iLaw Dictionary			USAConstitution Law
						California			Law Students-USL
						Law Dictionary			BankruptcyCode.US
						California Superfund			United States Law.US

A Legal and Business Portal-Home Page

iLaw Dictionary
California
Law Dictionary
 California Superfund
(City of Lodi v. Randtron)

California’s Superfund Statute-HSAA
(City of Lodi v. Randtron)

 On appeal, Randtron contends the administrative abatement order is void and unenforceable because it was issued pursuant to MERLO, which is preempted by the state Carpenter-Presley-Tanner Hazardous Substance Account Act (HSAA)(Health & Saf. Code, §§ 25300-25395.40.)[3], and accordingly the City is also not entitled to the award of costs and attorney fees as the prevailing party.[4]  We agree.

C.  HSAA

     We begin with an overview of HSAA, California’s  “superfund” statute and the state’s counterpart to CERCLA.    (42 U.S.C. §§ 9601-9675; Foster-Gardener, Inc. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. (1998) 18 Cal.4th 857, 865, fn. 4.) 

     HSAA creates a number of subaccounts in the General Fund that are administered by the director of DTSC.  (§§ 25301, 25313, 25330, 25330.4-25330.6, 25334, 35336-36337.)  The stated purposes of HSAA are threefold: (1) to provide for response authority for releases of hazardous substances that pose a threat to the public health or environment, (2) to provide compensation for out-of-pocket medical expenses and lost wages or business income resulting from injuries caused by exposure to hazardous substances, and (3) to make available adequate funding to meet federal requirements that California pay 10 percent of the cleanup costs.  (§ 25301.)  Only costs incurred for response actions taken under and consistent with CERCLA or HSAA qualify for reimbursement under HSAA. (§ 25350.) 

     To implement these purposes, HSAA provides a comprehensive and detailed scheme to ensure the timely and cost-effective cleanup of hazardous substance release sites.  It establishes  authority, procedures, and standards to carry out the investigation, removal and remediation of contaminated sites  (§§ 25355, 25356.1.5, 26355.7, 25355.8, 25358.3, subds. (a) and (c), 25363), issue and enforce a removal or remedial action order to any RP (§ 25358.3, subds. (a) and (f)), impose administrative or civil penalties for noncompliance of an order (§§ 25359, 25359.2), recover costs and expenses incurred by the DTSC in carrying out HSAA (§ 25360, subd. (a)), determine by binding arbitration the apportionment of liability of a RP    (§§ 25363, 25356.3, 25356.4), seek contribution from other RPs (§ 25359.5) and apply for compensation of loss caused by the release of a hazardous substance. (§§ 25372 to 25381.)  Additionally, a RP may seek judicial review of a final remedial action plan pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1085  (§§ 25356.1, subd. (g)(1), 25356.8, subd. (b)) and of the arbitration decision apportioning liability. (§ 25356.8, subd. (a).)

     The City argues however, that a local municipality retains authority to regulate hazardous waste remediation.  We agree that local municipalities have such authority in some circumstances.  Under article XI, section 7 of the California Constitution, a municipality’s police power to protect the health, safety and comfort of its inhabitants is plenary.  As long as that power is exercised within the municipality’s territorial limits and does not conflict with state law, it is coextensive with that of the Legislature.  (Candid Enterprises, supra, 39 Cal.3d at p. 885; Birkenfeld v. City of Berkeley (1976) 17 Cal.3d 129, 140; Boyd v. City of Sierra Madre (1919) 41 Cal.App. 520, 523.) 

     Consistent with that constitutional grant of power, the Legislature has enacted statutes authorizing a municipality to adopt ordinances declaring what constitutes a public nuisance, providing for the summary abatement of a public nuisance (Gov. Code, §§ 38771 and 38773; Wat. Code, § 13002, subds. (b)) and for relief from contamination and pollution, and regulating the disposal of waste that might degrade water quality.  (Wat. Code, § 13002, subds. (a) and (e).)  HSAA also contemplates that  local municipalities may define an authorized release into the environment (§ 25326) and impose remedial responsibility on a RP for the cleanup of a hazardous materials release site. 

(§ 25260, subd. (h).)[19]  We have therefore recognized that generally speaking, “there is no tenable claim that the subject of groundwater is outside the purview of municipal legislation.” (Baldwin v. County of Tehama (1994) 31 Cal.App.4th 166, 173.) 

City of Lodi v. Randtron C0374455-May 05 2004

May 05 2004

C037445 [PDF] [DOC]

City of Lodi v. Randtron C0374455 /5/04 CA3

Thomas - Legislative Information on the Internet |Check Your Credit Score
Directory of Medical Dictionaries: Table of Contents | California Injury (Torts) Law
USA Entertainment.US | FederalCriminalProcedure.Com |United Statea News
FederalCriminalProcedure.Com | iLaw Dictionary.Com | Library of Congress
United States Law Consumer Law TITLE PAGE | USA Entertainment.US
iBusiness Center.US | United States Law: Constitutional Law: Constitutions of  The World: TITLE PAGE
California Contracts Law.Com | California Injury (Torts) Law
Phone Directories From Around the World New | California Law Revision Commission 
California Civil Procedure.Com | Federal Civil Procedure.Com