Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/17-1498_8mjp.pdf
Page Number: 25

Cite as:  590 U. S. ____ (2020) 

21 

Opinion of the Court 

preponderance of the evidence” that he satisfies the crite-
ria.  §9607(q)(1)(B). 

The  landowners  cannot  clear  this  high  bar.  One  of  the 
eight requirements is that, at the time the person acquired 
the  property,  the  person  “did  not  know  or  have  reason  to
know that the property was or could be contaminated by a
release or threatened release of one or more hazardous sub-
stances.”  §9607(q)(1)(A)(viii)(II).  All  of  the  landowners 
here purchased their property after the Anaconda Company
built the Washington Monument sized smelter.  Indeed “ev-
idence of public knowledge” of contamination was “almost
overwhelming.”  Christian  v.  Atlantic  Richfield  Co.,  380 
Mont.  495,  529,  358  P. 3d  131,  155  (2015).    In  the  early
1900s,  the  Anaconda  Company  actually  obtained  smoke
and  tailing  easements  authorizing  the  disposition  of 
smelter waste onto many properties now owned by the land-
owners.  Id., at 500–501, 358 P. 3d, at 137–138.  The land-
owners had reason to know their property “could be contam-
inated  by  a  release  or  threatened  release”  of  a  hazardous
substance.  42 U. S. C. §9607(q)(1)(A)(viii)(II). 

At  any  rate,  contiguous  landowners  must  provide  “full 
cooperation, assistance, and access” to EPA and those car-
rying out Superfund cleanups in order to maintain that sta-
tus.  §9607(q)(1)(A)(iv).  But the Government has represented 
that  the  landowners’  restoration  plan,  if  implemented,
would interfere with its cleanup by, for example, digging up 
contaminated  soil  that  has  been  deliberately  capped  in 
place.  See Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 20–21.  
If  that  is  true,  the  landowners’  plan  would  soon  trigger  a 
lack of cooperation between EPA and the landowners.  At 
that point, the landowners would no longer qualify as con-
tiguous landowners and we would be back to square one. 

* 
The  Montana  Supreme  Court  erred  in  holding  that  the
landowners were not potentially responsible parties under 

* 

*