The amount of assumed responsibility surely has to change.

The people who dumped the sludge, if it is in fact toxic, should certainly be facing long prison terms.

The situation you described is actually a pretty common occurrence under the current status quo unfortunately. I certainly think that in certain situations, more responsibility needs to be assumed on the part of corporate officers. Not shareholders directly, who would invest in a stock if it could mean legal action due to actions you had no knowledge/control over? But people who control hazardous waste should in fact bear responsibility for its use/disposal.

I think that leaves a void of liability, however I think voluntary measures could be instituted to limit that liability when dealing with hazardous material.

Its a complicated subject that I do not think is prone to blanket statements. Different types of materials and situations need to be handled differently. As I said, I am not calling for an end to all prior restraint... but by the same token the current status quo isnt very good either. The current status quo is better than nothing, and having no framework in place... but what I disagree with is increasing both the power and insularity of the current regulatory bodies. Like many federal agencies, they live in their own little political bubble.

I think the answer lies in increasing accountability of individuals, and basing regulation on the material effects on citizens and property owners. But by the same token, if you are not harming anyone else.. the govt has no business telling you what to do.

In the end result, I think people would be better off. The group that would be displeased are the animal rights people.. because I dont think the govt has any business telling people what to do with their land on behalf of an animal/habitat. Which is really where a good portion of the EPAs controversial actions stem from.

For who could be free when every other man's humour might domineer over him? - John Locke (2nd Treatise, sect 57)