Environmental Law Section January 1999 Newsletter Articles

 

Meet Guy W. Blackwell
Interview Conducted by J. Wayne Cropp

From the Chair
by Joe Sanders

Report Regarding State and Regional Environmental Cooperation Committee
by Susan Kerr Lee, Esq., Grant, Konvalinka & Harrison, P.C.

Guy W. Blackwell, Assistant United States Attorney, was interviewed in Chattanooga, Tennessee, on October 14, 1998, by J. Wayne Cropp of Grant, Konvalinka & Harrison, P.C. This interview has been edited to accommodate length restrictions.

Mr. Blackwell is a native East Tennessean ( Johnson City). He attended Clemson University and graduated from East Tennessee State University in December 1971, receiving a B.S. degree in political science and minors in sociology and law enforcement. Between 1968 and 1970, he served in the U.S. Army as a counter-intelligency agent in military intelligence. Mr. Blackwell attended law school at Memphis State University and graduated in December 1974. He was in private practice in Memphis, Tennessee, with Gerber, Bernstein, and Gerber from 1974 until 1978. He became an Assistant United States Attorney in the Eastern District of Tennessee in March 1978, assigned to the Greeneville office. Since that time, Mr. Blackwell has served as First Assistant United States Attorney, Acting United States Attorney, and Senior Litigation Counsel. He has been involved in complex fraud cases, environmental cases, drug cases, and a wide variety of criminal prosecutions. Mr. Blackwell serves as a member of the East Tennessee Environmental Task Force and the DOJ Environmental Policy Committee. He has taught at EPA environmental training programs at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center and through the DOJ and Southern Environmental Enforcement Network. The views and opinions expressed by Mr. Blackwell in this interview are personal opinions and are not necessarily the position of the Department of Justice.

Cropp: As an Assistant United States Attorney, how much of your time is dedicated to environmental issues?

Blackwell: Probably about 65% now, and that has gradually increased over the last 5 to 6 years. We had the first environmental case in Tennessee back in 1990 and up until then, there had not been any environmental prosecution. We have another Assistant U.S. Attorney in Chattanooga, who is starting to get involved in environmental cases -- John MacCoon. John is real interested in getting involved.

Cropp: Are you the Chairman of the East Tennessee Environmental Task Force?

Blackwell: Well, we really don’t have a Chairman, but since I am ultimately the person who represents the United States in Court once a defendant is charged, it is my responsibility to make charging decisions or declination decisions early on. Since I am the one ultimately responsible for it, usually it falls to me to decide the direction that we go on environmental cases, with review by my management in our Knoxville office.

Cropp: Let’s talk about criminal environmental enforcement, and how that is structured in this country.

Blackwell: Well, originally, when this started, and when we first got involved, the only contact we really had to get any kind of expertise in environmental matters was the Environmental Crime Section of the Department of Justice. That was back in 1990, and they became involved with us to help us not only with the cases under investigation, but to educate us also in how to prosecute environmental crimes, because investigating environmental crimes is a little bit different than, say, a white-collar investigation, and the issues that come up in pre-trial and trial hearings are a lot different than what you are going to get in other federal crimes.

So, we basically started with them, which was fine, but we learned fairly early on that when they become involved, they have certain procedures on a national level, that they expect the Districts to follow if you become involved with them. Initially, that was okay for us. We since have become a bit more independent and don’t involve them now in every case that we have. Originally, the F.B.I. was our primary investigative agency. There was no EPA presence in Tennessee at all. Back when we started, Headquarters EPA and Region IV had very little interest in becoming involved in Tennessee or East Tennessee, simply because there had not been a law enforcement presence in the past. There had not been any prior history of criminal environmental investigations or prosecutions. They were not initially willing to put the resources into the State or the District. Once we had a certain amount of success through the F.B.I., EPA became more interested and have since become an equal partner with the F.B.I. in just about every environmental investigation that we have. We also rely on the EPA lawyers in Atlanta to become involved in criminal cases.

The other thing that has really helped our District is that four or five years ago, the Department of Justice created an Environmental Policy Committee, which looks at national issues and tries to apply those issues to specific cases and investigations, and tries to set some national policies. I was selected to be on that Committee, and I really enjoy the time that I have served on it. We meet a couple of times a year and talk about specific environmental issues and concerns that come up, and try to advise the Justice Department on certain policy issues.

Cropp: The Environmental Policy Committee that you just mentioned -- who convenes that policy group, and who is involved in it?

Blackwell: The Environmental Crime Section of the Department of Justice convenes it -- it basically consists of a number of EPA representatives, several Assistant U.S. Attorneys around the country who are involved in environmental cases, and members of the Environmental Crime Section of the Department of Justice. It’s kind of a free-flowing discussion of a lot of issues -- trying to set policy, trying to identify problems, trying to coordinate information to go out to the various U.S. Attorney Offices that are just now beginning to prosecute environmental crimes.

Cropp: What kind of law enforcement presence is out there on environmental issues?

Blackwell: Probably the best answer would be, as it relates to Tennessee -- I know there are two full-time EPA Criminal Investigation Division (“CID”) agents for the State that are headquartered in Nashville. We also have an agent from Region IV in Atlanta assigned to come to East Tennessee and work on the cases that we develop in East Tennessee. We have a full-time F.B.I. agent in East Tennessee in the District.

Cropp: Out of Knoxville?

Blackwell: Out of Knoxville -- that’s assigned to environmental cases, and we are developing an agent in Chattanooga.
Now, there are other resources that we have through the Task Force. We have a TVA Office of Inspector General (“OIG”) agent, who TVA has dedicated full-time to environmental investigations, and he’s headquartered in Knoxville.

Cropp: Why would somebody from TVA be assigned to the criminal environmental enforcement? What is the enforcement power, if you will, of TVA in these environmental matters?

Blackwell: I think TVA looks at it two ways. I think they look at it, first -- TVA is one of the largest landowners or land managers in East Tennessee. A lot of TVA land has lakes and streams and, as a result of that, TVA is conscious of environmental impacts that occur on TVA property. But, I think more importantly, TVA’s OIG is aware that there is a serious environmental problem in East Tennessee, and they are willing to commit some of their resources toward trying to correct that problem and becoming involved in criminal prosecutions.

Cropp: How is the East Tennessee Environmental Task Force organized?

Blackwell: We started back in 1991 with kind of a loose group of people. It wasn’t until a couple of years ago that we decided to formalize it a bit more in a task force concept, and to try to give some structure to it, so that we could be proactive in trying to develop cases. About two years ago, we had a meeting in Chattanooga, and we basically came up with a somewhat informal structure that now involves 15 federal and state agencies -- law enforcement agencies and some regulatory agencies.

Cropp: I don’t expect you to name them all, but let’s talk about what agencies are involved in the Task Force?

Blackwell: We go everywhere from the U.S. Attorney’s Office, the F.B.I., EPA, TVA OIG, Department of Energy OIG, DCIS --

Cropp: “DCIS” is --

Blackwell: That’s the Defense Criminal Investigative Services -- the Defense Department, basically. Obviously, EPA CID and EPA OIG, the Environmental Crime Section of the Department of Justice, the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, the TBI, the Tennessee Attorney General’s Office, the IRS CID, NASA, the Tennessee Highway Patrol CID, and I think that’s pretty much everybody.

Cropp: One that sort of stuck out to me is the IRS. How is the IRS CID involved in the Task Force?

Blackwell: Environmental cases do not always include just violations of the Clean Water Act or RCRA. Sometimes, they include violations such as mail fraud or the wire fraud statutes. Sometimes, they include potential money laundering violations. The IRS is empowered to investigate potential money laundering violations or structuring violations and things like that. We just think it brings a little bit more to what we need in deciding how to investigate these cases.

Cropp: How often does this group meet?

Blackwell: We try to meet twice a year, as we can collectively, but we pretty much meet on a bi-monthly basis on individual cases, depending on who is involved.

Cropp: We have been talking about the East Tennessee Environmental Task Force -- are there similar groups in, say, Middle Tennessee, West Tennessee, or North Georgia?

Blackwell: There are other Environmental Task Forces around the country. I think in, at least Tennessee right now, we are the only Task Force doing environmental investigations and cases. The Department is encouraging Task Forces to be formed around the country to look at environmental cases. We did it in East Tennessee, because it simply seemed a better way to more fairly evaluate the type of information coming in and decide what cases that we ought to investigate and prosecute.

Cropp: Does the East Tennessee Environmental Task Force establish formal policies, or do you simply reach consensus as a group?

Blackwell: It’s more of the latter. It’s a diverse people with different backgrounds and different ways of investigating cases coming together, sharing information and sharing their expertise toward deciding collectively the type of cases we ought to look at. Ultimately, the decisions have to be made within the U.S. Attorney’s Office based on District and national priorities.

Cropp: You mentioned that you believe that TVA understands that there are serious environmental problems in East Tennessee. Why don’t you expand on that a little bit. What is the state of the environment in East Tennessee, from your perspective?

Blackwell: I am a native East Tennessean. I was born and raised up in Johnson City, and always grew up thinking that East Tennessee was one of the cleanest, purest places in the world to live. After we got involved in our first environmental case, I was told that it really wasn’t that way -- and I didn’t want to believe that -- so I did some investigation on my own and found a couple of studies that suggested, based on facts and information that have been verified, that Tennessee is the fifth most-polluted state in the country, and East Tennessee is the most-polluted part of Tennessee. It is kind of frightening when you think about that, and when you get under the stats -- I’ve got those with me -- some things like, Tennessee is the worst state in the country when it comes to toxic chemical water pollution -- the worst state as to the amount of hazardous waste generated per person -- the worst in the country when it comes to the amount of health hazard toxins released in the atmosphere -- 48th in the country when it comes to overall water pollution --

Cropp: 50th being worst?

Blackwell: 50th being worst. 48th in overall air pollution. Then, when you break Tennessee down into the three parts of the state and realize that some of the most polluted counties in the United States are in upper East Tennessee, like Sullivan County and Carter County, then it’s kind of frightening to realize how difficult things are. One thing I also learned was that Tennessee had the lowest percentage of health insurance protection and the highest rate of premature deaths. So, you take those and put them with the environmental rankings, it really points to a major problem that existed back in 1990-1991.

Cropp: Why is that? Do you have a personal opinion about why the state of the environment in East Tennessee is the way that it is?

Blackwell: The interesting thing about East Tennessee is that it basically is a rural area, with a dependable work force. Over the years, Chambers of Commerce in East Tennessee have encouraged businesses from out of state to come in and take advantage of the natural resources, and our favorable tax considerations, and businesses have developed. A number of our cases have involved companies that did not originate in Tennessee, that originated in other states or other countries and came to Tennessee to do business. As a result of that, East Tennessee recruited a lot of businesses that tend to create hazardous waste, that need to be properly regulated. There had not been an environmental law enforcement presence in Tennessee, either on a state level or on a federal level, up until the 1990’s. So, it was pretty much fair game to come in and minimize your expenses of doing business, not to have to worry so much about environmental regulations and realizing at the same time, if you were a business, that if you did cut the corner, you probably weren’t going to be caught, but if you were caught, the penalty would simply be a cost of doing business.

Cropp: So, what is the attitude in Tennessee now? Is it the same?

Blackwell: No, I think it has changed -- particularly East Tennessee has changed dramatically. One thing we have tried to do is to help the State understand that the reason we are into this is ultimately so the State can handle these cases, and we will only help out with the ones they need help on. Our primary goal is to help the State make their enforcement program stronger. If we can do that, I think we have succeeded in what we have tried to do. We have tried to be very aggressive in East Tennessee. We have asked our partners in the State to help us. We have tried to develop quality cases. We have tried to get publicity for what we have done, because with publicity comes deterrence. Businesses become more aware that there is a price to pay for simply making pollution a part of the profit margin. Businesses tend to follow the regulations more, and it works toward everybody’s benefit in the end.

Cropp: Are there some efforts going on in Tennessee to strengthen, either on the legislative side or otherwise, the enforcement of criminal laws or the creation of greater sanctions or penalties under the statutes that exist in Tennessee?

Blackwell: The one thing that we have been able to do is -- up until a couple of years ago, most of the money in fines or restitution that came from criminal environmental cases basically went into the federal Treasury. The Department has allowed us to put a lot more money, in the last couple of years, back into State environmental programs. Most of our plea agreements now include the bulk of the money going back to the State, either to the local District Attorney, or to an environmental project in a county where the environmental crime occurred, or to the Tennessee Attorney General’s Office for environmental enforcement initiatives, or, occasionally, to environmental groups who are doing environmental work in the area where the crime was committed. We are so early into this that we are not at a stage yet that anyone is considering any change in legislation -- and if they do, that is going to have to come from the State. We simply will do what we have been doing, hope the State continues to work with us on it, and ultimately one day maybe the State will enhance and change some of the State criminal statutes to build a stronger enforcement program.

Cropp: You mentioned building quality cases -- actually, the East Tennessee Environmental Task Force has a reputation for being one of the most aggressive programs in the country. Is that a fair characterization?

Blackwell: I think it has been, and I have been told that we are, and that our statistics over the last six or seven years reflect that.

Cropp: What are some of those statistics?

Blackwell: The first case was the Davis Pipe case in 1990. Davis Pipe was a business up in Sullivan County, and we ended up charging Clean Water Act violations. That was a case where the F.B.I. did the investigation, and we prosecuted jointly with the Environmental Crime Section. Since then, we have had about 18 significant environmental prosecutions in the District -- a combination of Clean Water Act violations, RCRA violations, and some § 18 U.S.C. 1001 violations, which are false statements made in reporting requirements.
We have collected about $2 million in fines since 1990. We have also managed to give the State about $1.4 million over the last three or four years for environmental purposes, and we have been responsible for about $14 million that businesses have had to pay in clean-up, whether it be at the business itself, or cleaning up the environment as a result of environmental crime. We also had, at the time, what was the third largest criminal sentence in an environmental case. That was the Gale Dean case. Mr.-Dean received 43 months in a federal prison.

Cropp: Do you see most of the criminal problems in small business or big industry? Do you have a sense for where the criminal problems are?

Blackwell: They seem to be across the board.

Cropp: Let’s talk then about some of the actual case decisions that you have had to make through the East Tennessee Environmental Task Force. For instance, how you have handled policy decisions about such issues as “willful blindness,” the “responsible corporate officer doctrine,” and the “blue-collar rule” that you referred to before we began the interview. First, what do you mean by the “blue-collar rule”?

Blackwell: That is our invention, our own terminology. We have an informal policy that really says two things: (1) that a company cannot commit environmental violations on its own; and (2) that someone within a company has to make a decision that the environmental violations are going to occur, for whatever reason. To date, every environmental case we have had has involved the company, but has also involved someone in management who made the decision to commit the crime. We have not in the past simply allowed companies to plead guilty to environmental crimes and pay a fine. We feel like the only way to deter this type of crime is to hold responsible those management officials that make that decision. The “blue-collar rule” is an off-shoot of that. It basically says that we are not interested in prosecuting the blue-collar worker -- the guy that receives the orders to maybe put the hose in the creek as a method of disposal of hazardous waste. We are interested in the management person that told him to do that, or the corporate officer who, for profit reasons, decides that’s the way to dispose of hazardous waste instead of doing it offsite at a permitted facility. We have kind of developed that over the years. We want to use the employees, and we want to use the people who were told to do the acts as witnesses when we can, and have had no interest in the past in prosecuting those type of employees.

Cropp: Using the “blue-collar rule” as you do, how do you deal with the “rogue employee,” the employee who is out there committing criminal acts without management authorization or knowledge?

Blackwell: It is going to depend on the circumstances. If it were a case where a rogue employee was, in fact, committing environmental crimes and we can establish that management was not aware, or could not have been aware under the circumstances, then we would go after the rogue employee, certainly.

Cropp: What about the “responsible corporate officer doctrine”? How do you apply that in East Tennessee?

Blackwell: The doctrine itself is broad and all encompassing, and we have narrowed it down a bit and do not really apply it as some other Districts might. We feel like a responsible corporate officer is someone in the chain of command, who has some supervisory responsibility over the areas where the environmental crimes occurred. We try to find evidence that that corporate officer had some knowledge of what was going on. Maybe it was on the production line when waste was disposed of illegally, or we have some evidence that that corporate officer has discussed with other corporate officers, or other employees, or other witnesses, what is going on. Obviously, in an environmental case, knowledge is not as critical as it is in other types of cases, but, again, fairness plays into it. We are not apt to charge a corporate officer who does not have responsibility for knowing what is going on in a particular area. That does not allow a corporate officer to totally ignore what is going on around him. We have had cases where we have applied the “willful blindness doctrine,” that basically says that a corporate official cannot ignore something that is obvious, particularly if a criminal act occurs in an area under your responsibility.

Cropp: Have you had instances where you have actually put temporary employees inside a company as an “undercover” employee?

Blackwell: We have used just about every type of investigative technique in environmental investigations that the F.B.I. or the EPA have used in investigations of other criminal cases.

Cropp: What are your comments on the Tennessee defense bar in these criminal investigations?

Blackwell: I think the defense bar is, at least, equal to where we are now -- maybe even a bit ahead of us. A few years ago, it was not that way, but obviously as we do more nationally, and particularly in this District environmentally, the defense bar tends to catch up to us. I found the defense bar in East Tennessee to be very responsible, to be as concerned about preventing crimes from occurring, as they are with defending defendants once crimes do occur. That’s really where we hope to get. I do not know if a lot of defense lawyers see it this way, but I see our lawyers’ role basically as the same -- and that is ultimately to make businesses and government entities more aware of environmental regulations and environmental responsibilities by doing what we do, and by clarifying the regulations so that anyone can understand the regulations. With that awareness comes an increased responsibility for business, and I think our environment gets better.

Cropp: How does the East Tennessee Environmental Task Force handle the issue of “intent” under the environmental statutes? Some would say that every violation of an environmental statute could be prosecuted as a criminal violation.

Blackwell: It potentially could be. Again, that is why it is so important to do the early evaluation of the case so that truly innocent people do not have their lives ruined. Even though the knowledge requirement is as low as it is, from a fairness standpoint, we try to develop evidence of knowledge, in one form or another. It may take the form of willful blindness, or it may take the form of actual participation, or knowledge through witnesses or evidence of a corporate official. Fairness dictates, at least in this District, that we have evidence of knowledge before we go to a Grand Jury and ask for an indictment in an environmental case.

Cropp: So, what are you really looking for when you decide you are going to try and make a case? What are the factors that distinguish in your mind what is going to make for a good criminal prosecution, as opposed to something that should be handled civilly?

Blackwell: Not every referral we get in ends up as a criminal case. In fact, so many more are declined or referred for either civil action or regulatory action or administrative action. There are a number of factors that we look at in the District in trying to decide whether a case is going to be a criminal case or not. We have the general Department of Justice guidelines. The Department sets some national priorities, and we tend to be aware of those. Those guidelines have been more of a help recently than they were a few years ago, because the Department is basically taking the position now that environmental crimes are based more on local standards, rather than Washington telling us what we should prosecute and what we shouldn’t.

So, our local standards that we tend to look at are things like the scope and size of the problem -- things like the method of storage or disposal. If it was illegal, how it was done -- over what period of time was it done -- the particular type of waste involved. Obviously, if it has a toxic or hazardous nature to it, that’s going to concern us more than if it is soapy water, for example, under the Clean Water Act. The length of discharge -- how long it has gone on -- how repeated the discharge has been, for example, or how repeated the disposal has been if it is a RCRA case that we are evaluating -- whether there was a coverup of the crime or not. If the crime occurred and management has taken steps to falsify records, or provide false testimony, and has tried to cover up what has happened, that certainly is something that we are going to look at in determining whether to proceed criminally. Whether there has been any harm to the employees who work on site -- whether they had access to any type of safety or health equipment. If they did not, then we are going to look at that more as a criminal case than we would otherwise. Whether the public has been harmed, or exposed to any potential harm -- what type of substance got into the creek, and where did that creek end up and was the public potentially harmed as a result of it. Whether the company basically turned themselves in -- whether they went out and cleaned up the site before they were told to do it, either by the State or by EPA -- whether they told the truth when the crime was discovered -- what their administrative and regulatory history has been -- have they been the type of company that has had problems in the past and, if they have, have they moved quickly to cure those problems once they were discovered.

We are also going to look at the statutes and regulations that are involved -- whether we need to interpret those statutes -- what difficulties have there been in the past in applying the statutes to the particular fact situation. We are going to look at the statute of limitations. We are going to look at our burden of proof, which, of course, is beyond a reasonable doubt. We are going to look at any roadblocks in the case as a result of either state or federal regulatory action that has occurred up to that point. Those are things that we have to look at carefully, because they can affect that decision.

Cropp: We have covered a lot of territory. Do you want to summarize your thoughts?

Blackwell: I have spoken to a lot of church groups, civic groups, and the general public about these issues. People always ask why do you do this, and why is this a concern. Of course, the Justice Department has made it a national priority -- the investigation and prosecution of environmental crimes. But I tend to think there are other reasons for emphasizing criminal enforcement as well.
First, as I said earlier, we need a stronger State presence, a stronger State enforcement program. That is one reason that the federal government is in it to the extent that we are right now -- again, to try to enhance the State enforcement program, and do it any way that we can do it.

The second reason is to create more environmental awareness within East Tennessee -- not just among defense lawyers, but among civic groups, business groups, industrial groups and the public in general, to let them know that we have a problem, but there are ways to correct the problem and, basically, that we can all work together.

The last reason is to get rid of those myths that are out there. One myth that I had always heard is that you can’t have economic development and environmental awareness together -- those are two distinct things that had to be separated. I do not think that is the case. I think East Tennessee has the resources to have environmentally-aware and responsible businesses come in and, at the same time, be economically profitable. It is toward that end that we want to work. We want more business in East Tennessee. We want the natural resources to be used more efficiently. We want people to be employed in quality jobs, but at the same time, we want to protect the environment. We can be the cleanest state in the country -- and that is the ultimate goal. We all realize that we are early in this game. The Resource Conservation Recovery Act is less than 20 years old, so this is an early stage in the game, and whatever we can do now is going to make it easier 20 years from now, or 50 years from now, to hopefully reach that goal.

Cropp: Can we get there, though, through enforcement? Can you get to being the cleanest state in the country by using the criminal laws?

Blackwell: No, I do not think we can. I think that criminal enforcement is just a catalyst toward creating more awareness. Sadly enough, oftentimes we do not try to correct a problem until after the problem has become so bad that you have no other option but to address the issue. We do not want there to be an environmental disaster in East Tennessee because people are unaware that there is a problem and there are steps we can take to correct it. That is what we are trying to do, but in the end, it is going to require public awareness and a legislative initiative, both on the state and federal levels, to make things better.

I feel honored to serve as your Chair this year. With all of Susan Lee’s good work last year, I have a hard act to follow. It is my hope that this newsletter and the e-mail updates that we have been sending will increase interest in the section. Please consider sharing these items with other attorneys who might find them of interest.

Gary Shockley is continuing to work on moving parts of the Section’s web page to the public side of TBALINK. This is another effort to increase interest in the section. We plan to have links to the Department’s web page. If you have not visited the Department’s web page, I recommend that you check it out. There is a great deal of information on the Department and other environmental articles and links. The URL for this web site is www.state.tn.us/environment; it can be accessed through the State home page or directly.

The TBA/ABA conference in Atlanta, November 5-6, was both interesting and enjoyable. The highlight for me was the Dutch Treat Dinner. Over 25 section members from across Tennessee were in attendance. It was a great opportunity for everyone to share ideas in a relaxed setting. Once more we all need to thank Susan Lee for arranging this event.

I hope all those who were in Atlanta and those that were not will put the Gatlinburg Solid Waste Conference on your calendar now. It is scheduled to take place April 28-30, 1999. As you know, the Committee on Continuing Legal Education approved parts of last year’s conference for CLE credit. Jim Wright is working on approval for this year’s conference. I will keep you posted.

If you are not already aware, the Office of General Counsel made another move during July. We are now located on the 25th Floor of the Tennessee Tower. This is greatly improved office space. If you have the opportunity, we would be glad to have you drop in to see us.
OGC has had the good fortune to rehire two experienced Environmental Attorneys. Steven Stout returned on August 17th, and Nancy Kerastas came back on October 21st. The Department is very fortunate to get these two great attorneys back. We have also been able to add some very capable new staff. Max Fleischer came to Environment and Conservation from the Department of Commerce and Insurance. He has years of administrative law experience and has hit the ground running. During October, we also hired Karen Stachowski and Devon Sutherland. Karen Stachowski graduated from the Cecil C. Humphreys School of Law at the University of Memphis in May and passed the July Bar Exam. Karen has long had special interest in the environmental area. She received a Bachelor’s degree in biology and pursued graduate studies in the area of biology and toxicology before deciding to attend law school. During law school Karen participated in numerous environmental seminars and courses and was recognized with the Dean’s Award for Academic Excellence in Environmental Law. Devon Sutherland is a senior law student at the Nashville School of Law. Devon also has specialized interest and experience in the environmental area. He has a Master’s degree Chemistry. He also has practical experience having worked for GAF in several roles, including environmental compliance officer, chemist and supervisor.

On November 20, 1998, we will gain yet another highly qualified Environmental Attorney. Faith Burns, who worked with Kentucky’s Environmental Department for more than eight (8) years will join us. We are very excited about getting her. Finally, Commissioner Hamilton has signed an agreement with the Attorney General’s Office to fund two additional environmental attorneys in that office’s Environmental Division headed by Barry Turner. As you can see, the Department is making an all out effort to get the legal staff necessary to work through its case back log and “get ahead of the curve.”

A State Bar Idea Exchange was hosted by the State and Regional Cooperation Committee of the ABA Section of Natural Resources, Energy, and Environmental Law (“SONREEL”) at the Sixth Section Fall Meeting held October 7-11, 1998 at Hilton Head, South Carolina. The State Bar Idea Exchange involved an exchange of ideas among state and local environmental section leaders from across the country. States from as far away as Alaska were represented during the meeting.

Interestingly, regardless of size or location, it appears that many state and city environmental law sections are experiencing similar ebbs and flows. Many Sections reported that membership is down and that fewer people are attending CLE than in the past. I was glad to report that our Section membership remains steady and that our CLE participation last year was robust.

The meeting included a discussion of ideas for improving the various environmental law sections. A consensus seemed to be reached that improved technology would improve membership benefits.

An exciting project that will be made available by the State and Regional Cooperation Committee is the offering of a State/Local Bar Awards Program. SONREEL, through the State and Regional Cooperation Committee, is sponsoring the awards program to recognize state or local bar association program or activities in the area of natural resources, energy or environmental law or policy. Both ongoing projects and one-time activities will be eligible for awards. The criteria to be used for selecting the award winner will be the service provided to the profession or to the community, the degree of involvement by bar association members, the degree of innovation involved and the replicability of the project in other areas. An exciting feature of the program is that all states should be able to benefit from the process because the public service award entrants will provide environmental public service models for future public service by other state and local bar association programs. All winners will receive an engraved plaque and a representative of the national winner will be recognized at an upcoming SONREEL Annual Meeting.

The State Bar Idea Exchange is a wonderful event, which is provided free of charge to interested participants who are not otherwise attending the ABA SONREEL meeting. If you are interested in attending future State Bar Idea Exchanges, please let a member of the Executive Committee know of your interest.