This dissertation proposes that specific characteristics of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) total maximum daily load (TMDL) program make non-judicial, third-party intervention in TMDL disputes preferable to other methods of resolving such disputes.  A matched-pairs methodology is employed to investigate this hypothesis.  The hypotheses suggest that intervention in TMDL cases promote higher levels of satisfaction with the TMDL development process, that the complexity of TMDL cases is related to stakeholder satisfaction levels, and that specific intervention strategies and tactics are more successful than others in resolving TMDL disputes.  These hypotheses were examined by conducting more than 80 personal interviews with stakeholders, regulatory officials, and interveners.  Stakeholders were asked to respond to a survey consisting of 10 questions designed to elicit their personal perspectives on the TMDL case in which they were involved.  The dissertation provides detailed descriptions of the cases and the opinions expressed by survey respondents.  The dissertation provides recommendations for conflict resolution practitioners considering intervention in TMDL disputes.