La Plata County Loses Immunity Claim in Bayfield Landfill Case

The case of Board of County Commissioners v. Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, decided by the Colorado Supreme Court in 2021, addressed whether the Department could enforce compliance actions under the Solid Wastes Disposal Sites and Facilities Act (SWA) against La Plata County. This decision clarified key aspects of regulatory authority and governmental immunity.

Background of the Case

La Plata County owned and operated the Bayfield Landfill, which had been closed for over 25 years. Despite its closure, groundwater monitoring revealed elevated levels of vinyl chloride exceeding state standards. Over the years, the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (the "Department") worked with the County to address the contamination. However, the County declined to enter into a proposed Compliance Order on Consent in 2015.

Subsequently, the Department issued a unilateral compliance order, requiring the County to undertake remediation measures. The County challenged the order, arguing that:

1. It was immune from enforcement actions under the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act (CGIA).
2. It was not a "person" under the SWA and thus not subject to its provisions.

Legal Issues

The Supreme Court considered the following legal questions:

1. Definition of "Person" Under the SWA: Whether the County qualified as a "person" within the meaning of the SWA.
2. CGIA Applicability: Whether the enforcement action constituted a tort claim barred by the CGIA.
3. Attorney Fees: Whether the County was entitled to attorney fees as the prevailing party in earlier proceedings.

Court’s Analysis and Decision

The court’s analysis focused on the statutory interpretation of the SWA and the application of the CGIA:

• Definition of "Person": The court determined it did not need to resolve whether the County was a "person" under the SWA. It concluded that the Department could bring enforcement actions against counties as owners or operators of non-compliant landfills regardless of their designation as "persons."

• Governmental Immunity: The court held that the enforcement action was not a tort claim. It emphasized that the compliance order sought to address public regulatory concerns rather than impose liability for personal or property damage. Consequently, the CGIA did not bar the enforcement action.

• Attorney Fees: The County’s request for attorney fees was denied. The court ruled that since the County was no longer the prevailing party, it was not entitled to such an award.

Conclusion

The Colorado Supreme Court’s decision reaffirmed the Department’s authority to enforce landfill compliance under the SWA against counties. It also clarified the distinction between regulatory enforcement actions and tort claims under the CGIA, ensuring that public health and environmental protections are not hindered by immunity claims.

Our Legal Expertise

At Whitcomb, Selinsky, PC, we specialize in navigating complex environmental and governmental immunity laws. Contact us to discuss your legal needs and learn how we can assist with compliance and regulatory challenges.