ELR Citation: ELR 20210
No(s). 05-1510 (E.D. Cal. Sep 4, 2009)

A district court held that a city sewer is not excluded from CERCLA's expansive definition of "facility." A property owner filed suit against the city for contamination stemming, in part, from a leaky sewer line. The city then filed a motion for partial summary judgment, arguing that it should not be liable since the sewer is not a facility. But having considered the merits of the city's proposed interpretation exempting sewers from CERCLA's definition of facility, including whether the exemption could be limited to public sewers, whether it would be consistent with other statutory provisions and CERCLA's policy goals, and whether it is supported by caselaw, the court concluded that the sewer in this case is a facility for purposes of CERCLA. In addition, the city failed to satisfy the innocent-party defense. Genuine issues of material fact remain as whether a third party was the sole cause of the contamination and whether the city exercised due care and took appropriate precautions. The court rejected therefore rejected the city's motion for partial summary judgment.

[A prior decision in this litigation can be found at 39 ELR 20028]