State of Ohio v. U.S. Dept. of Interior
| Citation | 880 F.2d 432 |
| Decision Date | 14 July 1989 |
| Docket Number | 88-1291,86-1575,86-1587,86-1580,86-1590,86-1597,88-1366,86-1594,Nos. 86-1529,86-1585,86-1591,s. 86-1529 |
| Parties | , 279 U.S.App.D.C. 109, 58 USLW 2071, 19 Envtl. L. Rep. 21,099 STATE OF OHIO, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, Manuel Lujan, Jr., Secretary of Department of the Interior, Respondents, Public Service Electric and Gas Co., et al., ASARCO Inc., Intervenors. NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION, et al., Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR and United States of America, Respondents, Edison Electric Institute, American Mining Congress, Public Service Electric and Gas Co., et al., Chemical Manufacturers Association, American Petroleum Institute, ASARCO Inc., Intervenors. STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, Manuel Lujan, Jr., Secretary of Department of the Interior and United States of America, Respondents, Edison Electric Institute, American Petroleum Institute, American Mining Congress, ASARCO, Inc., Public Service Electric and Gas Co., Chemical Manufacturers Association, Intervenors. STATE OF COLORADO, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, Manuel Lujan, Jr., Secretary of Department of the Interior and United States of America, Respondents, Edison Electric Institute, American Mining Congress, Public Service Electric and Gas Co., et al., American Petroleum Institute, ASARCO Inc., Chemical Manufacturers Association, Intervenors. STATE OF NEW YORK, et al., Petitioners, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, Manuel Lujan, Jr., Secretary of Department of the Interior and United States of America, Respondents, American Mining Congress, Public Service Electric and Gas Co., et al., American Petroleum Institute, Edison Electric Institute, ASARCO, Inc., Chemical Manufacturers Association, Intervenors. COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, Manuel Lujan, Jr., Secretary of Department of the Interior and United States of America, Respondents, American Mining Congress, Public Service Electric and Gas Co., et al. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia) |
Erik D. Olson and Gordon Johnson, with whom Eric Glitzenstein, Washington, D.C., Michael Bean, Robert Abrams, Charles R. Dyas, E. Dennis Muchnicki, Columbus, Ohio, Michael R. Hope, James D. Ellman, James M. Shannon, Boston, Mass., Lee P. Breckenridge, Mary E. Hackenbracht, San Francisco, Cal., James E. Tierney, Marcia J. Cleveland, Mary C. Jacobsen, Kenneth N. Tedford, Hartford, Conn., and Gary Powers were on the brief, for State and Environmental petitioners in nos. 86-1529, et al.
Francine A. Schott, Livingston, N.J., also entered an appearance, for petitioners in no. 86-1580.
Howard A. Kenison and Michael C. Donovan also entered appearances, for petitioners in no. 86-1585.
Susan M. Bernard, Washington, D.C., also entered an appearance, for petitioners in no. 86-1590.
Allene C. Zanger also entered an appearance, for petitioners in no. 86-1591.
John A. Zackrison, with whom Amy R. Sabrin, Jeffrey N. Martin and David F. Zoll, Washington, D.C., were on the joint brief for industry petitioners in 86-1529, et al., and also entered appearances, for intervenor Chemical Mfrs. Ass'n, in nos. 86-1575, 86-1580, 86-1585, 86-1587, 86-1590, 86-1591.
Edward W. Warren and Edmund B. Frost, Washington, D.C., also entered appearances, for petitioners in no. 86-1594.
Lawrence E. Blatnik, Atty., Dept. of Justice, with whom Roger J. Marzulla, Asst. Atty. Gen., Washington, D.C., and Margaret Kane Harrington were on the brief, for respondents in nos. 86-1529, et al.
Christopher Harris and Michael J. Brennan, Washington, D.C., with whom M. Elizabeth Cox, Edward M. Green, G. William Frick, Washington, D.C., Catherine Eshelman, John D. Fognani, Denver, Colo., John A. Zackrison, Jeffrey N. Martin, David F. Zoll, Toni K. Allen and Charles E. Di Leva, Washington, D.C., were on the joint brief, for intervenors.
Eric Glitzenstein, with whom Erik D. Olson, Washington, D.C., and Michael Bean were on the brief, for intervenors Nat. Wildlife Federation, Public Citizen, and Environmental Defense Fund in nos. 86-1529, et al.
Frank H. Morison and John D. Fognani, Denver, Colo., also entered appearances, for intervenor ASARCO, Inc. in nos. 86- 1529, 86-1575, 86-1580, 86-1585, 86-1587, 86-1590, 86-1591, 86-1594 and 86-1597.
Edward H. Comer and William L. Fang, Washington, D.C., also entered appearances, for intervenor Edison Elec. Institute in nos. 86-1575, 86-1580, 86-1585, 86-1587, 86-1590 and 86-1591.
Douglas E. McAllister, Phoenix, Ariz., Roderic T. Dwyer, and M. Elizabeth Cox also entered appearances, for intervenor American Mining Congress in nos. 86-1575, 86-1580, 86-1585, 86-1587, 86-1590 and 86-1591.
Arnold S. Block, Philadelphia, Pa., also entered an appearance, for intervenor American Petroleum Institute in nos. 86-1575, 86-1580, 86-1585, 86-1587, 86-1590, 86-1591.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. BACKGROUND ......................................................... 438
A. Statutory Background ......................................... 438
B. The Natural Resource Damage Assessment Regulations ........... 440
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW 441
III. THE "LESSEROF" RULE 441
A. The Contours of "the Precise Question at Issue" .............. 442
B. Text and Structure of CERCLA ................................. 444
1. Section 107(f)(1) and the Measure of Damages 444
a. Limitation on Uses of Recovered
Damages ...................... 444
b. The "Shall Not Be Limited By"
Language ..................... 445
2. Interior's Reading of CERCLA Secs. 301 and 107 ............ 446
a. The "Take Into Consideration"
Language ..................... 446
b. The Assessment Costs Language .. 446
c. The "Shall Not Be Limited By"
Language ..................... 447
3. Superfund Provisions ................................... 448
4. Settlement Provision ................................... 449
5. Double Recovery Provision .............................. 450
6. CERCLA and the Clean Water Act ......................... 450
C. Legislative History of CERCLA ................................ 450
1. The Enactment of CERCLA in 1980 ........................ 450
2. The Enactment of SARA in 1986 .......................... 452
3. Congress' Rejection of the Premises Underlying the
"LesserOf" Rule ..................................... 455
a. CERCLA and the CommonLaw
Measure of Damages ........... 455
b. CERCLA and Economic Efficiency . 456
4. AcquiescencebyReenactment Argument ................... 457
D. Conclusion 459
IV. THE PUBLIC OWNERSHIP RULE .......................................... 459
A. The Statute .................................................. 459
1. Statutory Language ..................................... 459
2. Legislative History .................................... 460
B. The Regulations and Accompanying Commentary .................. 460
V. THE "COMMITTED USE" REQUIREMENT .................................... 461
VI. THE HIERARCHY OF ASSESSMENT METHODS ................................ 462
VII. THE TEN PERCENT DISCOUNT RATE ...................................... 464
VIII. THE ALLEGEDLY PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT OF PRPS ....................... 465
A. Delegation of the Assessment Process to PRPs ................. 466
1. Delegability of Assessment
...To continue reading
Request your trial
-
National Ass'n of Mfrs. v. U.S. Dept. of Interior
...in part and vacated it in part, relying on our companion decision reviewing a challenge to DOI's Type B rule. See Ohio v. DOI, 880 F.2d 432 (D.C.Cir.1989) [hereinafter Ohio II]. After Colorado--in which we stated that "[w]e fully expect DOI to act as expeditiously as possible," 880 F.2d at ......
-
AIU Ins. Co. v. Superior Court
...measure of statutory "damages," even if greater than the diminution in value of harmed property. (See State of Ohio v. U.S. Dept. of the Interior (D.C.Cir.1989) 880 F.2d 432, 459.) Seen in this light, whether recovery of remedial costs is sought under the "response cost" subdivision or that......
-
Fund for Animals v. Babbitt
...accommodation of conflicting policies that were committed to the agency's care by the statute." State of Ohio v. United States Dep't of the Interior, 880 F.2d 432, 441 (D.C.Cir.1989) (quoting Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. at 844-45, 104 S.Ct. at ......
-
A.Y. McDonald Industries, Inc. v. Insurance Co. of North America
...damages to natural resources is simply measured in the cost to restore them to their original state. Ohio v. United States Dep't of the Interior, 880 F.2d 432, 441-45, 459 (D.C.Cir.) (holding that cost of restoration is the proper measure of "damages" under CERCLA, even if greater than the ......
-
CHAPTER 9 ENVIRONMENTAL LIABILITIES IN MERGERS AND ACQUISITIONS OF NATURAL RESOURCE COMPANIES
...§ 9607(a)(4)(B) (West Supp. 1994). [4] Id. at §§ 9601(16) (West Supp. 1994), 9607(a)(4)(C) (West Supp. 1994); Ohio v. U.S. Dept. Interior, 880 F.2d 432, 459-61 (D.C. Cir. 1989), reh'g denied, en banc., 897 F.2d 1151 (D.C. Cir. 1989). CERCLA also provides for civil and criminal penalties for......
-
The D.C. Circuit Takes a Wrong Turn: Redefining Solid Waste Under RCRA
...for the agency’s action if the agency has failed to provide one. 202 193. Id . 194. Id . See also Ohio v. U.S. Dep’t of the Interior, 880 F.2d 432, 441, 19 ELR 21099 (D.C. Cir. 1989). 195. Chevron , 467 U.S. at 844. 196. Ohio , 880 F.2d at 441. See also Chevron , 467 U.S. at 844. 197. 533 U......
-
Natural Resources Damages
...of nonpersuasion, which remains throughout the trial upon the party on whom it was originally cast”). 16. Ohio v. U.S. Dep’t of Revenue, 880 F.2d 432, 470 (D.C. Cir. 1989). 17. United States v. Montrose Chem. Corp., No. CV 90-3122, 1991 WL 183147, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 29, 1991); see also C......
-
A Practical Guide to Litigating Natural Resource Damages Claims
...educational, cultural, archeological, scientific or aesthetic value of the sanctuary.”). 6. Ohio v. U.S. Dep’t of the Interior, 880 F.2d 432, 460 (D.C. Cir. 1989). 7. Id. at 461. 8. See In re Acushnet River & New Bedford Harbor: Proceedings re Alleged PCB Pollution ( Acushnet IV ), 712 F. S......