State of Colo. v. Idarado Min. Co., 83-C-2385.
Citation | 735 F. Supp. 368 |
Decision Date | 09 April 1990 |
Docket Number | No. 83-C-2385.,83-C-2385. |
Parties | STATE OF COLORADO, Plaintiff, v. IDARADO MINING COMPANY, et al., Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Colorado |
Jacqueline Berardini, Deputy Atty. Gen., Denver, Colo., for plaintiff.
Thomas Whittington, Britt Anderson, Denver, Colo., Joseph McClellan, Lynchburg, Va., Frank Woodrow, Montrose, Colo., Robert Hill, James Spaanstra, Denver, Colo., Boyd Park, Provo, Utah, Laird Campbell, Denver, Colo., William Waldeck, Justin Kirk, Grand Junction, Colo., Tom Napp, Denver, Colo., Richard Tisdel, Ouray, Colo., Thomas Nichols, Christopher Lane, Denver, Colo., Stephen Johnson, Telluride, Colo., for defendants.
On March 7, 1989, the plaintiff State of Colorado ("the State") filed a motion to amend the court's Memorandum Opinion and Order filed February 22, 1989, State of Colorado v. Idarado Min. Co., 707 F.Supp. 1227 (D.Colo.1989), to award the State approximately $1.9 million in response costs incurred prior to March 31, 1987. Defendants filed a response opposing the motion.
On October 2, 1989, the court ordered the parties to supplement their briefs on the past response costs issue. The parties have filed their supplemental briefs.
Defendants have notified this court that they have appealed the injunctive provisions of the court's February 22, 1989 memorandum opinion and order. The Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit has established an expedited briefing and oral argument schedule in that appeal. In fact, the Court of Appeals heard oral argument March 6, 1990.
It is unclear whether this court has jurisdiction to decide the pending motion since the defendants have instituted an expedited appeal addressed to the injunctive relief. Defendants, however, have joined in the request for a ruling on the State's motion for past response costs. This order constitutes my ruling on that motion, subject of course, to the Court of Appeals' ultimate decision regarding jurisdiction.
In its motion, the State correctly points out that this court did not rule on whether the State could recover response costs incurred prior to March 31, 1987. The State seeks recovery of $1,847,910.80 in past response costs, plus $128,648.33 in interest, or a total lump sum judgment of $1,976.559.10. As the State emphasizes, the court has determined that the State's response efforts are "not inconsistent with the NCP," and are "cost-effective," as reflecting "the appropriate extent of remedy that effectively protects and minimizes threats to public health, welfare and the environment." State of Colo. v. Idarado Min. Co., 707 F.Supp. at 1261.
In their response opposing the State's motion, the defendants contend that the State is not entitled to recover (i) costs incurred in investigating and developing remedies rejected by the court; (ii) costs incurred in investigating and developing remedial options that should have been rejected early in the remedial investigation/feasibility study phase; or (iii) costs incurred in stocking fish in the San Miguel and Uncompahgre Rivers. In addition, the defendants assert that the State is not entitled to recover prejudgment interest.
The State instituted this suit for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief asserting claims for cleanup of hazardous wastes at and near the defendants' mine and milling facilities located between Ouray and Telluride, Colorado. The State's suit is premised in part on the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 9601 et seq. as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 "SARA", Pub.L. No. 99-499, 100 Stat. 1615 (1986) (collectively "CERCLA"). My February 22, 1989 memorandum opinion and order concerns the State's CERCLA claims only and I there determined that the defendants are liable for the release, or threatened release of hazardous substances from a facility that has caused the State to incur response costs. State of Colo. v. Idarado Min. Co., 707 F.Supp. at 1230. Regarding the issue of allowable response costs, I further stated:
Id. at 1231.
I further concluded that the State's remedial action plan, except as modified by the court's memorandum opinion and order, complied with relevant CERCLA requirements, and that the defendants were liable for all costs incurred, and to be incurred, by the State, in responding to the release or threatened release of hazardous substances at the Idarado facility since March 31, 1987. Id. at 1261.
Defendants first argue that they are not responsible for costs incurred by the State involving remediation plans not adopted by the court. Specifically, the defendants cite the court's approved plans concerning remediation of the Town of Telluride's soils, consolidation of the Telluride tailings piles, and releases on the Red Mountain side. As indicated in the memorandum opinion and order, I concluded that certain remedial action was appropriate regarding all of these areas although I did not approve every detail or facet of the State's proposed remediation plans. I thus agreed with the State that cleanup remedies were justified although I disagreed to some extent with the scope of the State's proposed plans. The State's costs were incurred in response to removal or remedial action under CERCLA, and therefore I conclude that the defendants are liable for those costs.
Along these same lines, the defendants argue that the State's costs incurred since 1979 in its fish stocking program are not recoverable because they pre-date this lawsuit. I held in United States v. Shell Oil Co., 605 F.Supp. 1064, 1073, 1079 (D.Colo.1985) that costs incurred prior to CERCLA are recoverable if they meet the definition of response costs.
In my memorandum opinion and order, I concluded that fish stocking in the San Miguel River is necessary to mitigate damage to the environment caused by the defendants' mining activities. State of Colo. v. Idarado Min. Co., 707 F.Supp. at 1260. I also discussed fish stocking on the Red Mountain side in Red Mountain Creek and the Uncompahgre River. Id. at 1249. The evidence at trial indicated that the fish stocking program was conducted to provide a limited fishery for the area and to mitigate the effects of hazardous substances on the environment. I thus conclude that the State's fish...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
City of Wichita, Ks v. Trustees of Apco Oil Corp.
...(D.Wyo.1998); Horsehead Indus. v. St. Joe Minerals Corp., 1996 WL 33415778, at *1 (N.D.Okla. Apr.2, 1996); State of Colo. v. Idarado Min. Co., 735 F.Supp. 368, 371 (D.Colo.1990) (holding that complaint satisfied written demand requirement against three defendants who were all related as par......
-
State of Colo. v. Idarado Min. Co.
...the district court entered judgment in favor of the State for past response costs plus prejudgment interest. State of Colorado v. Idarado Mining Co., 735 F.Supp. 368 (D.Colo.1990). That interlocutory order is not the subject of this appeal. See Appellants' Motion for Consolidation at 3 (fil......
-
Pakootas v. Teck Cominco Metals, Ltd.
...(analyzing term "disposal"). See also State of Colorado v. Idarado Mining Co., 707 F. Supp. 1227, 1241 (D. Colo. 1989), amended by 735 F. Supp. 368 (1990), rev'd on other grounds, 916 F.2d 1486 (defendant "arranged" for disposal of mine tailings by discarding them into river, which brought ......
-
EPEC Polymers, Inc. v. NL Indus., Inc.
...F. Supp. 1271, 1276-77 (S.D.N.Y. 1993); State of Colo, v. Idarado Min. Co., 707 F. Supp. 1227, 1241 (D. Colo. 1989), amended, 735 F. Supp. 368 (D. Colo. 1990), rev'd on other grounds, 916 F.2d 1486 (10th Cir. 1990). Defendant contends these cases are factually distinguishable because of the......
-
CHAPTER 9 ENVIRONMENTAL LIABILITIES IN MERGERS AND ACQUISITIONS OF NATURAL RESOURCE COMPANIES
...another subsidiary's mine); Colorado v. Idarado Mining Co., 707 F. Supp. 1227, 1241 (D. Colo. 1989), amended and motion denied in part, 735 F. Supp. 368 (D. Colo. 1990), rev'd and remanded, 916 F.2d 1486 (10th Cir. 1990); GRM Industries v. Wickes Manufacturing Co., 19 Chem. Waste Lit. Rept.......
-
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act: the correct paradigm of strict liability and the problem of individual causation.
...Corp., 737 F. Supp. 1272, 1285 (W.D.N.Y. 1990); Colorado v. Idarado Mining Co., 707 F. Supp. 1227, 1230 (D. Colo. 1989), amended, 735 F. Supp. 368 (D. Colo. 1990); rev'd on other grounds, 916 F.2d 1486 (10th Cir. 1990); Artesian Water Co. v. New Castle County, 605 F. Supp. 1348, 1352 (D. De......
-
CHAPTER 15 GROUNDWATER ISSUES AFFECTING THE MINING AND MILLING INDUSTRIES
...in favor of the State of Colorado for past response costs plus prejudgment interest. See State of Colorado v. Idarado Mining Company, 735 F. Supp. 368 (D. Colo. 1990). [21] State of Colorado v. Idarado Mining Company, 916 F.2d 1486 (10th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___ (1991). [22] 9......
-
Valuing the environment: courts' struggles with natural resource damages.
...Idarado cases). (182) No. 83-C-2387 (D. Colo. consent decree entered June 24, 1988). (183) 707 F. Supp. 1227 (D. Colo. 1989), amended by 735 F. Supp. 368 (D. Colo. 1990), rev'd, 916 F.2d 1486 (10th Cir. 1990). (184) Kopp & Smith, supra note 179, at 369-81. (185) Id. at 381 (citing Charl......