Artesian Water Co. v. Government of New Castle County

Decision Date28 July 1988
Docket NumberNo. 87-3622,87-3623,Nos. 87-3622,87-3622,s. 87-3622
Citation851 F.2d 643
Parties, 57 USLW 2032, 18 Envtl. L. Rep. 21,012 ARTESIAN WATER COMPANY, Appellant in, v. The GOVERNMENT OF NEW CASTLE COUNTY, Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff, v. LANDFILL, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Material Transit, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Edgar Thomas Harvey, Edgar Thomas Harvey, Jr., W. Lawrence Knotts, Henry A. Twardus, William Q. Saienni, Elme D. Saienni, Salvatore J. Saienni, Dominic Cantera, Marian Cantera, Delaware Sand and Gravel Company, a Delaware Corporation, Anita Dell Aversano, individually and as Executrix of the Estate of Joseph Dell Aversano, Vincent Dell Aversano, Marcella Dell Aversano, Stauffer Chemical Co., a Delaware Corporation, Haveg Industries, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Champlain Cable Corporation, a Delaware Corporation, Angelo Terranova, Stanley J. Twardus & Sons, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, and SCA Services, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Third-Party Defendants, ARTESIAN WATER COMPANY, v. The GOVERNMENT OF NEW CASTLE COUNTY, Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff, v. LANDFILL, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Material Transit, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Edgar Thomas Harvey, Edgar Thomas Harvey, Jr., W. Lawrence Knotts, Henry A. Twardus, William Q. Saienni, Elme D. Saienni, Salvator J. Saienni, Dominic Cantera, Marian Cantera, Delaware Sand and Gravel Company, a Delaware Corporation, Anita Dell Aversano, individually and as Executrix of the Estate of Joseph Dell Aversano, Vincent Dell Aversano, Marcella Dell Aversano, Stauffer Chemical Co., a Delaware Corporation, Haveg Industries, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Champlain Cable Corporation, a Delaware Corporation, Angelo Terranova, Stanley J. Twardus & Sons, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, and SCA Services, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Third-Party Defendants, Appeal of NEW CASTLE COUNTY.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit

Frank M. Thomas, Jr. (argued), Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Philadelphia, Pa., Thomas D. Whittington, Jr., Whittington & Aulgur, Coffee Run Professional Centre, Hockessin, Del., for Artesian Water Co.

George J. Weiner (argued), Michael A. Brown, William Roger Truitt, Patrick O. Cavanaugh, Mary Rose Kornreich, Schmeltzer, Aptaker & Sheppard, P.C., Washington, D.C., B. Wilson Redfearn, Nancy E. Chrissinger, Tybout, Redfearn, Casarino & Pell, Wilmington, Del., for New Castle County.

Before WEIS, GREENBERG and ALDISERT, Circuit Judges.

OPINION OF THE COURT

WEIS, Circuit Judge. *

On this appeal a private water utility seeks damages for the loss of potential withdrawals from artesian wells threatened by pollution from an adjacent landfill. The district court denied recovery except for the expense of monitoring the movement of the contamination leachate. We will affirm primarily on the ground that under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) the cause of action for damage to natural resources is generally restricted to governmental entities and is not available to private organizations.

The district court entered summary judgment in favor of plaintiff on its claim for monitoring expenses, granted summary judgment to defendant New Castle County on the remaining claims, and certified the judgments under Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b), 659 F.Supp. 1269. Plaintiff appealed, and defendant cross-appealed.

Plaintiff, Artesian Water Company, is a privately-owned public utility that provides drinking water to the residents of New Castle County, Delaware. Artesian wishes to recover expenses incurred, and to be incurred, allegedly as a result of the release of hazardous substances from a neighboring landfill owned by the County of New Castle, one of the defendants. Plaintiff brings this suit for "costs of response" pursuant to CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 9607.

Artesian secures its water from wells located in the area it services. One of its primary sources is the Llangollen Wellfield in Delaware, which draws water from the productive Upper Potomac Aquifer, an underground sand formation through which water molecules pass under natural pressure into well casings. This groundwater system is not a series of underground streams or lakes, but consists of subterranean layers of sand which surface at various points and are fed by rainfall.

The water molecules move through the sand strata at a very slow rate--only a few feet per year--but the amount and direction can be altered by pumping activities. When an aquifer is pumped at a greater rate than it is recharged by precipitation, the natural water level will eventually drop below the top of the aquifer. This reduced hydraulic pressure can cause contaminants from other levels, as well as saltwater, to be drawn into the aquifer.

Artesian began developing the Llangollen Wellfield in 1946. By 1966, the company was withdrawing 1.62 million gallons per day ("MGD") and by 1969, was pumping 2.35 MGD. The state of Delaware, in the meantime, had enacted a regulatory scheme requiring prior governmental approval for any increase in groundwater withdrawal after July 1, 1966. Regulations, promulgated in 1969, established administrative procedures for approval of all increased pumping rates between 1966 and 1969. Significantly, Artesian did not make application and never obtained formal state approval for its augmented pumpage.

Despite the lack of prior governmental approval, Artesian continued to expand its operations in the Llangollen field. The company contends that by 1971 it had boosted its average daily rate to 3.85 MGD and had peaked at a withdrawal rate of 5.35 MGD.

In 1972, Delaware informed Artesian that ground water contamination had been discovered in the vicinity of the Llangollen Wellfield. In 1973, to prevent migration of the pollution, the state curtailed Artesian's withdrawals from that field, limiting the company to 2.0 MGD. In 1980, the state formally authorized Artesian to withdraw 2.0 MGD.

The most likely source of the contamination is the county's Army Creek Landfill located approximately 3,000 feet north-northeast of the Llangollen field. In the past, this site had been used as a solid waste disposal facility. Another inactive landfill, owned by the Delaware Sand and Gravel Company, sits several hundred feet to the east. It contains industrial and municipal waste. Both dumps appear on the EPA's National Priority List--a register compiled by the federal agency to rank the disposal sites posing substantial risks of danger to public health and welfare. The record before us does not establish whether the contamination originated solely at the county's landfill, Delaware Sand & Gravel's site, or at both.

By early 1974, the county had installed a containment system utilizing a network of wells adjacent to the Army Creek Landfill. Because of the nature of an aquifer supply system, contamination may be intercepted before it reaches a "down stream location." By constructing a "ground water divide" that acts as a hydraulic barrier, the county has been able to stop the contamination from reaching Artesian's fields. To create this "barrier," however, the county must pump 2.0 MGD from the aquifer sands and then discharge the water via a purification process into the Delaware River. By removing this water before it migrates to the Llangollen Wellfield, the county essentially reduces the total potential gallonage Artesian conceivably could pump from the aquifer.

The containment system is effective because a balance is maintained between the amount of contaminated water the county withdraws "up gradient" and the water Artesian pumps "down gradient" of the dividing point. If Artesian were to pump to the full capacity of its equipment, that balance would be upset and contaminants probably would seep into the Llangollen Wellfield. For that reason, as well as the additional complication of possible salt water intrusion, the state continues to enforce the 2.0 MGD restriction on Artesian.

Since 1972, the county has spent more than $3.8 million designing, implementing, and operating programs to control the leachate from the dumps. Whatever its initial source, the leachate now extends no more than 300 feet from the county landfill and does not intrude into the area in which Artesian's wells are located.

Artesian has been able to provide adequate service to its customers despite the 2.0 MGD withdrawal rate, but claims to be damaged by denial of the opportunity to pump more water. Artesian's alleged losses are (1) costs of monitoring and evaluating the contamination's impact on Llangollen; (2) expense of equipment idled by the pumping restriction; (3) differential costs of temporary replacement water supplies; (4) costs of construction for an inter-connection with neighboring Chester Water Authority to obtain permanent replacement water supplies; and (5) present value of differential costs of purchasing permanent water supplies from the Chester Water Authority until 2008, the last year of the estimated useful life of the Llangollen Wellfield.

In 1976, Artesian filed suit in the Delaware Court of Chancery against New Castle County and other defendants, seeking damages and injunctive relief. The court held that under state law sovereign immunity prevented recovery for damages from the county, but that Artesian might be entitled to injunctive relief if the county had maintained a public or private nuisance. The Vice Chancellor denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, finding that because of the limitation imposed by the state, Artesian did not have an absolute right to use water in excess of 2.0 MGD.

In view of the administrative regulations adopted in 1969 by the state's Water and Resource Commission, the Vice Chancellor concluded that usage rights exercised by Artesian in that year were "grand-fathered" so long as they amounted to a ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
131 cases
  • Arawana Mills Co. v. United Technologies Corp.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut
    • May 7, 1992
    ...and evaluation are response costs within the meaning of CERCLA even if no further response costs have been incurred), aff'd, 851 F.2d 643 (3rd Cir.1988). Plaintiff has also alleged that its "response is consistent with the NCP, and therefore all response costs are compensable as `necessary ......
  • Bolin v. Cessna Aircraft Co., Civ. A. No. 87-1338-T.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Kansas
    • March 6, 1991
    ...which has been criticized for failing to provide a satisfactory definition of response costs. See Artesian Water Co. v. Government of New Castle County, 851 F.2d 643, 648 (3d Cir.1988), aff'g, 659 F.Supp. 1269 (D.Del. 1987); Ambrogi v. Gould, Inc., 750 F.Supp. 1233, 1240 (M.D.Pa.1990); Lutz......
  • Werlein v. US
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota
    • September 4, 1990
    ...costs under CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9607. CERCLA does not allow for recovery of purely economic damages. Artesian Water Co. v. New Castle County, 851 F.2d 643, 649 (3rd Cir.1988). However, CERCLA does allow for recovery of the costs of obtaining alternative water supplies. 42 U.S.C. §§ 9607(a)(......
  • Ambrogi v. Gould, Inc., Civ. No. 88-1205
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania
    • January 9, 1991
    ...cost-effective and environmentally sound." Artesian Water Co. v. Gov't of New Castle Cty., 659 F.Supp. 1269, 1291, n. 42, affirmed, 851 F.2d 643 (3d Cir.1988).5 In passing this legislation, however, Congress did not intend to make injured parties whole or to create a general vehicle for tox......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
14 books & journal articles
  • CHAPTER 3 CERCLA LITIGATION: HOT TOPICS IN COST RECOVERY AND CONTRIBUTION ACTIONS
    • United States
    • FNREL - Special Institute Natural Resources & Environmental Litigation II (FNREL)
    • Invalid date
    ...[2] United States v. Alcan Aluminum Corp., 964 F.2d 252, 258 n.5 (3d Cir. 1992). [3] Artesian Water Co. v. Gov't of New Castle County, 851 F.2d 643, 648 (3d Cir. 1988). [4] See, e.g., United States v. Monsanto Co., 858 F.2d 160 (4th Cir. 1988) (recognizing the "overwhelming body of preceden......
  • Expertise and Discretion: New Jersey's Approach to Natural Resource Damages
    • United States
    • Environmental Law Reporter No. 50-1, January 2020
    • January 1, 2020
    ...§11.62 (2018). 127. Id . 128. Acushnet River & New Bedford Harbor , 716 F. Supp. at 681 (quoting Arte-sian Water Co. v. New Castle Cty., 851 F.2d 643, 648, 18 ELR 21012 (3d Cir. 1988)). 129. Id . 130. N.J. Dep’t of Envtl. Prot. v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 393 N.J. Super. 388, 395, 37 ELR 20129 (N......
  • Contaminated Sites Cost Recovery under CERCLA
    • United States
    • ABA General Library Environmental litigation: law and strategy
    • June 23, 2009
    ...9 54. Louisiana-Pacific Corp. v. Asarco Inc., 6 F.3d 1332, 1342 (9th Cir. 1993). 55. Artesian Water Co. v. Gov’t of New Castle County, 851 F.2d 643 (3d Cir. 1988). 56. Amoco Oil Co. v. Borden Inc., 889 F.2d 664, 672 (5th Cir. 1989). 57. Cadillac Fairview v. Dow Chem. Co., 840 F.2d 691, 695 ......
  • The aftermath of Key Tronic: implications for attorneys' fee awards.
    • United States
    • Environmental Law Vol. 24 No. 4, October 1994
    • October 1, 1994
    ...680 F. Supp. 1176, 1179 (M.D. Tenn. 1988); Artesian Water Co. v. Newcastle County, 659 F. Supp. 1269, 1286-87 (D. Del. 1987), aff'd., 851 F.2d 643 (3d Cir. (41.)Tanglewood East Homeowners v. Charles-Thomas, Inc., 849 F.2d 1568, 1568 (5th Cir. 1988); see also, United States v. Hardage, 750 F......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT