Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/17-1498_8mjp.pdf
Page Number: 24.0

20 

ATLANTIC RICHFIELD CO. v. CHRISTIAN 

Opinion of the Court 

Atlantic Richfield is also liable for the landowners’ own re-
mediation beyond that required under the Act.  Even then, 
the  answer  is  yes—so long  as  the  landowners  first  obtain
EPA approval for the remedial work they seek to carry out.
We  likewise  resist  JUSTICE  GORSUCH’s  evocative  claim 
that our reading of the Act endorses “paternalistic central
planning” and turns a cold shoulder to “state law efforts to 
restore state lands.”  Post, at 10.  Such a charge fails to ap-
preciate that cleanup plans generally must comply with “le-
gally applicable or relevant and appropriate” standards of 
state environmental law.  42 U. S. C. §9621(d)(2)(A)(ii).  Or 
that States must be afforded opportunities for “substantial
and meaningful involvement” in initiating, developing, and
selecting cleanup plans.  §9621(f )(1).  Or that EPA usually
must defer initiating a cleanup at a contaminated site that
a State is already remediating.  §9605(h).  It is not “pater-
nalistic central planning” but instead the “spirit of cooper-
ative federalism [that] run[s] throughout CERCLA and its
regulations.”  New Mexico v. General Elec. Corp., 467 F. 3d 
1223, 1244 (CA10 2006). 

As a last ditch effort, the landowners contend that, even 
if §107(a) defines potentially responsible parties, they qual-
ify  as  contiguous  property  owners  under  §107(q),  which
would pull them outside the scope of §107(a).  The landown-
ers are correct that contiguous property owners are not po-
tentially responsible parties.  Section 107(q)(1)(A) provides
that “[a] person that owns real property that is contiguous 
to or otherwise similarly situated with respect to, and that
is  or  may  be  contaminated  by  a  release  or  threatened  re-
lease of a hazardous substance from, real property that is 
not owned by that person shall not be considered” an owner 
of a facility under §107(a).  §9607(q)(1)(A).  The problem for
the landowners is that there are eight further requirements
to qualify as a contiguous property owner.  §§9607(q)(1)(A)(i)– 
(viii).   Each  landowner  individually  must  “establish  by  a