own complaint one dollar is obliged to take by two thousand and four consent decree with the e p a and that also according to one's own complaint constitute response actions within the meaning of circle under section one circle a party has three years to bring a contribution action after the entry of a consent decree that resolves that parties liability for some or all of a response action we did more than a decade liability to united states or state in the ministry diverge additionally improves settlement shall not be liable for claims of contribution so i agree that the wording of that last provision could be read to mean that you can't bring the suit potentially against either the person that has resolved its liability in that consent decree or the united states or the state but i don't think that that broader reading makes sense and i also think that here  is also going to keep in mind of the two thousand and four consent decree as between one and the e p a certainly the e p a has an agency of the united states but the federal government can wear multiple hats when it's involved potentially in these kind of contaminated sites where here e p a the two thousand and four consent decree between guam and the e p a is between one and two united states regulator whereas in this action one is attempting to sue the united states  in its capacity as potentially another potentially responsible party at the site so i see your honor's point about the potential you know very bribery you know that language at the end of one hundred and thirteen x three b but i think that the better reading of the statute is simply that it was trying to cut off you know the ability to bring a contribution action against someone who under one hundred and thirteen act two has already resolved a sigh ability and thus came to unity from contribution suits and also think i can certainly do that and but your contribution actions under one hundred and thirteen dollars are have been brought against the federal government can be brought against the federal government there's never been a sovereign immunity bar to those kinds of cases in which in which someone is seeking to recover against the united states and its capacity as a potentially responsible party at a site is it your position that you can bring a contribution action against the us if you have some with  what this settlement achieves is that it places an obligation on the person who settle it to begin performing response actions without a settlement in place the only avenue for relief that  person had to say would have against the united states would be to bring a cost recovery action under section one dollar of seven but they could only under it they could only bring on a seven action after they have already incurred response on parties to perform a full response action and then wait and then sue under one of seven when they don't know what the ultimate outcome of that one of seven action will be the idea of having of the one hundred and thirteen dollars process is that we get these determinations out of the way early we get some certainty as to what actions are going to be performed at least in the st instance and then there is this short three year statute of limitations for seeking contribution so it gets that process rolling and prevents the situation where you have these seats these states excuse me that could sit out there for you know years or decades while people sort of wait to see who will move st or where the united states in its capacity to protect the public health and welfare will have to move st and thirteen dollars f three before the piece that just a document court's attention to which is that this section provides a contribution action for quote a person who has resolved this liability to the united states or a state for some or all of the response action and i think that's important to keep in mind here is that unlike circus other contribution current provision f one there is no requirement in the language of the statute that says that the liability that has to be resolved is liability under circle or liability under any particular legal claim it's simply requires the resolution of liability for some or subset of actions that the person suddenly will have to perform at this site so long as it does either features of the consent decree go into whether the underlying cla consent degree have been resolved are immaterial in our view that's where the district court went wrong here are the three features of the consent decree that the district court focused on the non admission of liability the reservation of certain rights the statement that release in settlement of the claims would be contingent on performance those all go to the question of whether there is a resolution of the underlying claims but that is not what and thirteen dollars f three b requires in order for us response action should be afforded and then i would also point out that those provisions that the district court from troubling here are common in circles settlements certainly but also in settlements outside of this area they are common features that people enter into when they are entering into a settlement and in fact they are features that section one hundred and twenty two dollars of circle which in our view as we said and under the terms of the requires consent decrees to have each of these features so it would be odd indeed an inconsistent with the statute if those features nevertheless prevented a finding that a consent decree resolved liability and we think the reason that the district  court was even focused on the speeches in the st place was because of this misunderstanding as to the difference between resolving liability for response action and resolving liability for claims i see that there's about four minutes left on the clock  morning may please the court john gilmore about the people in government war bronner's this case is about the united states dominance and control of guam for the better part of a century and its ongoing clean up after the war with the united states consistently omits in its briefing and its argument is that the order it done was created owned operated by the united states for that entire time up an established all of the island's infrastructure post world war two your data dump is unlined because of the design implemented by the united states leadership the subject of the water act completing an consent decree at the core of today's discussion escaping from the order don't because of the united states design that we could  in river of acquire hazardous waste hazardous waste or defined terms on the status of the clean water act is designed to address pollutants pollutants are also in defined term under statute pollutants are much broader than hazardous substances hazardous substance has to be listed in the racial or religious maybe that bears on the question why didn't do a sort of  act complaint in the clean water act consent decree all address only clean water act violations and only addressed pollutants through there is no indication that there is any resolution of any other liability in fact we would argue that there is no resolution of liability even as to the clean water act claims because of the broad reservation of rights that the united states has the it specifically states that abiding by the consent decree does not guarantee compliance with the clean water act and in no way effects the government of wants responsibilities to comply with all applicable federal term in the statute in circle and it references the water pollution control act thirty three u s c section one thousand three hundred and twenty one there in the water pollution control act it defines liability as requiring was not triggered that we can pursue no no no no no look at it this language could help you because the united states is a party to this degree right yes wrong so if it is under this language on could can't be that's not the united states right so this that i don't know not clear a statute isn't this isn't the party who settles with the us is not liable for contribution claims from other potential responsible parties but those of the latter group is not just charge from liability the words the two sections are saying the same thing i would i would tend to agree with you now is your honor the only complicating factor that i would point out is that person is a defined term within circle and does include united states however i agree given the warning the statute that it's referred to as the united states and not as a person to do the analysis well if you just look at three of the it says a person who as a result is liability the united states does it doesn't say the right yes sure we are indeed so i mean that's what's odd about this case is that it's brought by the united states that a potential responsible party is the you have all the so so that the language  circle for injunctive relief and in the alternative we won thirteen action which the district court dismissed ok but the one of the seven presumes that there are some hazardous substances i just want to get clear you've been talking about pollutants rechecks there are some hazardous substances you are in the past since the onset construction started in two thousand and thirteen there has been extensive sampling and yes there are hazardous substances present ok something in the statute that says that you know estates can be sued for contribution that if you as a potentially responsible party or a defendant in a one of six or seven action then you may bring a contribution claim against another potentially responsible party or just concentrate on that last nothing in this subsection of saladin there's the right of any person to bring an action for contribution in the absence of a civil action yes your honor i think that would then allow a freestanding cop yes you're right thank you thank you so much time if i could i'd like to jump right back into judge totals question about one hundred and thirteen f three b and how we know that a suit can be brought against the united states so i would direct your honour's to two provisions person includes united states government so i think that should resolve that issue for the last concert yes and with regard to that is i don't know you know i agree your honor but there is unfortunately as with many things about circle as the courts have noted it's not a model of clarity but i think that that you know we still have to figure out i think that the reading of that section of that last sentence that makes the most sense is anderson was saying that it is referring back context because they can resolve this liability to the united states or a state in an administrative or just approved settlement one hundred and thirteen up to that says that person shall not be liable for claims for contribution regarding matters addressed in the settlement so and thirteen of two was saying is that once you have entered into one of use consent decrees and resolve your liability no one can bring a contribution action against you and i think that clear import of that last piece of one hundred and thirteen f three b is to make clear that well i think isn't it just clear that the complication here is that there is this two thousand and four consent decree which as we've said is a settlement that resolves liability it doesn't resolve the united states liability for some of the response action it res that's what's so strange about this it is a little strange and you know these kind of strangers is a rise in circle because the united states and states where two hats potentially in these situations were here we have a situation where the u seventy point again i would refer back to section one o one subsection twenty one dollars the definition of person which explicitly includes the united states government when the congress then in one hundred and thirteen dollars f three b referring to being able to bring an action against a person we know under the statute that person includes the united states so i consider this it possible that in this provision persons or person is a shorthand  potentially responsible person i mean i haven't looked at the definition of potentially responsible person but is it possible that that's your shorthand in this in this provision for the p r p and they just didn't say that every single time they said person in other words the last sentence of f two says such a settlement does not discharge any of the other potentially liability liable person unless it's terms to provide but it reduces the potential liability of the others meaning other potentially responsible person so it gets the benefit of two right can't be it can't be no one can see contribution from him which is what congress intended that's correct but it can only pursue to get it you can only receive  contribution from any person right but as you and i both agree this is unusual case because here the united states is both the prosecutor and the potential responsible person with your right to figure out how the statue applies in that situation while i think states this is certainly not the only kind of situation where the only case in which this issue has arisen excuse me in which there is been a super contribution brought against a federal agency in their capacity as as as  a potentially responsible party and we think that the reference to person and use of person and the fact that person is defined to include the united states allows those actions to proceed against the united states and requires them to be brought when there is a resolution of liability under the one hundred and thirteen contribution provisions the problem with kind of moving all of us into the one hundred and seven context in addition to the fact that we think that the statute language cause otherwise is that the more that we are funneling actions under one o seven the less value the one hundred and thirteen settlement process has because as we've discussed in one hundred and thirteen f two the protection that people who resolve their liability to the united states or state and get is that they are protected from contributions suits that is other one hundred and thirteen suits not one of seven suits so the harder we make it to trigger a one hundred and thirteen action the more resort of read additional requirements into the statute