City Superfund Liability Goes Down the Drain
In September of 2009, the federal district court for the Eastern District of California issued a ruling in Adobe Lumber, Inc. v. Hellman. If the holding catches on, it should scare the sewage out of every city in the country.
The facts are fairly unremarkable as Superfund facts go. Between 1974 and 2001, a shopping center, owned by Adobe Lumber, housed a dry cleaning business. A floor drain from the dry cleaners connected to the sewer system for the City of Woodland, California through a waste pipe. The dry cleaning operators used the floor drain to dispose of waste water containing perchlorethylene, which is a hazardous substance under CERCLA. In 2001, it was determined that PCE from the dry cleaning establishment had contaminated the soils and groundwater. So far, not too surprising.
The interesting aspect of the case is that the plaintiff chose to include the City in the lawsuit. The plaintiff''s claim against the City was that the contamination was a result of the leakage of PCE from the sewer system and that the sewer system was
especially likely to leak due to … its age, the large number of joints, grout (mortared) joints and defects in the sewer system and that the city’s management and maintenance of the sewer system was re-active, minimal, and inadequate.
In suing the City, the plaintiff sought declaratory relief and cost recovery under CERCLA as well as several other theories. The plaintiff moved for summary judgment on the CERCLA claim under the theory that the City, as the owner and operator of the sanitary sewer system, had liability for any leaking hazardous substances from those facilities.
The court first addressed the question of whether the sewer pipes constituted a “facility” under 
CERCLA. The court noted that the term “facility enjoys a broad and detailed definition.” (For those who don’t read a lot of cases, this kind of language is a bad sign). The court then found that the sewer pipes can be deemed a facility because the statutory language identifies a facility as any site or area where a hazardous substance has been disposed of or comes to be located. The court could find no language to exclude the city’s sewer system, so it held that the pipe was a “facility” under CERCLA.
The court then went on to determine whether the city was an owner or operator of the facility. This one, however, was easier because there was no question but that the city owned the sewer system.
Finally, the city asserted the innocent landowner defense. The elements of that defense are that the defendant must prove that: 1) the release or threat of release of hazardous substances was caused solely by the acts of a third party, and 2) the defendant exercised due care with respect to the hazardous substances and took precautions against foreseeable third acts or omissions. The Court found that neither of the elements were satisfied.
First, the court found that the dry cleaners did not constitute the “sole” cause because the City allowed the sewer lines to degenerate to the state which allowed the releases to occur.
Second, the court found that though the dry cleaner's conduct clearly violated state and local law, that did not render the conduct unforeseeable as a matter of law. The evidence showed that the City did not take steps to remedy the leaks in the sewer system until 2004 even though it was aware that several dry cleaners did operate in the area. The court found that it was foreseeable that the City would be aware that PCE could be illegally discharged from these facilities and the City was required to take “reasonable steps” to prevent ongoing contamination, which the City did not do until 2004. Therefore, the City was the “owner” and “operator” of a “facility” that allowed the release of a hazardous substance.
I believe it is safe to say that the City was surprised at the outcome.
There is still a long way to go and appeals to be had, but, based on the cases cited by the court, there is every reason to believe that the City will ultimately be one of those parties who gets allocated some of the response costs for this clean up. It will be interesting to see if the Burlington Northern case lets them get out for a low percentage.
The real import to this case, in my mind, is that it, once again, highlights the idea that the “polluter pays” under CERCLA is often not true. The environmental regulatory schemes under both federal and many state laws are much less concerned with who caused a hazardous release than they are with who can be easily located to pay for the clean up of a hazardous release. And while that may be expedient, it is a far cry from making the polluter pay as that phrase is understood by most people.
RELATED POSTS: The SCARLETT Letter of Operator Liability
