Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

PDF

Land Use Law

Public Land & Resources Law Review

2020

CERCLA

Articles 1 - 3 of 3

Full-Text Articles in Law

Asarco Llc V. Atlantic Richfield Co., Llc, Taylor A. Simpson Dec 2020

Asarco Llc V. Atlantic Richfield Co., Llc, Taylor A. Simpson

Public Land & Resources Law Review

In 2009, Asarco reached a settlement agreement with the Environmental Protection Agency for the arsenic-contaminated East Helena lead smelting facility. As part of the settlement, Asarco was responsible for $111.4 million in cleanup and remediation expenses. Following this payment, Asarco brought a contribution claim under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act against Atlantic Richfield. Finally, in 2020, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that Asarco’s remediation expenses of $111.4 million were not eligible for contribution because the costs were not fully incurred. The Ninth Circuit stated that only incurred or concrete, non-speculative future costs can be eligible …


Pakootas V. Teck Cominco Metals, Ltd., Connlan W. Whyte May 2020

Pakootas V. Teck Cominco Metals, Ltd., Connlan W. Whyte

Public Land & Resources Law Review

Throughout the twentieth century, Teck Cominco Metals leaked metal pollutants into the Upper Columbia River that ultimately entered the United States and the Colville Indian Reservation. In 2004, after almost a decade of working with the United States Environmental Protection Agency, the Colville Tribes initiated a citizen suit under CERCLA against Teck for damaging the ecosystem of the Upper Columbia River. In 2018, the Ninth Circuit affirmed judgment against Teck for recovery costs and attorney’s fees.


Fmc Corp. V. Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, Seth T. Bonilla Apr 2020

Fmc Corp. V. Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, Seth T. Bonilla

Public Land & Resources Law Review

In 1998, FMC Corporation agreed to submit to the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes’ permitting processes, including the payment of fees, for clean-up work required as part of consent decree negotiations with the Environmental Protection Agency. Then, in 2002, FMC refused to pay the Tribes under a permitting agreement entered into by both parties, even though the company continued to store hazardous waste on land within the Shoshone-Bannock Fort Hall Reservation in Idaho. FMC challenged the Tribes’ authority to enforce the $1.5 million permitting fees first in tribal court and later challenged the Tribes’ authority to exercise civil regulatory and adjudicatory jurisdiction over …