Class, this week we are also discussing environmental law.  Here’s a good case that illustrates some of the

issues relating to environmental law.

In 1979, Paul and John Reardon purchased 16 acres of land located next to a manufacturing plant in Massachusetts. In 1983, a state environmental agency, responding to a citizen’s report, tested soil samples from both properties and discovered extremely high levels of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) on the plant site, and on the Reardons’ property where it bordered the site. Shortly thereafter, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) cleaned up the contaminated areas. In 1985, the EPA notified the Reardons that they might be liable for clean-up costs. An EPA investigation of the property in 1987 revealed that some soil was still contaminated. This time, the Reardons cleaned up the property themselves. In March 1989, the EPA placed a lien for an unspecified amount on all of the Reardons’ property to secure payment for any clean-up costs for which the Reardons might be liable. The EPA told the Reardons that they could settle the claims against them for $336,709, but noted that this amount did not limit the Reardons potential liability. The Reardons filed a motion for an injunction, arguing that filing a lien against their property without any prior notice or hearing violated their due process rights under the Fifth Amendment, which states that no person can be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Superfund (the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, or CERCLA, of 1980, as amended in 1986) gives the government several powerful tools to use when attempting to collect clean-up costs from responsible parties. Among those tools is the authority to place a lien on a responsible party’s property without providing for a reasonable hearing before placing the lien.

Class, this case is important because it demonstrates the problem of trying to protect our environment using the power of a lien and the conflict with the 5th Amendment.  in mind that by placing a lien on the property without giving the Reardons a hearing or chance to be heard, prevents the Reardons from selling their property until the lien is paid or disposed of. 

Questions: 

Does that fall under the category of depriving a person of his rights or property without due process?

What options are available to the Reardons against the manufacturer, what do you think class? What other options do the Reardons have with respect to their 5th amendment rights?

Looking for a Similar Assignment? Order now and Get 10% Discount! Use Coupon Code "Newclient"