Source: http://riddellwilliams.com/u-s-district-courts-oregon-washington-allow-indian-tribes-recover-oversight-enforcement-costs-cercla/
Timestamp: 2017-02-21 21:21:25
Document Index: 361852648

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 9607', '§ 9607', '§ 9607', '§ 9607', '§ 9607', '§ 9601', '§ 9607', '§ 9607']

U.S. District Courts in Oregon and Washington Allow Indian Tribes to Recover Oversight and Enforcement Costs Under CERCLA - Riddell Williams
Two recent federal court decisions have expanded the range of costs that Indian tribes may recover from potentially responsible parties (PRPs) under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). See Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation v. United States, No. 3:14-CV-01963-PK, 2016 WL 406344 (D. Or. Feb. 1, 2016) and Pakootas v. Teck Cominco Metals, Ltd., No. CV-04-256-LRS (E.D. Wash. Apr. 1, 2016) (“April 1 order”). These decisions, both involving contamination at sites along the Columbia River in the Pacific Northwest, clarify that Indian tribes are sovereign entities that need no special authority to recover either oversight or enforcement costs under 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a)(4)(A). The decisions offer new promise for tribes seeking to play a larger role in influencing CERCLA cleanups both within and outside of Indian country. They also represent increased financial exposure for PRPs at many contaminated sites.
Yakama Nation v. United States In Yakama Nation, the U.S. District Court in Oregon held that CERCLA compelled the federal government to reimburse the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation for past and future costs associated with overseeing cleanup of the Bradford Island Superfund site. The site is owned and operated by federal PRPs, including the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The Corps of Engineers began cleanup efforts in 1997.
In 2014, Yakama Nation sued the government for cost recovery under 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a)(4)(A). Yakama Nation sought to recover approximately $100,000 in response costs, including costs associated with what it characterized as “oversight of the response actions taken by the [government].” Specifically, Yakama Nation sought costs associated with meetings, correspondence, and communications with the government, as well as costs associated with reviewing and commenting on the government’s cleanup planning documents. On cross motions for summary judgment, the district court largely adopted the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendation (F&R), holding that Yakama Nation could recover past oversight costs. The district court also declared that the government was liable for future Yakama Nation oversight costs.
PRPs are liable for “all costs of removal or remedial action incurred by the United States Government or a state or an Indian tribe” at a facility, as long as those costs are “not inconsistent” with federal cleanup regulations known as the “National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan” (NCP). See 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a)(4)(A). Consistency with the NCP is presumed, and PRPs carry the burden of demonstrating that federal, state, or tribal response costs are not consistent with those regulations. Wash. State Dep’t of Transp. v. Wash. Natural Gas Co., PacifiCorp, 59 F.3d 793, 799–800 (9th Cir. 1995). Courts have repeatedly held that indirect costs of overseeing cleanup actions, when incurred by the federal government, are recoverable response costs under 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a)(4)(A). See U.S. v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., Inc., 432 F.3d 161, 166, 179 (3d Cir. 2005).
After trial on the Colville Tribes’ remaining expenses, the district court reconsidered and reversed its earlier partial summary judgment order sua sponte. April 1 order, slip op. at 2–3. In its new opinion, the district court noted that “[i]t is a fundamental undisputed proposition that the Tribes are a government, a sovereign entity, just like the federal government and a State,” and that CERCLA “lumps these sovereigns together” for purposes of cost recovery claims. Id. at 6. Because tribes and states “are governmental entities with inherent enforcement authority, unlike private parties,” the district court found it irrelevant that only the federal government has statutory enforcement authority under CERCLA. Id. at 8–10 (emphasis added).
Again, Indian tribes are entitled to recover “all costs of removal or remedial action” from PRPs, so long as those costs are not inconsistent with the NCP. 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a)(4)(A). The terms “removal” and “remedial action,” as used in the statute, “include enforcement activities related thereto.” 42 U.S.C. § 9601(25). Because the Colville Tribes have inherent enforcement authority as a sovereign entity, the district court’s April 1 order in Pakootas held that they could recover all enforcement costs—including litigation-related attorneys’ fees—under 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a)(4)(A). April 1 order at 11–12. Indeed, on August 12, 2016, the Court awarded the Colville Tribes $8.25 million in past response costs, of which $4.8 million represented attorneys’ fees and litigation costs.
Despite breaking new ground, Yakama Nation and Pakootas are both ostensibly rooted in a straightforward application of plain statutory language. Both decisions principally cite CERCLA’s provision authorizing “the United States Government or a State or an Indian tribe” to recover “all costs” of removal or remedial action not inconsistent with the NCP. 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a)(4)(A) (emphasis added). Strict reliance on the statutory text is consistent with the U.S. Supreme Court’s approach to interpreting CERCLA. See CTS Corp. v. Waldburger, __ U.S. __, 134 S. Ct. 2175, 2185 (2014) (“The Court of Appeals supported its interpretation of [CERCLA’s discovery rule] by invoking the proposition that remedial statutes should be interpreted in a liberal manner. The Court of Appeals was in error when it treated this as a substitute for a conclusion grounded in the statute’s text and structure.”); see also Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. United States, 556 U.S. 599, 610 (2009); United States v. Atl. Research Corp., 551 U.S. 128, 141 (2007); Cooper Indus., Inc. v. Aviall Servs., Inc., 543 U.S. 157, 159 (2004).
The magistrate judge in Yakama Nation observed that “the policy underpinning CERCLA strongly suggests the statute permits Yakama Nation to engage in oversight response actions with respect to the Bradford Island cleanup.” F&R, slip op. at 9. But it appears that what ultimately mattered most, in both Yakama Nation and Pakootas, is that CERCLA’s statutory language puts Indian tribes on equal sovereign footing with the federal government and states when it comes to recovery of response costs from PRPs. See id. at 8 (“The text of CERCLA does not contain an authority requirement. . . .”) (emphasis added); April 1 order at 10–12 & n.8 (citing F&R).
Taken at face value, neither Yakama Nation nor Pakootas limits the possibility that multiple tribes and states might engage in overlapping or even duplicative oversight and enforcement efforts and each seek to recover the costs of that work from PRPs. The decisions here suggest that PRPs could face multiple cost recovery claims from multiple tribal and state parties at any given site. Those costs, and the costs of defending one or more cost recovery claims, represent an area of significant financial exposure for PRPs. For tribes, on the other hand, Yakama Nation and Pakootas offer new opportunities to participate in and influence cleanup actions at contaminated sites governed by CERCLA.
Both Yakama Nation and Pakootas also highlight how negotiated agreements can help PRPs control and minimize liability for tribal oversight and enforcement costs. PRPs should consider actively engaging with tribes, together with states and the federal government, and agreeing at the outset to fund certain tribal activities at a cleanup. This is not necessarily a novel approach, as PRPs sometimes currently agree to private cost-sharing arrangements and even formal consent decrees under which tribes recover oversight costs. But there is now added incentive for PRPs to minimize future exposure to cost recovery claims deriving from independent tribal oversight and enforcement activities. In exchange for increased funding under an agreement, tribes may be willing to waive future cost recovery claims for expenses that exceed agreed-upon funding amounts. Similarly, PRPs may be able to avoid paying tribes’ enforcement costs by folding tribal parties into initial administrative orders with EPA, or via separate commitments made in PRP–tribal funding agreements. PRPs face uncertainty identifying those tribes from whom they may face future cost recovery claims, however, because neither Yakama Nation nor Pakootas limits tribal cost recovery claims to work related specifically to contamination at sites in Indian country.
An earlier version of this article first appeared in the August 2016 Superfund and Natural Resource Damanges Litigation Committee Newsletter published by the American Bar Association’s Section of Environment, Energy, and Resources.
Sign up to receive news and updates from the U.S. District Courts in Oregon and Washington Allow Indian Tribes to Recover Oversight and Enforcement Costs Under CERCLA Group.