Redevelopment of contaminated properties is challenging even in the best of economic times. Renewable energy projects offer a meaningful alternative for property owners, communities, and regulators seeking to return impacted properties to productive use.
The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed a jury verdict holding a real estate agent liable under a theory of silent fraud and negligent misrepresentation for failure to disclose environmental contamination to a prospective buyer, thus establishing an expanded duty of care for real estate agents in transactions involving property where there are known past environmental issues. This article was published in the American College of Environmental Law blog on February 15, 2012.
A Midwestern city was trying to expeditiously redevelop an approximately 3,000 acre site by implementing a new urbanism concept focused on mixed residential, commercial, civic and educational site use. In the 1940’s, the U.S. Army had operated a large ammunition facilities on this site. As a result of historic onsite disposal activities, portions of the site showed some low-level contamination, and a fifty acre site parcel owned by the City was perceived by the public to be more heavily contaminated.
A comprehensive drainage study found the City of Wichita needed additional storm water detention capacity on a particular 80-acre parcel of land immediately upstream of several residential communities in order to prevent flooding. The upstream property was privately owned, and the owner, Spencer Fane’s client, preferred to sell the property to a private developer. Obtaining the property by eminent domain would have been lengthy and costly for the City.
EPA has awarded the Missouri Department of Agriculture (MDA) and Missouri State Emergency Management Agency (SEMA) a total of $75,000 to assist with outreach, education and implementation of the Clean Air Act’s Risk Management Program. All fertilizer facilities that handle, process or store more than 10,000 pounds of anhydrous ammonia are subject to EPA’s chemical safety requirements.
On May 4, 2009 the United States Supreme Court issued its third Superfund decision in five years: Burlington Northern v. United States, — S.Ct. — (2009). The Court continues the “plain language” focus it began in 2005 with Cooper Industries, Inc. v. Aviall Services, Inc., 125 S.Ct. 577 (2005), and rejects the Ninth Circuit’s attempt to expand CERCLA “arranger” liability to reach Shell Oil Company, a supplier/seller of an unused, useful pesticide product which ultimately contaminated a distribution site via known spills and leaks on the part of the distributor. This opinion also provides the Court’s first pronouncement on when and how the harm at a Superfund site is divisible and not to be imposed on a joint and several, 100 percent basis. The Court reinstates a district court’s determination that two railroads, who owned only part of the distribution site for a portion of the site’s operational life, would be liable for 9 percent of the site’s cleanup costs instead of the joint and several liability (100 percent of the costs) imposed by the Ninth Circuit.
It was the proverbial shot heard around the world in the escalating war of words regarding coal-fired power plants and climate change: On October 18, 2007, the Secretary of the Kansas Department of Health and Environment denied an air permit to two proposed coal-fired generating units, citing only potential carbon dioxide emissions and concerns about climate change as the reasons. It was the first time a government agency in the United States had relied on carbon dioxide emissions to deny such a permit. This article examines that decision, the ensuing legal and legislative maneuverings, and the next steps.
Congress had a good idea when it belatedly, and surprisingly, reformed parts of Superfund effective January 11, 2002. The main obstacle to Brownfields redevelopment has been the uncertain Superfund liability that potentially hangs over the head of any site owner – including a new buyer. So Congress exempted new buyers –”bona fide prospective purchasers,” or BFPPs – of contaminated sites from Superfund liability.