
Subscribe for updates
Recent Posts
- Federal Court Tells WWII Waste Generators, “You'd Better Not Pout,” Awards Government $50 Million in Cleanup Costs
- Court Upholds Private NGO Settlement Agreement That Supplements Federal Consent Decree
- First Circuit Upholds Remand of Climate Change Suit To State Court
- PA Court Rejects Environmental Rights Amendment Challenge to Appropriation of Oil and Gas Lease Funds for DCNR’s General Operations
- Southern District of Texas’s Opinion Offers a Look Behind the CERCLA Allocation Curtain
Topics
- Refinery
- Alaska
- Florida
- National Priorities List
- Vapor Intrusion
- Solvents
- Price-Anderson Act
- Personal Jurisdiction
- Successor Liability
- Potentially Responsible Parties
- Operator Liability
- Environmental Covenants
- Federal Circuit
- Divisibility
- Apportionment
- National Contingency Plan
- Strict Liability
- Water Pollution Control Act
- Solid Waste Management Act
- Utilities
- Public Utilities Commission
- Historic Resources
- Hydraulic Fracturing
- Water Use
- Ohio
- PFAS
- Arbitration
- Alternative Dispute Resolution
- Climate Change
- Auer Deference
- Commonwealth Court
- Fees
- West Virginia
- Forest Service
- TSCA
- Martime
- Asbestos
- Tribal Lands
- Federal Tort Claims Act
- New Mexico
- Utah
- Delaware
- Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control
- National Forest Management Act
- FERC
- 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
- Building Materials
- First Circuit
- PCBs
- Property Damage
- Groundwater
- Natural Resource Damages
- Brownfield
- Innocent Party
- Brownfields
- PHMSA
- Pipeline Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
- Environmental Rights Amendment
- Effluents
- FOIA
- Sediment Sites
- EHB
- Pipelines
- Texas
- Missouri
- Coal Ash
- Injunction
- Spoliation
- Stormwater
- TMDL
- Safe Drinking Water Act
- Colorado
- Drinking Water
- Michigan
- North Carolina
- Bankruptcy
- Hearing Board
- Civil Penalties
- Clean Streams Law
- Arranger Liability
- Sovereign Immunity
- Retroactive
- Property Value
- Tax assessment
- Fair Market Value
- Damages
- Stigma
- Storage Tank
- Fifth Circuit
- Indemnification
- Energy
- Electric
- Ninth Circuit
- Arizona
- OPRA
- Attorney-Client
- 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
- Hazardous Air Pollutants
- Mercury
- D.C. Circuit
- HAPs
- Condemnation
- Takings
- Natural Gas
- Storage
- Takings Clause
- Fifth Amendment
- Flooding
- Causation
- Spill Act
- NEPA
- Interior
- Mineral Leasing Act
- Tenth Circuit
- California
- Act 13
- Zoning
- 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
- Equal-Footing Doctrine
- Montana
- Navigability
- Riverbed
- Indiana
- Seventh Circuit
- Breach of Contract
- Public Lands
- Bona Fide Prospective Purchaser
- Green House Counsel
- Consent Decree
- Enforcement
- Equity
- Laches
- Boiler MACT
- CISWI
- Delay Notice
- EPA
- Rulemaking
- Second Circuit
- Contribution
- Declaratory Relief
- Procedure
- NPDES
- Standing
- Dimock
- Medical Monitoring
- Case Update
- Legislation
- Certification
- Contamination
- Dukes
- Louisiana
- CLE
- Privilege
- Work Product
- Discovery
- Expert Witness
- Defense Costs
- Insurance
- Consultant Liability
- Negligence
- Remediation
- Response Action Contractors
- Army Corps
- Donovan
- Rapanos
- Nuisance
- Class Actions
- Odors
- Trespass
- Farming
- Hog Barn
- Kentucky
- New Jersey
- ISRA
- Administrative Hearing
- Informal Agency Action
- RCRA
- Waste
- Cancer
- Combustion
- Emissions
- Railroad
- Air
- CERCLA
- Speaking Engagements
- Toxic Torts
- Federal Procedure
- Removal
- Third Circuit
- Clean Air Act
- Permits
- Statute of Limitations
- Title V
- Cost Recovery
- Cleanup
- Superfund
- Supreme Court
- Camp Lejeune
- Multi-District Litigation
- Statute of Repose
- Tolling
- Cases to Watch
- Administrative Procedures Act
- Clean Water Act
- Deeds
- Due Process
- Marcellus Shale
- Enforcement Action
- Mineral Rights
- Wetlands
- Royalties
- Decisions of Note
- Real Estate
- Drilling
- Exploration
- Leases
- Oil and Gas
Blog editor
Blog Contributors
In Frazer/Exton Development, L.P. v. United States, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a takings claim against the federal government relating to environmental contamination because the appellants, current and former landowners of the site at issue, filed their lawsuit more than 6 years after environmental remediation was complete. Frazer/Exton Development, L.P. v. United States, No. 2019-2143 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 7, 2020).
The case related to the Foot Mineral Superfund Site located in Chester County, Pennsylvania (the “Site”). During WWII and for some time after, the federal government used the Site for various industrial processes which contaminated on-site soils and groundwater. In 1998, appellant Frazer/Exton acquired the Site with full knowledge of the contamination and assumed responsibility for a consent order that required it to complete a remedial investigation and feasibility study. EPA eventually selected a permanent remedy for the Site, and in 2011, the remediation of the Site was completed. Another appellant, Whiteland, acquired the Site in 2016. A year later, in 2017, Whiteland executed an environmental covenant which effectuated land restrictions that were previously approved by EPA.
Frazer/Exton and Whiteland filed suit in the Claims Court in 2018, alleging that the federal government’s operations and disposal methods at the Site resulted in environmental contamination, which effected a physical taking without just compensation in violation of the Fifth Amendment in the United States Constitution. The Claims Court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction, holding that Frazer/Exton and Whiteland’s takings claims accrued in 2011 and the six-year statute of limitations had expired before the suit was filed. On appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed.
The Federal Circuit explained that when a taking is caused by a gradual physical process (such as environmental contamination), the takings claim does not accrue until the situation has “stabilized,” meaning “when the environmental damage has made such substantial inroads into the property that the permanent nature of the taking is evident and the extent of the damage is foreseeable.” In other words, damages need not be complete nor fully calculable for the limitations period to run. The Federal Circuit affirmed the lower court’s decision that the taking “stabilized” no later than 2011 when remediation activities at the Site were complete.
Appellants argued that the claim accrued in 2017 when EPA imposed land use restrictions because, in Appellants’ view, there was no predictability or permanence as to how Appellants’ property rights would be affected until the restriction were in place. But the Court rejected this argument because the land use restrictions were regulatory, rather than physical takings, and therefore were irrelevant as to the physical takings claims that Appellants had pled. The decision is a valuable reminder of the importance of conservatively calculating any limitations period for a cost recovery lawsuit.