STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER TO APPROVE AND ENTER "SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND MODIFICATION OF PARTIAL CONSENT DECREE"

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, Jr., District Judge.

Plaintiff United States of America and Defendant El Dorado County, California ("County") hereby stipulate and jointly move the Court to approve and enter the "Settlement Agreement and Modification of Partial Consent Decree" ("SA/MPCD") that is attached hereto. In support of this joint motion, the parties state as follows:

1. On August 20, 2010 (ECF No. 389), the Court entered a Partial Consent Decree ("PCD") between the United States and the County.

2. The PCD resolved claims asserted by the parties under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act ("CERCLA"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 9601-75, related to a former landfill site south of Lake Tahoe. Generally speaking, the PSD required the County to perform cleanup work at the site's first operable unit ("OU-1"), and the PSD also addressed the obligations of both parties to pay past and future response costs.

3. On April 27, 2011 (ECF No. 395), the County filed a Motion for Construction, Enforcement, and Modification of the PCD ("County's Motion"), arguing that the OU-1 remedial design was defective, and that it was improper for the County to bear the costs of the allegedly defective design.

4. On May 26, 2011 (ECF No. 403), the United States filed an opposition to the County's Motion, arguing that the County's Motion relied on events that the parties anticipated when they entered into the PCD and thus no modification was warranted.

5. On July 8, 2011 (ECF No. 416), the Court entered an Order granting the County's Motion to Modify the Partial Consent Decree. The Order, inter alia, "suspended" "[t]he County's obligation to continue construction of the Design" and ruled that "[t]he government's liability for additional costs . . . will be determined by separate evidentiary hearing."

6. The United States appealed the Court's July 8, 2011 Order, but on January 11, 2013 (ECF No. 431), the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit dismissed the appeal as premature.

7. Limited discovery and the entry of a stipulation ensued (ECF No. 442).

8. On October 29, 2014 (ECF No. 445), the Court established a briefing schedule in an effort to complete its resolution of the County's Motion to Modify the Partial Consent Decree.

9. On December 3, 2014, the parties appeared before a mediator in an effort to resolve the County's Motion (and certain other issues in dispute) without continued litigation.

10. On January 29, 2015 (ECF No. 453), the Court approved the parties' stipulation to stay further proceedings pending the completion of the parties' settlement negotiations.

12. On March 8, 2016, the County executed the attached SA/MPCD.

12. On August 10, 2016, the United States executed the attached SA/MPCD.

13. The SA/MPCD, inter alia, provides that the United States, on behalf of the Forest Service, "shall pay to the County $4,100,000 to resolve any and all claims alleged by the County in conjunction with the County's Motion as well as any and all claims that the County had, has, or may have arising out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the County's Motion." ¶ 1. In addition, "the County shall pay to the Forest Service $500,000 to resolve any and all claims the United States, on behalf of the Forest Service, has, had, or may have to recover any or all Interim Response Costs and Future Response Costs associated with OU-1," as those terms are defined in the PCD. ¶ 5. The SA/MPCD further states that "the County shall establish and fund [a] . . . trust in the amount of $2,700,000 to be used [by the Forest Service] for OU-1 Operation and Maintenance," or "O&M," ¶ 8, and that "the County shall be relieved of any and all Work or payment obligations under the Partial Consent Decree associated with OU-1, including but not limited to . . . conducting additional Work associated with OU-1 . . . and conducting OU-1 O&M." ¶ 10.

14. Pursuant to Section XXXI of the Partial Consent Decree (ECF No. 389 at pp. 129-30 of 137), any "material modification to [the] Partial Consent Decree . . . shall be in writing, signed by the United States and [the County], and shall be effective upon approval by the Court." (Emphasis added.)

15. The parties request the Court to approve and enter the SA/MPCD because it reflects their agreement reached after extensive and mediated negotiations.

16. Moreover, approval and entry of the SA/MPCD would fully resolve the County's Motion without any need for the Court to conduct further proceedings.

ORDER

Upon consideration of the parties' stipulation filed on August 10, 2016 (ECF No. 457), pursuant to Section XXXI of the Partial Consent Decree previously entered by the Court (ECF No. 389), and good cause appearing therefor, the Court APPROVES and ENTERS the "Settlement Agreement and Modification of Partial Consent Decree" (or "SA/MPCD") that is attached to the parties' stipulation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.