Subscribe for updates
Recent Posts
- Federal District Court Rejects Motion to Enjoin Biden Administration’s Section 401 Clean Water Act Rule
- Federal District Court Holds that CERCLA Procedure for Natural Resource Damage Assessments Not Required as a Matter of Law
- Local Law Prohibiting Natural Gas Piping is Preempted, Ninth Circuit Holds
- District Court Failed to Consider Maui Factors as to Mining Company's Groundwater Discharges, Tenth Circuit Holds
- Federal District Court Excludes Expert Testimony in Flint Water Cases as Unreliable
Topics
- Evidence
- Internal Investigation
- Citizens Suit
- Georgia
- Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
- FIFRA
- Major Questions Doctrine
- Lead Paint
- Greenwashing
- Good Faith Settlement
- Federal Facilities
- Statutory Notice
- Oil Pollution Act
- Federal Jurisdiction
- Owner Liability
- Court of Federal Claims
- Ripeness
- Renewable Fuel Standard
- Fish and Wildlife Service
- Greenhouse Gas
- Refinery
- Alaska
- Florida
- Vapor Intrusion
- Solvents
- National Priorities List
- Price-Anderson Act
- Solid Waste Management Act
- Successor Liability
- Personal Jurisdiction
- Potentially Responsible Parties
- Operator Liability
- Federal Circuit
- Environmental Covenants
- National Contingency Plan
- Divisibility
- Apportionment
- Strict Liability
- Water Pollution Control Act
- Historic Resources
- Utilities
- Public Utilities Commission
- Hydraulic Fracturing
- Water Use
- Ohio
- PFAS
- Arbitration
- Alternative Dispute Resolution
- Climate Change
- Auer Deference
- Commonwealth Court
- Fees
- West Virginia
- Forest Service
- TSCA
- Asbestos
- Martime
- Federal Tort Claims Act
- Gold King Mine
- New Mexico
- Utah
- Tribal Lands
- Delaware
- Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control
- FERC
- National Forest Management Act
- Endangered Species Act
- Chevron Deference
- United States Supreme Court
- HSCA
- Alter Ego
- Corporate Veil
- Allocation
- Eleventh Amendment
- Delaware River Basin Commission
- Mining
- Intervention
- New Hampshire
- PCBs
- Property Damage
- Building Materials
- First Circuit
- Groundwater
- Natural Resource Damages
- Innocent Party
- Brownfields
- Brownfield
- Environmental Rights Amendment
- Pipeline Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
- PHMSA
- FOIA
- Effluents
- Sediment Sites
- EHB
- Texas
- Missouri
- Pipelines
- Injunction
- Coal Ash
- Spoliation
- Stormwater
- TMDL
- Safe Drinking Water Act
- Colorado
- Drinking Water
- Michigan
- North Carolina
- Bankruptcy
- Clean Streams Law
- Hearing Board
- Civil Penalties
- Arranger Liability
- Retroactive
- Sovereign Immunity
- Stigma
- Damages
- Property Value
- Tax assessment
- Fair Market Value
- Storage Tank
- Energy
- Electric
- Fifth Circuit
- Indemnification
- Arizona
- Ninth Circuit
- Attorney-Client
- OPRA
- Iowa
- Discovery Rule
- Fourth Circuit
- Eighth Circuit
- Administrative Appeals
- Taxes
- Preemption
- CAFA
- Freshwater Wetlands Protect Act
- Inspection
- Residential
- New York
- Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
- Natural Gas Act
- Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
- D.C. Circuit
- HAPs
- Hazardous Air Pollutants
- Mercury
- Condemnation
- Takings
- Natural Gas
- Storage
- Fifth Amendment
- Flooding
- Takings Clause
- Spill Act
- Causation
- NEPA
- Interior
- Tenth Circuit
- Mineral Leasing Act
- California
- Zoning
- Act 13
- Duty to Defend
- Insurance Coverage
- Eminent Domain
- Landfill
- Private Right of Action
- Sixth Circuit
- Illinois
- Water
- Citizen Suit
- Diligent Prosecution
- Subject Matter Jurisdiction
- Arkansas
- Pennsylvania
- Press
- Uncategorized
- Maryland
- Eleventh Circuit
- Navigability
- Riverbed
- Equal-Footing Doctrine
- Montana
- Indiana
- Seventh Circuit
- Breach of Contract
- Public Lands
- Bona Fide Prospective Purchaser
- Green House Counsel
- Equity
- Laches
- Delay Notice
- EPA
- Boiler MACT
- Rulemaking
- CISWI
- Consent Decree
- Enforcement
- Contribution
- Declaratory Relief
- Second Circuit
- NPDES
- Procedure
- Standing
- Dimock
- Medical Monitoring
- Legislation
- Case Update
- Louisiana
- Certification
- Contamination
- Dukes
- CLE
- Work Product
- Decisions of Note
- Cases to Watch
- Discovery
- Expert Witness
- Privilege
- Defense Costs
- Insurance
- CERCLA
- Cost Recovery
- Real Estate
- Response Action Contractors
- Consultant Liability
- Negligence
- Remediation
- Army Corps
- Donovan
- Rapanos
- Kentucky
- Nuisance
- Class Actions
- Odors
- Trespass
- Farming
- Hog Barn
- ISRA
- Informal Agency Action
- New Jersey
- Administrative Hearing
- Railroad
- RCRA
- Waste
- Air
- Cancer
- Combustion
- Emissions
- Speaking Engagements
- Federal Procedure
- Removal
- Third Circuit
- Toxic Torts
- Statute of Limitations
- Title V
- Clean Air Act
- Permits
- Cleanup
- Superfund
- Supreme Court
- Camp Lejeune
- Multi-District Litigation
- Statute of Repose
- Tolling
- Administrative Procedures Act
- Deeds
- Clean Water Act
- Marcellus Shale
- Due Process
- Mineral Rights
- Enforcement Action
- Wetlands
- Drilling
- Exploration
- Leases
- Oil and Gas
- Royalties
Blog editor
Blog Contributors
- Danielle N. Bagwell
- Brielle A. Brown
- Kate Campbell
- Stephen D. Daly
- Thomas M. Duncan
- Kelly A. Hanna
- Jessica D. Hunt
- Todd D. Kantorczyk
- Dylan G. LaMorte
- Brandon P. Matsnev
- Giselle F. Mazmanian
- Nicole R. Moshang
- Shoshana (Suzanne Ilene) Schiller
- Diana A. Silva
- Alice Douglas Solomon
- Natalia P. Teekah
- Garrett D. Trego
The Supreme Court has had a lot to say in recent years about how the lower courts should be interpreting CERCLA, but the trend appears to have ended, at least for now. On October 3, the Court declined to review the Eighth Circuit’s decision inMorrison Enterprises, LLC v. Dravo Corp., which held that the contribution provision of § 113(f) of CERCLA provides the exclusive remedy for a PRP that incurs response costs pursuant to an administrative or judicially approved settlement under §§ 106 or 107, such as a consent decree or administrative order on consent (AOC).
This is the second time within the past year that the Supreme Court has declined to further address the relationship between § 107(a) cost recovery and § 113(f) contribution – the subject of the Court’s landmark 2007 decision in United States v. Atlantic Research, which held for the first time that § 107(a) cost recovery is not limited to the government. (The other, Carpenter Technology Corp. v. Agere Systems, Inc., et al., posed the question of whether a PRP that contributes funds toward a cleanup by settling with a consent decree party has a § 107(a) claim, when the consent decree party itself is limited to a more restrictive § 113(f) claim. MGKF represented Carpenter as appellate counsel in that case.)
And while Justice Thomas openly questioned in Atlantic Research whether a party that conducts a cleanup pursuant to a consent decree has a claim “under § 113(f), § 107(a), or both,” the legal landscape is becoming well-defined. So, a PRP that incurs cleanup costs after being sued or settling under § 106 or § 107 cannot bring a § 107(a) cost recovery claim, but can bring a § 113(f) claim for contribution. And conversely, a PRP that incurs cleanup costs without being sued or settling under § 106 or § 107 cannot bring a § 113(f) claim for contribution, but can bring a § 107(a) claim for cost recovery.
This framework appears necessary to preserve the vitality of the § 113(f) contribution claim, since, if given a choice between the two claims, a PRP would invariably choose a § 107(a) cost recovery claim, which offers a longer statute of limitations, joint and several liability, and a relaxed burden of proof. And it is quite possibly for this reason that the Court has refrained from stepping back into the issue.
What remains to be seen, though, is how this will affect the incentives for cleanups on a going-forward basis. Today, all other things being equal, a PRP that intends to recover cleanup costs from other PRPs would best be served by attempting to conduct a cleanup without signing on to a consent decree or AOC. This could theoretically lead to earlier, voluntary cleanups, but will it in practice? And might there be times when the existing caselaw creates incentives not to settle with the government, in an attempt to preserve a § 107(a) claim? Time will tell.