Monday, May 24, 2021
On Monday, the Supreme Court decided
Territory of Guam v. United States, No. 20-382 (U.S. May 24, 2021), attempting to clarify which settlements with the United States or a state trigger a right to settling-party contribution under section 113(f)(3)(B) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (“CERCLA”), 42 U.S.C. § 9613(f)(3)(B). The practice take-away is that settlement documents that do not expressly recite that the government’s CERCLA claims are resolved may not trigger contribution rights. In Guam’s case, that was a good thing.
Guam ended up owning a landfill that had been used by the Navy for years. The landfill leaked, and Guam entered into a Clean Water Act consent decree under which the Territory agreed to implement what would, were the enforcement program CERCLA, have been a response to the releases from the landfill. Well beyond three years from that consent decree, Guam sought to reallocate some of the costs of the cleanup to the Navy by suing under section 107 of CERCLA for cost recovery and under section 113 for contribution. 42 U.S.C. § 9607, 9613.