We all want a clean world with breathable air and crystal clear water. Not one of us holds an exclusive franchise on wanting to live a healthier life.

When our neighbors pollute, we expect our government to take action. There are many, some say too many, environmental laws on the books which vest the government with sufficient power to get the job done by making the polluter stop.

However, governments can only do so much. With limited budgets, they can only hire so many enforcement officers to protect the public. As a result, there are some polluters that the government misses or cannot get to in time.

When that happens, citizens have another option: they can file their own lawsuit under the "citizen-suit" provisions contained in many federal and state laws. A citizen suit provision allows a private party to enforce environmental laws against polluters in cases where the government has either not acted, or its actions will likely not cure the underlying problem.

Since private people are acting as if they are the government when they file these kinds of lawsuits, the laws are nicknamed "private attorney general" laws. To encourage the public to file these suits when necessary, many such laws allow the private party to collect attorneys fees from the polluter if the private party prevails in court.

If you are aware of a festering environmental problem, this kind of law may help you. Many of these laws require that you provide both the government and the alleged polluter with advance notice before filing suit. Consult with a knowledgeable attorney to ensure that the appropriate procedures are followed.

So far, so good. If you are blameless and your neighbor is a polluting monster, the law says you can take action yourself. The problem, however, is that many of these laws are seemingly abused. Often, the private attorney general is not a small homeowner or business owner, but rather a large environmental organization. You know them: Friends of the Toad, Citizens Against Everything, You and Us Against Everyone Else.

Many of these organizations are fine and should be applauded. Thank heavens they are here and they do care. But some seem to abuse the citizen suit laws. And some seem to have decidedly anti-corporate points of view.

Often, the cases are difficult to comprehend. In one famous case, a clam chowder company was sued because it allegedly released clam particulates into public waters as part of the soup preparation. Toxic clam gook! Give us a break!

In another case, a firm was sued because its large rural facility happened to attract Canadian Geese who relieved themselves in the company's settling ponds. Even after the government made peace with the company, a large citizen's group, and its attorneys, continued its assault against the company. The company had to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars because of goose droppings.

And now, the U.S. Supreme Court has taken action which may bolster these assaults by self-professed do-gooders. In the case of Friends of the Earth v. Laidlaw Environmental Services, the Court has held that a citizens suit may continue even after the company has settled allegations with the government, has paid a substantial fine, and has taken substantial measures to come into compliance. All of this does not matter, groups can still sue and their attorneys can still be awarded very large fees.

Laidlaw Environmental Services had purchased a company that contained a wastewater treatment facility. Not long after the purchase, the government issued a permit allowing the company to discharge pollutants into public waters at specified levels. After the permit went into effect, Laidlaw apparently violated certain discharge levels, including the level set for mercury.

The government and Laidlaw entered into a settlement agreement which required that Laidlaw pay a $100 thousand dollar penalty and make every effort to comply with its permit obligations. Apparently, compliance was very difficult to achieve.

You would think that would have been the end of the story. There was a problem; the government responded; and the problem was addressed. But, the Friends of the Earth were apparently not satisfied and they filed a citizens suit. Though an appeals court tossed the case out, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the case can go forward.

What kind of message does this ruling send to corporate America? Even if they make peace with the government and come into compliance, corporate America can still be the target of a lengthy lawsuit, which will more likely than not do nothing further to protect the environment. While this result does not appear to be fair, now only Congress, and State Legislatures, can fix this inequity by enacting legislative amendments.

The information provided in this column is written by Stuart Lieberman,a practicing environmental attorney, and is for general information purposes only. It is not legal advice and should not be used in place of legal advice.

Stuart Lieberman, Esq., and IRED.Com, Inc., will not accept any responsibilty for any reliance on the information in this column or any damages whatsoever resulting from reading this column.