Opinion ID: 2971540
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: nrepa

Text: To be liable under NREPA, a defendant must have “caused” a release or threat of release of a hazardous substance, leading to the incurrence of response costs. Mich. Comp. Laws § 324.20126(1)(a). The district court found that K-H did not cause a release. Because causation is a question of fact, this court reviews the finding for clear error. Hasler v. United States, 718 F.2d 202, 204 (6th Cir. 1983). Findings of fact are to be reversed only if the court is left “with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Franklin County Convention Facilities Auth., 240 F.3d at 541 (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). “Where two logically permissible interpretations of the evidence exist, the trial judge’s selection cannot be adjudged clearly erroneous on appeal.” Id. We assess the district court’s finding that K-H did not cause the release to be clearly erroneous, given its other factual finding acknowledging that K-H used and released the hazardous substances found in Milford’s wells.
To be recoverable under NREPA, response costs must be “necessary.” Michigan courts have read “necessary” to mean “required.” City of Port Huron v. Amoco Oil Co., 583 N.W.2d 215, 222 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998). One “required” activity is evaluation of a threat to public health or natural resources. Id. MDNR required Milford to increase monitoring of its wells. It also advised Milford to undertake additional studies of its groundwater contamination. MDEQ considered the contamination to be “a threat to . . . Milford’s water supply, the public health, and the environment.” These facts evince that Milford’s activities were “required” and therefore “necessary” under NREPA. Because the district court erred in finding that K-H did not cause a release of hazardous substances, and because at least some of Milford’s costs were “required,” we remand the case to the district court to determine which costs were required. No. 03-1597 Village of Milford v. K-H Holding Corp., et al. Page 8