I would like to discuss the respective roles of the federal government and private citizens in the enforcement of environmental laws. This is an area that raises a host of questions, some pragmatic and some more philosophical. In general terms, who should be in the driver's seat with regard to environmental enforcement? Should it be the federal government (along with its state counterparts), or should it be private persons bringing suits under the various citizen suit provisions?

The Superfund¹ statute, while lacking an explicit provision on the subject, is a law that lends itself well to alternative dispute resolution (ADR). The nature of the disputes as well as the appearance of the same parties in many of these cases give rise to an interest among the parties in being able to maintain ongoing relationships. Also, there are features in the law itself that create practical problems that demand intensive resources in a short time.

The National Institute for Chemical Studies isan organization established by local leadership to assess the magnitude of chemical risks in West Virginia's Kanawha Valley and what should be done to control them. We are located in the Kanawha Valley of West Virginia, which is about 35 miles long, and runs from Nitro to Belle. Within its boundaries live about 250,000 people cheek-by-jowl with approximately twenty chemical manufacturing facilities.

I was struck, when practicing law, with how much of society's human talent and creative resources were being allocated to litigation processes that appeared to furnish little in the way of problem-solving outcomes. The results seemed certainly not commensurate with the amount of effort invested.

The 1986 Airlie House Conference of the Standing Committee on Environmental Law, entitled "The Expanding Role of Private Institutions in Public Environmental Decisionmaking," focused to a large extent on recent efforts to bring alternative dispute resolution procedures into the field of environmental law. Panels on standard setting by consent, negotiated rulemaking, and private facilitating dominated the day's discussions.

Editors' Summary: Fully one-third of the country—including nearly half of California—is owned by the federal government. Nonetheless, a shroud of mystique surrounds the public lands, the history of which is inextricably intertwined with the history of westward expansion. The very concept of federal ownership of land physically located within sovereign states logically leads to conflict concerning rights, responsibilities, and powers. Surprisingly, the Supreme Court has only rarely had to directly face state/federal conflicts involving the public lands.

Editors' Summary: When the federal government filed a Clean Water Act enforcement action in 1981 against a real estate developer for unauthorized filling activities on Chincoteague Island, Virginia, the government could not have realized that it had set in motion litigation that would change how federal environmental laws are enforced. Five years later, however, the developer's claim that he was entitled to a jury trial eventually reached the Supreme Court. In Tull v.

In the most dramatic fashion possible, the centenary Congress of the United States made the Water Quality Act of 1987 (WQA)¹ its inaugural piece of legislation. The law was enacted on February 4, 1987, after being vetoed by President Reagan on January 30, 1987.² The law represents the first major revision to the Clean Water Act (CWA)³ since 1977 by clarifying certain areas of the law as well as granting new powers and responsibilities to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and states.

Editors' Summary: The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) regulatory definition of "solid waste" in the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) has long been a source of controversy. Escape from the definition of "solid waste" and in most cases you have escaped from regulation under RCRA. To a large extent, in defining "solid waste" EPA is faced with often conflicting goals embedded in RCRA itself: RCRA regulates wastes, but "non-wastes" are frequently just as hazardous to humans and the environment.

Editors' Summary: One of the most serious tasks Americans face in the near future is electing a President to lead the nation into the 1990s. Environmental law and policy are heavily influenced by the decisions made by elected officials and their senior appointees, and environmental issues should command close attention as voters and opinion leaders approach the 1988 election.