Review. The paper analyzes changes in the legal institute of state environmental supervision introduced since January 1, 2015 Federal Law dated July 21, 2014 № 219-FZ «On amendments to the Federal Law On environmental protection and certain legislative acts of the Russian Federation . Purpose: to assess legislative innovations in terms of their adequacy, effectiveness and coherence. Methods: in the course of the study the following general scientific and specific scientific methods of scientific knowledge were applied: dialectical method, formal logical method, formal legal method, comparative law method, legal drafting method. Results: the author concludes that a law-maker failed to avoid numerous legal gaps and conflicts of law when updating environmental legislation. In particular, peculiarities of organizing and conducting inspections when carrying out State environmental supervision (except for such a category of inspection as land inspection) were not defined. Identifying an adversely affected object as an object of state supervision causes difficulties when separating powers of federal and regional authorities of competent jurisdiction. It is obvious that one business entity can operate several objects that meet different requirements - namely, of federal and regional supervision. Accordingly, new rules will not only result in an increase number of inspections and audits held by authorities of different levels. Uncertainty in the area of separating powers regulatory authorities in practice would cause the next wave of cases with regard to challenging actions and decisions made made as a result of inspections and audits. The author considers that the abolition of rules preventing the duplication of audits was absolutely ungrounded. The introduction of new criteria for differentiation of objects of supervision requires updating of lists of facilities that are subject to federal environmental supervision. Such work has not been carried out by authorized authorities so far raising doubts concerning the legitimacy of inspections and audits carried out since July of the year 2015. Conclusions: identified gaps and conflicts should be eliminated as soon as possible. Otherwise, the reform of the state environmental management will not be put into practice.