United States v. Montrose Chemical Corp.

We consider here the fairness and reasonableness of a settlement in an environmental action brought under CERCLA. 1 Appellants challenge the settlement (involving other parties) because, they claim, the district court did not have sufficient information before it to properly determine whether the decree— which provided for a $45.7 million settlement with the Los Angeles County Sanitation District and approximately 150 local governmental entities — was “reasonable, fair, and consistent with the purposes that CERCLA is intended to serve.” See United States v. Cannons Engineering Corp., 899 F.2d 79, 85 (1st Cir.1990) (quoting H.R.Rep. No. 253, Pt. 3, 99th Cong., 1st Sess. 19 (1985), reprinted in 1986 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 3038, 3042).

Because we find that the district court could not adequately evaluate the fairness and reasonableness of the proposed consent decree without having before it at least an estimate of the projected total natural resource damages at issue in this ease, we vacate the district court’s approval of the consent decree and remand the matter for the court to determine whether — in light of the governments’ best estimate of projected total natural resource…