Abstract
ABSTRACT
Prior to CERCLA, litigation under existing tort law was widely perceived as an ineffective means of imposing penalties on dischargers of hazardous waste. In drafting CERCLA, Congress created a cause of action for state and federal trustees against a broad class of defendants, and introduced the concept of natural resource damages. The intent was clearly to insure compensation for all injury, past and future, regardless of the identity of the victim. This is consistent with conventional economic analysis, which defines damage as the net diminution in the present value of all services provided by a natural resource.
When the regulations implementing the Act were issued, however, they conflicted with economic theory on several grounds, misapplying some concepts and omitting others. As they now stand, the regulations severely constrain both the scope and reach of natural resource damages.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.