How many lawyers, regulators, engineers, and contractors does it take to change a light bulb? Lots, if you happen to be changing the light bulb at a "stationary source" of pollution, and the bulb change counts as a "modification" of the source under the Clean Air Act (CAA).¹ According to that statute, any physical or operational change that results in an increase in the source's emission of certain pollutants triggers an exacting and costly set of permitting requirements.

This Article analyzes the potential impact on government regulation of private property rights of the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in Brown v. Legal Foundation of Washington.¹ That case upheld mandatory Interest on Lawyers' Trust Accounts (IOLTA) programs. While Brown ensures continued funding for legal services for low- and moderate-income persons, it is difficult to reconcile with the Court's existing property and takings doctrines.

Governments are currently negotiating rules to govern international greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions trading under the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).¹ Emissions trading is a critical element of climate policy because it can allow countries to implement emissions limitation commitments at a significantly lower cost than if such commitments had to be implemented solely from mitigation activities within each country's own borders.

Human-induced climate change is considered by many scientists to be one of the most pressing international problems facing our planet. Yet, international efforts to address greenhouse gas emissions have been repeatedly stymied by differences in national perspectives.

In September 1991, 25 people died at the Imperial Food Products plant in Hamlet, North Carolina, when they were trapped in a factory fire. Witnesses to the fire said the employees could not escape because the building doors were locked, apparently to prevent pilferage. The North Carolina assistant labor commissioner subsequently stated that the locked doors constituted "serious violations" of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act). The plant, however, had never been inspected for health or safety violations in its 11 years of operation.

New rules are emerging to change the way the government makes decisions about cleanup of hazardous waste sites under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA or Superfund). These changes have altered Superfund decisionmaking fundamentally and irrevocably, requiring the government to reach for new levels of accountability, rationality, and consistency. Central to the government's ability to meet this challenge is the way in which it makes and explains decisions about acceptable risks and required levels of cleanup.

Editors' Summary: Redeveloping abandoned urban hazardous waste sites, or brownfields, can significantly benefit developers, local communities, and the environment. Developers can purchase brownfields inexpensively, and subsequent redevelopment brings jobs to local communities and economic growth to inner cities, while allowing virgin land to remain pristine. Yet, barriers to redevelopment, such as the probability of legal liability, uncertainty regarding cleanup standards, and lenders' unwillingness to finance contaminated property, can make redevelopment extremely risky and difficult.

When the 103d Congress convened on January 5, 1993, many observers believed that it would make up for the dismal environmental record of its predecessor. The 102d Congress had tried and failed to reauthorize the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA), the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Its attempt to elevate the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to a cabinet-level department had been blocked in the House of Representatives, and its attempt to reform the General Mining Law of 1872 had been blocked in both houses.

Environmental regulation of pollution in the United States is often maligned as costly and ineffective. Pollution continues to plague and degrade the natural resources in the United States, and U.S. waters in particular. Nonpoint source pollution is currently the most significant source of water pollution, but it is also the most unregulated. While other discharges into U.S. waters have been dramatically reduced since the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA) was enacted, nonpoint source pollution—caused most by runoff from agricultural operations—has increased.

The courts have long recognized that Congress enacted environmental citizen-suit provisions to abate threats to the environment, supplement government enforcement, encourage government agencies to enforce the laws more effectively, and expand opportunities for public participation.¹ In practice, however, citizen suits serve an even more fundamental purpose. This Comment argues that opportunities for citizen litigation enhance the legitimacy of administrative decision-making.