surface but has proved remarkably tricky in practice.

adapted from Layla (by Eric Clapton and Jim Gordon)

What do we do when we get sued now

If the Supremes aren't on our side?

If we can't rely on standing constraints

Do they expect us to comply?

Under the Clean Water Act (CWA), point source dischargers are required to obtain federal discharge permits and to comply with permit limits sufficient to make progress toward the achievement of water quality standards or goals. As water quality standards become increasingly stringent, industrial and municipal dischargers are being pressured to accept permit limits that are difficult, if not impossible, to meet.

Editors' Summary: Combined sewer overflows and sanitary sewer overlows present unique problems for regulators. Although these problems were largely ignored until recently, EPA has finally begun to address the significant environmental and public health hazards these pollution sources pose. The author first provides a brief overview of the problems of combined and sanitary sewer overflows and the basis for their regulation under the FWPCA. He next discusses EPA's policy and guidance efforts to date, including the relevant documents' specific requirements and the concerns that shaped them.

Editors' Summary: The Clean Water Act (CWA) has rediscovered water quality standards. More accurately, environmentalists have discovered this oldest of pollution control strategies lying dormant in the Act and have litigated it into motion. How this strategy now succeeds will have a profound impact on the future of the Act and its long march toward restoration of the nation's waters. This Article reviews the nature of water quality standards-based regulation.

Editors' Summary: Water quality standards-based regulation has been the "reserve clause" of the Clean Water Act (CWA), intended to clean up waters that remain polluted after the application of technology standards. For 20 years, these provisions lay idle, prodded forward at least by litigation in the early 1990s. Today, they are at the center of nearly two dozen lawsuits, a Federal Advisory Committee Act committee, and a flurry of regulatory guidance. Their implementation presents serious issues of federalism, science, and political will.

Editors' Summary: For the past quarter century, the Clean Water Act has primarily relied on technological standards to abate point source pollution and achieve national clean water goals. Water quality standards lay largely dormant until the 1990s, when they were activated by citizen suits demanding implementation of §303(d) of the Act—the abatement of pollution discharges based on total maximum daily loads.