Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Christian

2020-04-20

Headline: Court allows state-law nuisance and trespass suits at a Superfund site but requires landowners to get EPA approval before carrying out private cleanup work on their properties.

Holding: The Court held that state courts may hear state-law nuisance and trespass claims at Superfund sites, but owners of contaminated property are potentially responsible parties who must obtain EPA approval before undertaking remedial restoration.

Real World Impact:

State courts can hear state-law pollution claims at Superfund sites.
Landowners must obtain EPA approval before performing remedial restoration work.
EPA approval process can block private cleanups that conflict with federal plans.

Topics: Superfund cleanups, environmental contamination, state court lawsuits, EPA approval, property restoration

Summary

Background

A group of 98 landowners living inside a 300-square-mile Superfund area contaminated by a century of smelter pollution sued the company that owned the smelter (Atlantic Richfield) in Montana state court. The landowners sought restoration damages to pay for digging out more contaminated soil and treating groundwater than the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) required. EPA has managed a decades-long cleanup and projects work to continue through 2025. The landowners’ proposed plan would be more aggressive than EPA’s plan and would cost roughly $50–58 million.

Reasoning

The Court answered two questions: whether state courts are barred from hearing the landowners’ state-law claims, and whether the landowners must obtain EPA approval before doing their proposed cleanup. The Court held that state courts retain jurisdiction over claims based on state law because those claims do not “arise under” the federal Superfund statute. But the Court also held that owners of contaminated property qualify as “potentially responsible parties” under the Superfund law, so they must seek EPA authorization before undertaking remedial actions at a listed Superfund site. The Court rejected arguments that time limits or EPA’s enforcement choices removed the landowners from that status. The decision affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Real world impact

Practically, landowners at listed Superfund sites can sue under state law for damages, but they cannot unilaterally carry out restorations that count as “remedial action” without EPA approval. The EPA approval process may resolve conflicts between private plans and the federal cleanup or prevent work that interferes with the ongoing Superfund response. This ruling is not a final approval of any particular cleanup plan and the case returns to lower courts for next steps.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Alito would not have decided the state-court jurisdiction question now and urged restraint. Justice Gorsuch would have read the statute more narrowly and exempted these landowners from being treated as potentially responsible parties.