HR-7268-119
Referred to the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment.
Sponsored by Nellie Pou (D-NJ)
What it does
This bill would shield the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Secretary of the Army) from liability under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA/Superfund) when it removes or remediates contaminated sediment from waterways. The liability protection would apply only when the Corps follows a joint remediation plan developed with a non-federal partner and approved by the EPA Administrator. The bill also requires the Corps to document contaminants, identify potentially responsible parties, and preserve the federal government's right to recover cleanup costs from those parties.
Who benefits
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which would be freed from Superfund liability exposure when conducting authorized dredging and sediment cleanup projects. State and local governments (non-federal interests) that partner with the Corps on cleanup projects, as the liability shield may make the Corps more willing to undertake projects. Communities living near contaminated waterways — particularly low-income and minority communities that are disproportionately located near industrial waterways — who may see faster remediation. Commercial and recreational fishers who depend on clean waterways. Port authorities and shipping industries that benefit from dredged, navigable waterways.
Who is hurt
Potentially responsible parties (industrial polluters, manufacturers) who may face more aggressive cost-recovery actions now that the Corps is incentivized to clean up sites and then pursue reimbursement. Environmental advocacy groups and affected residents who may have less legal leverage if the Corps's EPA-approved plan is later found inadequate, since CERCLA liability is waived. Taxpayers who could bear cleanup costs if responsible parties cannot be identified or are insolvent. Competing private environmental remediation contractors who may lose business to Corps-led projects.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the current threat of CERCLA liability creates a perverse disincentive: the Army Corps avoids cleaning up contaminated sediment in authorized waterway projects because disturbing polluted sediment — even to remove it — can trigger Superfund liability. They contend that this legal uncertainty leaves communities near contaminated harbors and rivers, such as those in the New York-New Jersey harbor complex, exposed to ongoing health and environmental risks. The bill preserves cost-recovery against actual polluters while removing a procedural barrier that punishes the agency doing the cleanup, not the one that caused the contamination.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that CERCLA's strict, joint-and-several liability framework exists precisely to ensure that all parties who disturb hazardous materials — including government agencies — remain accountable for any resulting harm. They contend that waiving the Corps's liability, even with an EPA-approved plan, could reduce the rigor of cleanup operations and leave affected communities with no legal recourse if a remediation project spreads contamination further. Critics may also argue that EPA approval of a joint plan does not guarantee adequate protection, particularly given recent judicial skepticism of agency authority under Loper Bright v. Raimondo (2024).
Constitutional context
The bill operates under CERCLA, which is grounded in the Commerce Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 3). No significant constitutional tension is raised by the bill itself, as it narrows — rather than expands — federal agency authority by limiting liability rather than asserting new regulatory power. Post-Loper Bright (2024), however, courts will independently review EPA's interpretation of what constitutes an adequate joint plan, potentially subjecting EPA-approved plans to heightened judicial scrutiny.
Checks and balances
The EPA Administrator gains approval authority over joint remediation plans, acting as a check on the Army Corps; Congress retains oversight through the requirement that covered activities be specifically authorized water resources development projects; and the bill explicitly preserves the federal government's right to pursue cost recovery from responsible parties under CERCLA.
Historical precedent
The Good Samaritan provisions of CERCLA and similar liability shields for cleanup responders have been debated in Congress for decades; the Water Resources Development Act of 1990 (§312) already authorizes some contaminated sediment work, but no prior law has specifically shielded the Army Corps from CERCLA liability for sediment remediation in this manner.