Monthly Archives: June 2013

The Problem with the Supreme Court’s Regulatory Takings Jurisprudence? It Doesn’t Require a Taking

The Supreme Court ruled today, in Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District, that a property owner who is denied a land use permit on the ground that he refused to pay money to compensate for the harm to be caused by his proposed property use states a claim for a regulatory taking, unless the regulator can establish a “nexus” and “rough proportionality” between the exaction and the alleged harm requiring mitigation.… More

CERCLA Is Still Constitutional

To paraphrase Shakespeare, United States v. Sterling Centrecorp, Inc., is a great feast of legal argument.  The PRP in that case purchased the assets of a mining company whose operations in California had caused releases of arsenic.  That PRP was found to be liable for CERCLA response costs under no fewer than four discrete legal theories –(1) explicit assumption of  liabilities, (2) implicit assumption of liabilities,… More

The Supreme Court Agrees to Review the CSAPR Decision: Might EPA Avoid Version 3 of the Transport Rule?

The Supreme Court today granted certiorari in EPA v. EME Homer City, the challenge to EPA’s Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, or CSAPR.  The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia had struck down the rule, over a fairly blistering dissent from Judge Judith Rogers.

Speculation over the reasons why the Supreme Court takes a case is often pointless, but I will say this:  Consideration of the history of EPA’s rulemaking leads to the conclusion that the rule should be upheld.… More

When Is An Arranger Not An Arranger? When It Sells Some Good Stuff Along With The Junk

As Superfund lawyers know, the Supreme Court decision in Burlington Northern required proof of an intent to dispose hazardous substances as a prerequisite to imposition of arranger liability.  While lower courts have often blissfully ignored the holdings in Supreme Court decisions under CERCLA, arranger liability seems to be one area in which the lower courts have taken the Supreme Court decision to heart.

In any event,… More

What To Do When You Are Issued A CERCLA Injunction To Perform A $1.5 Billion Cleanup — Lower Fox River Superfund Update

In a 78 page decision in the Lower Fox River Superfund case issued last month, the federal court issued an injunction against  NCR Corp. and three other PRPs requiring them to perform a $1.5 billion remedy.   No company ever wants to receive such an injunction and NCR sought to soften the impact of that injunction by proposing that it would share the costs of performing the remedy on an interim per capita basis with the three other PRPs. … More

Which Is Worse? EPA Oversight or Citizen Oversight?

Everyone who represents PRPs in Superfund settlements has his or her own horror stories regarding the scope of EPA’s oversight cost claims.  We all know that oversight costs can end up as an appreciable percentage of total site costs.  We’ve all cringed to go to meetings with EPA and see not just multiple EPA employees in the room, but several disembodied voices from EPA’s Ada, Oklahoma, lab.  Insult to injury is when there are 3 or 4 representatives of EPA’s outside oversight contractor. … More

I Believe in Environmental Regulation, But….

As readers of this blog know, I believe in governmental environmental regulation.  We have a complicated world and it is not surprising that many activities, including those generating greenhouse gases, cause negative externalities.  At the same time, however, I have spent more than 25 years representing regulated entities in negotiations with government regulators and it is impossible to do such work without obtaining an appreciation for the very significant costs that bureaucracies impose.… More

CERCLA Liability For Relocation of Hazardous Waste — Is There Any Limit?

Just as tortfeasors take their victims as they find them, s0 PRPs take their hazardous waste sites as they find them.   This rule has been around since the beginning of CERCLA and means that a party which arranges for the disposal of its waste at one location can be generally be held responsible for whatever response costs that waste generates, including environmental cleanup costs at a second location if that waste is transshipped without the knowledge of the PRP.… More