The End of Waste Law
In the last couple of classes (two and a half to be precise), we've been diving into federal waste law, specifically CERCLA and RCRA. Jared tackled CERCLA, while I took on RCRA. Last Tuesday, teaching RCRA turned out to be one of the most rewarding experiences yet. It felt monumental, even though nothing seemed different on the surface. Oddly enough, despite not feeling my best and being on the verge of getting sick, the pure joy of teaching washed over me more intensely that day than usual. My voice was a bit raspy and fading, and I couldn't shake the feeling that I was underprepared, despite spending hours taking notes that morning. Yet, as soon as I entered the classroom and started chatting, a wave of calmness enveloped me. RCRA embodies a paradox of being both incredibly intricate and remarkably straightforward. Teaching RCRA thus necessitates some balancing and strategic simplifying.
The previous week, some of our Maine colleagues, who are a little further along in the schedule, mentioned that the federal statutes posed challenges for students when tackled through cases without prior explanation. Keeping that in mind, Jared and I agreed to kick things off with an introductory lecture on the law before diving into the case studies.
I guided the students through the foundational elements and history of RCRA, before we dipped into some specifics, particularly focusing on when something is classified as “disposed of” and falls under RCRA’s umbrella. They examined the case of No Spray Coalition v. City of New York, where a community group contested the city’s pesticide spraying, claiming it was “disposing of” chemicals in violation of RCRA. The court concluded there was no violation since the pesticide remained in use, fulfilling its intended purpose. Furthermore, the students explored Rachel Carson's Silent Spring, leading to discussions on the hazards associated with pesticides and the potentially unknown downstream impacts of widespread spraying. We delved into what information was absent in the case; what type of pesticide was used, its properties, whether it becomes waste if misapplied, and other related questions. The class engaged in a vibrant discussion about the concept of waste and the qualifications for pesticides to fall into that category. We touched on the federal regulations governing pesticides, along with the absence of citizen suits under that federal law.
A group of about five enthusiastic students came together, showcasing their immense eagerness to learn, contributing brilliant insights that sparked engaging dialogue. One student even proposed the Plaintiffs pursue the case through common law. I was thrilled because I planned to lead them to that, but it happened organically! In my notes, I listed possible causes of action through negligence and nuisance, but to my surprise, a student mentioned trespass as a possibility. I had not even considered that, and I thought the suggestion had real merit. With that recommendation, we pondered whether the pesticide was a “direct and tangible entry.” The direction the discussion took and the sparkling intelligence of the students filled me with pride until I was overflowing. I couldn’t help but wear a big, beaming smile throughout our lively discussion, as it was evident that they were internalizing the material and applying what they had learned in each subsequent class. So far, teaching is immensely rewarding, and witnessing the passion reflected in the classroom not only energizes me but also fuels my commitment to cultivating their understanding of environmental law.
