[Pages 1-44]
OCEAN DISCHARGE CRITERIA AND MARINE PROTECTED AREAS:OCEAN WATER QUALITY PROTECTION UNDER THE CLEAN WATER ACT
Robin Kundis Craig* Sarah Miller**

Abstract:  In May 2000, President Clinton issued his Marine Protected Area Executive Order, which, inter alia, required EPA to use its existing authority under the Clean Water Act to protect ocean waters. In response, EPA drafted new ocean discharge criteria for the first time since 1980. This article discusses these new ocean discharge criteria, concluding that the Clean Water Act needs to be amended to allow EPA to promulgate water quality standards, which have more far-reaching protections than do ocean discharge criteria for ocean and coastal waters.

[Pages 45-68]
REGULATING THE MILITARY'S SURVIVAL SKILLS TRAINING UNDER THE ANIMAL WELFARE ACT
Salma Mavany*

Abstract:  The United States Military tortuously kills farm animals when teaching soldiers survival skills. Presently, there is no law that specifically protects these farm animals. This Note analyzes whether the Military’s animal cruelty can be regulated under the Animal Welfare Act (AWA). The AWA requires the Secretary of Agriculture to promulgate standards to govern the humane handling, care, treatment and transportation of animals by dealers and research facilities. To be protected under the statute, farm animals used in survival skills training must fall under Congress’s definition of “animal.” Next, the Military must be classified as either an “animal dealer” or a “federal research facility.” This Note argues that Military training grounds must be regulated as “federal research facilities” because animals are being used not just for food, but also for the purpose of teaching, experimenting, or researching soldiers’ survival skills to defend themselves in the wild, and behind enemy lines.

[Pages 69-110]
PUTTING THE REMEDIAL CART BEFORE THE STATUTORY HORSE:THE NINTH CIRCUIT REOPENS DEBATE ON CERCLA'S DEFINITION OF DISPOSAL
Ranen Schechner*

Abstract:  In Carson Harbor Village, Ltd. v. Unocal Corp., a panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the passive migration of contaminants satisfied the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act’s definition of “disposal.” In so doing, the Ninth Circuit went against the weight of prevailing jurisprudence, which had clearly settled on the belief that passive migration should not be considered a statutory “disposal.” After undertaking an independent analysis of the passive migration question, this Note examines the effectiveness of the Ninth Circuit in rebutting the majority position’s strongest arguments. The Note concludes that while the Ninth Circuit offers a strong opinion, its reading of the CERCLA leads to too many statutory inconsistencies to be tenable.

[Pages 111-141]
CULTURE V. CONSERVATION:DOES A PROPOSED SPECIAL REGULATION THREATEN THE INTEGRITY OF THE NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM?
Todd L. Tisdale*

Abstract:  Since its origination in 1916, the National Park Service has grown to manage over 370 park areas encompassing more than 80 million acres. While each park area is unique in its character and significance, experience has shown that general uniformity in regulation of the Nartional Park System is necessary to avoid a proliferation of park-by-park regulations. In this way, the NPS is able to adhere to its conservation mandate. Last year, the Department of the Interior—which oversees the NPS—proposed a special regulation that would enable members of the Hopi Tribe possessing permits granted under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act to remove and sacrifice young golden eagles from the national monument. On the one hand, the proposed special regulation facilitates an important Native American cultural and religious practice. On the other, it allows for taking of park resources in a manner that could threaten the integrity of the park system. This Note argues that, amidst the tension between culture and conservation, the DOI lacks the authority to promulgate the special regulation.