Pixel Tracker

Monday, February 18 , 2019, 7:36 am | Fair 44º

 
 
 
 

‘Innocent Landowner’ Defense Proves to be Out of Reach ... Again

Due diligence requires much more than scratching the surface.

What “innocent landowner” defense? In a recent California case, a developer who unknowingly spread arsenic-contaminated dirt during the construction of a residential project almost 30 years ago was held liable under the CERCLA statute, commonly known as Superfund but officially the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980. United States v. Honeywell 542 F. Supp. 2d 1188 (E.D. Cal. 2008).

image
Bret Stone

The case involved an EPA action following the discovery of arsenic contamination coming from the now-abandoned mining operations adjacent to the lot in dispute. The EPA removed and replaced soil and landscaping from the entire area to remediate the contamination and then filed a cost recovery suit against the responsible parties. In response to the suit, the defendants filed contribution actions against multiple third-party defendants, including the developer who owned the property between 1978 and 1982. The developer had also contracted with third parties to grade, excavate and otherwise prepare the property for residential use. Even though the developer had no knowledge of the property’s contamination, his activities were found to have expedited the rate at which the arsenic contamination migrated through the area.

CERCLA imposes liability on several classes of persons, including former owners at the time of disposal. The statute offers few defenses, one of which is known as the “innocent landowner” defense. The elements of the defense require that the landowner (1) is not responsible for the contamination; (2) did not contract with a party that is responsible for the contamination; (3) exercised due care; and (4) took precautions against foreseeable acts and omissions of a third party.

image
John Till

In United States v. Honeywell, the developer asserted this defense but was denied for several reasons. First, the companies that did the actual excavation and grading were clearly contracted by the developer, violating the second part of the innocent landowner defense. In addition, the court found the developer did not exercise due care or take precautions against foreseeable acts by a third party. The court found “it is eminently foreseeable that the development of such land would result in a release of whatever substances, hazardous or not, were in the soil.” Not only could the developer have foreseen this release of hazardous materials, but he took steps in developing the property in question that arguably “agitated and released” the materials already contained in the soil. The court’s decision clarified that the foreseeablilty analysis rests on whether the use of a property could possibly release already existing pollutants, not whether the defendant knows whether contamination exists in the first place. Accordingly, the court found it was “simply untenable” that “the release of materials is an unforeseeable consequence of the residential development of raw land” and held the developer liable.

So what does this case mean for landowners and developers? The Honeywell decision builds on existing precedent that casts a wide net for potentially responsible parties, or PRPs. Developers should tread cautiously to make sure they have made all appropriate inquiries into the potential for contamination during their due diligence. While contaminated sites need not be avoided altogether, it is important that the developer understand — both technically and legally — the challenges that may be faced.

In dealing with those challenges, the developer may also want to consider cost recovery. The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently applied the U.S. Supreme Court‘s decision in United States v. Atlantic Research Corp., __ U.S. __, 127 S. Ct. 2331 (2007), which held that a PRP may recover costs it incurs in responding to environmental contamination from other PRPs under CERCLA section 107(a). Kotrous v. Goss-Jewett Co. of N. Cal., Inc. 523 F. 3d 924 (9th Cir. 2008).

Thus, the developer initiating a cost-recovery action would be able to seek joint and several liability from other PRPs and not just contribution. While a developer may not be able to prove his “innocence,” there are viable cost-recovery options to hold those responsible for actually causing the contamination in the instance liable for the cleanup.

Bret Stone and John Till are partners in Paladin Law Group, a boutique environmental law firm with offices in Santa Barbara and Walnut Creek.

Talk to Us!

Please take Noozhawk's audience survey to help us understand what you expect — and want — from us. It'll take you just a few minutes. Thank you!

Get Started >

Support Noozhawk Today

You are an important ally in our mission to deliver clear, objective, high-quality professional news reporting for Santa Barbara, Goleta and the rest of Santa Barbara County. Join the Hawks Club today to help keep Noozhawk soaring.

We offer four membership levels: $5 a month, $10 a month, $25 a month or $1 a week. Payments can be made using a credit card, Apple Pay or Google Pay, or click here for information on recurring credit-card payments and a mailing address for checks.

Thank you for your vital support.

Become a Noozhawk Supporter

First name
Last name
Email
Select your monthly membership
Or choose an annual membership
×

Payment Information

Membership Subscription

You are enrolling in . Thank you for joining the Hawks Club.

Payment Method

Pay by Credit Card:

Mastercard, Visa, American Express, Discover
One click only, please!

Pay with Apple Pay or Google Pay:

Noozhawk partners with Stripe to provide secure invoicing and payments processing.
You may cancel your membership at any time by sending an email to .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).

  • Ask
  • Vote
  • Investigate
  • Answer

Noozhawk Asks: What’s Your Question?

Welcome to Noozhawk Asks, a new feature in which you ask the questions, you help decide what Noozhawk investigates, and you work with us to find the answers.

Here’s how it works: You share your questions with us in the nearby box. In some cases, we may work with you to find the answers. In others, we may ask you to vote on your top choices to help us narrow the scope. And we’ll be regularly asking you for your feedback on a specific issue or topic.

We also expect to work together with the reader who asked the winning questions to find the answer together. Noozhawk’s objective is to come at questions from a place of curiosity and openness, and we believe a transparent collaboration is the key to achieve it.

The results of our investigation will be published here in this Noozhawk Asks section. Once or twice a month, we plan to do a review of what was asked and answered.

Thanks for asking!

Click Here to Get Started >

Reader Comments

Noozhawk is no longer accepting reader comments on our articles. Click here for the announcement. Readers are instead invited to submit letters to the editor by emailing them to [email protected]. Please provide your full name and community, as well as contact information for verification purposes only.