THE FRUSTRATION OF THE RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT: SAFE AIR FOR EVERYONE v. MEYER

摘要

While the benefits to the bluegrass farmers and the health risks to the public are significant concerns that will continue to be important to those deeply involved in the issue, the main effect of Safe Air was to confuse RCRA's purpose and to prevent RCRA from reaching its full potential. The Ninth Circuit did not allow RCRA's solid waste provision to apply to the agricultural open burning process even though the RCRA was intended to regulate waste and air pollution. Since summary judgment was granted on the issue, the Ninth Circuit cut off Safe Air for Everyone's chance to present its case. However, even if the case had been fully litigated, the court would still have been faced with the question of trying to satisfy the dual purposes of the statute - to reduce and reuse waste and to regulate pollution.