2009_0720_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

that the MPCA did not autl�orize ihe response actian{s) taken by the political subdiv�sion or the private person pursiiant �o Minn. Stat. § 115B.04, subd. 6. MERA Minnesota also has a Minnesota Environmental Rights Act {"MERA"), Mit�ri. St�t. §§ 1168:01, et seq. This statute ailaws "civil action in the district court far declaratory or equitable relief in the name of the state of Minnesota against any person, for th.e protection of the air, water, land, or other natural resources locatec! �ithin �tf�e state, whether publicly or privatiely owned, froin pallution, impairment, or desiruction." Iv�inn. Stat. � 116B.03. A claim under MEI�A depends upon a showing of actual or ihreatened pollution, in:ipairment or destruction. The statute allows injunctrve relief, but not damages, and does not provide for recovery of attorneys' fees. Common Law Clairrrs Various common Iaw clairris can be iravoked in some circumstanc�s: Typical claims include ciaims for nuisance, trespass, negligenc�, strict liability �or ultrahazardous activities; contribution ar indemnity. These common law claims do not materia�ly augment the available claims or remedies and are largely superseded by the statutory ciairr�s mentioned above. However, if there is litigation, parties custorr�arily i�voke such claims in ad�di�ion to the statutory claims nlentioned above. Statutes of Limit�tion We have not looked closeiy enough at the facts to evaluate the application of potential statutes of limitati�n. However, we do not believe that rrrost available claims would �e cut-off. In general, if there is an ongoing imminent and substantial endangerment, RCRA claims will be available, because �he sta�tute of limitations will not cut off ongoing clai�ns. CERCLA claims are likewise generally available where the response actions remain incomplete. Claims for a removal action are to be brought within 3 y�ars after completion of the removal action and claims for �. remedial action must be brought �iihin 6 years after ini�iation af physical on-site construction of the rernedial action. It does not appear, from information we �ave received, that the City has conducCed a remaval action or initiated a remedial action. 50, the statute af �imitation5 i� unlikely to have expired. MERLA clai�ns for cost reco�ery are probably available. A 1998 amendmer�t to Minn. Stat. § 1158.1 l, specifies: Subd. 2. Action for recovery of costs. (a} An action for recovery of response costs under section 115B.04 *** may be commenced any time after costs and expenses have been incurred but must be commenced no later than six years after initiation of physical on-site construction of a response action." 5