ELR Citation: 45 ELR 20063
No(s). 12-cv-602 (W.D. Wis. Mar 18, 2015) (Crabb, J.)

A district court held that a power company may seek contribution for some of the cleanup costs it incurred at a site adjacent to Lake Superior in Ashland, Wisconsin. The company's CERCLA §113 contribution claims stemming from a 2003 consent decree, and all its §107 cost recovery claims, are time-barred. But the company may seek contribution for claims stemming from a 2012 decree. A defendant county claimed that because the land consists of fill from the bed of Lake Superior, the state retains ownership of the lake bed. According to the county, therefore, the contribution claims against it should be dismissed because it was never the true owner of the site. But an "owner" under CERCLA is not limited to the entity with legal title over the property. Here, even if the county never gained legal title over the property, the company has adduced sufficient evidence of the county's de facto ownership of the land for the time period of 1939 to 1942 to survive summary judgment. In addition, the company presented evidence that the county may have been responsible for the release of pollutants at the site. The court also rejected a defendant-city's argument that it should be allocated zero costs for cleaning up the site. At this stage of the litigation, the factors do not show that the city should have no responsibility for cleanup costs. That the city may not have had valid title to the land is irrelevant considering that the allocation factors are equitable in nature and that the city exercised control of the site just as an owner would have.