Shifting scientific uncertainty burden onto regulated parties makes environmental rules self-enforcing

Evidence

Proposition 65 imposed flat bans on the discharge of certain carcinogenic or reproductive toxics into drinking water and also imposed a duty to warn on those persons responsible for exposing individuals to those toxins. What made these requirements especially effective was that they shifted the burden of scientific uncertainty from government regulators to the party responsible for the discharge. Accordingly, the discharge ban was lifted only if the discharger could establish that the release would not be “significant.” — Richard J. Lazarus, The Making of Environmental Law, 503

Categorization

• XREF: Information-disclosure and burden-shifting as regulatory design connects to the reader’s soundscape/regulatory context and to libertarian-paternalism debates from legal systems readings. — connects to: The same scientific complexity that drove Congress to technology-based rules blocked water-quality enforcement. — Richard J. Lazarus, The Making of Environmental Law, 773
• SEED: Angle: burden-of-proof reversal as a general regulatory design principle — where else could shifting the burden of scientific uncertainty onto the polluter outperform prescriptive standards?