The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (“CERCLA” or “Superfund”) has
a laudable purpose. But jurists and commentators have often noted
the Act's lack of clarity. In its recent decision, Atlantic Richfield Co. v.
Christian, the U.S. Supreme Court created more
uncertainty in CERCLA's “devilishly difficult statutory
provisions.”
The case addresses the interplay of CERCLA and state law claims.
Practitioners have generally accepted the construct of CERCLA being
used to address remediation issues at a site while state law can be
used to address property loss claims (such as diminution in
property value caused by contamination). In Atlantic
Richfield, the property owners raised the age-old
environmental issue of “how clean is clean.” They
sought restoration of their properties under state law
– in addition to the remediation already ordered by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) under the
federal CERCLA program.
