Editors' Summary: Because the FWPCA's enforcement provisions focus on discharges from point sources, nonpoint source water pollution remains a significant problem. State and federal efforts to address nonpoint source pollution primarily include nonregulatory programs of planning, financial incentives, technical assistance, and voluntary measures. Yet, an array of enforceable mechanisms to control polluted runoff has emerged. Some have been on the books for years, while others have appeared more recently in response to particular problems.

Through the post-World War II era the U.S. Congress, by an incremental process of experimentation and error, developed the knowledge and experience that led to the imposition of individual permits based on uniform technology-based effluent limitations to regulate industrial water pollution. The resulting permit system has gradually reduced the amount of industrial pollution that enters our national waterways.

Agricultural biotechnology has generated much debate about the environmental consequences of field trials and commercialization of transgenic crops. Thus far, the debate has focused on opponents' claims of alleged risks presented by transgenic crops and the proponents' responses to those asserted risks. To date, three issues have dominated the debate:

. the risk of gene flow;

. the risk of weediness; and

. the risk of insect-resistance.

Despite the compelling economic logic of nutrient credit trading, widespread support for it, years of research into how it should work, and about 37 on-the-ground prototype trading programs in the United States, very few nutrient credit trades have actually taken place. This Article addresses questions about whether the obstacles preventing nutrient credit trading seem to be supply-related, demand-related, or the result of institutional problems that inhibit buyers and sellers from consummating trades.

In recent years, the western states have often struggled with the federal government over control and management of natural resources, particularly water. For its part, federal law defers to states in many matters of water resource allocation.

Under the Wetland Conservation subtitle of the Food Security Act of 1985, as amended, commonly known as "Swampbuster," wetlands may be used to grow crops provided they are not degraded by this practice. In the legislation, Congress has made an effort, by use of the "minimal effects" concept, to make precise just what farming practices are acceptable. If a farming practice has only a minimal effect on the wetland's function, then the farmer is not ineligible for participation in federal loan, commodity price and income support, and conservation programs.

The U.S. Supreme Court decision last term in Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (SWANCC), striking down the migratory bird rule for wetlands regulation, warrants some reading of the Court's environmental tea leaves. Some fine commentary in these pages still leaves murky whether the opinion seriously imperils other environmental laws and regulations. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist's SWANCC opinion for a five-Justice majority had worrisome implications that the new restrictive view of the U.S.

The sequencing of the human genome revealed that the variation in the genetic material between any two individuals averages approximately one variation for every 1,000 base pairs of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA).¹ Even though we are remarkably 99.9% genetically identical, there are still on average three million genetic differences between any two people, given that the human genome contains approximately 3.1 billion base pairs of DNA.

Editors' Summary: For over 15 years, the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) has required the federal government to pay private parties' attorneys fees and other litigation expenses when they prevail against the government in judicial or administrative adjudicatory actions. In 1996, Congress added new provisions to the EAJA, for the first time requiring awards of fees and expenses to certain nonprevailing "small entities" if the demand by the agency is substantially in excess of, and is unreasonable when compared with, the decision of the adjudicative officer or court.

In Acushnet Co. v. Mohasco Corp.,² the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed a district court's action in granting summary judgment to defendants on their C3100 contribution claims without first conducting a full "equitable allocation" hearing.