Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/17-1498_8mjp.pdf
Page Number: 10

6 

ATLANTIC RICHFIELD CO. v. CHRISTIAN 

Opinion of the Court 

The landowners here propose a restoration plan that goes 
beyond  EPA’s  own  cleanup  plan,  which  the  agency  had 
found  “protective  of  human  health  and  the  environment.”
EPA, Community Soils Operable Unit, Record of Decision 
(1996), App. 62.  See also 42 U. S. C. §9621(d)(1).  For ex-
ample, the landowners propose a maximum soil contamina-
tion level of 15 parts per million of arsenic, rather than the 
250 parts per million level set by EPA.  And the landowners 
seek to excavate offending soil within residential yards to a
depth  of  two  feet  rather  than  EPA’s  chosen  depth  of  one.
The  landowners  also  seek  to  capture  and  treat  shallow 
groundwater through an 8,000-foot long, 15-foot deep, and 
3-foot  wide  underground  permeable  barrier,  a  plan  the 
agency  rejected  as  costly  and  unnecessary  to  secure  safe 
drinking water.

The  landowners  estimate  that  their  cleanup  would  cost
Atlantic  Richfield  $50  to  $58  million.  Atlantic  Richfield 
would place that amount in a trust and the trustee would 
release funds only for restoration work.

In the trial court, Atlantic Richfield and the landowners 
filed competing motions for summary judgment on whether 
the  Act  precluded  the  landowners’  claim  for  restoration 
damages.2  The court granted judgment for the landowners
on  that  issue  and  allowed  the  lawsuit  to  continue.    After 
granting  a  writ  of  supervisory  control,  the  Montana  Su-
preme  Court  affirmed.  Atlantic  Richfield  Co.  v.  Montana 
Second Jud. Dist. Ct., 390 Mont. 76, 408 P. 3d 515 (2017). 

The Montana Supreme Court rejected Atlantic Richfield’s 

—————— 

2 Atlantic  Richfield  concedes  that  the  Act  preserves  the  landowners’ 
claims for other types of compensatory damages under Montana law, in-
cluding loss of use and enjoyment of property, diminution of value, inci-
dental and consequential damages, and annoyance and discomfort.  See 
Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Montana Second Jud. Dist. Ct., 390 Mont. 76, 
79, 408 P. 3d 515, 518 (2017).  We therefore consider only the landown-
ers’ claim for restoration damages.