Opinion ID: 1160147
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The Legislative History of the Federal Statute

Text: The legislative history of UMTRCA does not define windfall profits, or address the criteria for acquisition of processing sites. However, nothing in the legislative history indicates that the Colorado rule against enhanced value is inconsistent with UMTRCA. In its Section-by-Section Analysis and Committee Comments, House Report No. 1480 states that the affected State [shall] acquire the processing site before remedial action is initiated if such acquisition is determined appropriate by the Secretary and the NRC. H.R.Rep. No. 1480(II) at 37, reprinted in 1978 U.S.C.C.A.N. 7464. The Report specifically indicates that [s]uch acquisition is to be accomplished pursuant to State law. Id. This reference to state law indicates that Congress intended for the state to utilize the same policies and procedures in this context as it uses in other types of land acquisition. In Colorado, the rule against enhanced value is generally applicable to the acquisition of land by the state in other contexts. See § 24-56-117 (Any state agency or political subdivision of the state which acquires real property for a program or project for which federal financial assistance will be available to pay all or any part of the cost of such program or project shall comply with the following policies:); Williams, 147 Colo. at 198-202, 363 P.2d at 173-75. The committee also noted that where cleanup is accomplished by consent, the property owner will benefit from the voluntary remedial action provided by this act. Clearly, the committee does not want to find that at some later date the United States is faced with a claim from such owner, his heirs, successors or assigns concerning such remedial action or arising from such action. H.R.Rep. No. 1480(II) at 37, reprinted in 1978 U.S.C.C.A.N. 7464. Thus, the committee viewed the waiver of liability that is part of a consent agreement to be at least partial consideration for the benefit that accrues to the property owner. Under the interpretation urged by The Mill, the property owner would receive not only the benefit of the cleanup and the attendant increase in property value, but would also avoid providing a waiver releasing the United States from liability which otherwise would have been required if the site had been decontaminated under a consent agreement. Such an interpretation would create every incentive for a property owner to resist consensual cleanup, force the state to condemn the processing site in order to perform remedial action, and thus drive up program costs. Since the committee was concerned about the cost of acquisition under this section and expect[ed] that it be utilized only when necessary, H.R.Rep. No. 1480(II) at 38, reprinted in 1978 U.S.C.C.A.N. 7465, such a construction is clearly contrary to the legislative intent of UMTRCA as expressed in the Act's legislative history. Application of the rule against enhanced value would eliminate this adverse incentive and thus be more consistent with Congressional intent.