## Facts

- Aerial pesticide applicators operated from a leased 10-acre airstrip site where they loaded pesticides into aircraft and rinsed tanks after spraying runs.
- Spills and rinsate at the airstrip contaminated the site and migrated onto adjacent property.
- The property owners sued the applicators for response costs under CERCLA; the applicators admitted liability.
- The district court allocated 75% of cleanup costs to the applicators and 25% to the current site owner.
- The applicators filed a third-party CERCLA contribution claim against agricultural landowners who hired them to spray pesticides, alleging the landowners were “arrangers” under CERCLA § 107(a)(3).
- The complaint alleged the landowners contracted for spraying, owned the pesticides, and that waste generation was inherent in the service, but did not allege the landowners knew of spills or controlled loading, rinsing, or disposal practices at the airstrip.

## Issues

1. Whether customers who hire a contractor to apply their pesticides “arrange for” disposal under CERCLA § 107(a)(3) when hazardous waste is generated during performance, absent allegations of intent, knowledge, or control over disposal at the contaminated site.

## Decision

- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed dismissal of the third-party contribution complaint for failure to state a claim.
- Contracting for a service that foreseeably generates hazardous waste, without additional allegations of intent or control over disposal, is insufficient to plead arranger liability under CERCLA § 107(a)(3).
- Allegations of pesticide ownership and benefit from the service did not establish that the landowners decided where or how waste would be disposed.
- The absence of allegations that the landowners knew of, directed, or participated in disposal practices at the airstrip was fatal to arranger liability on the pleadings.

## Legal Principles

- CERCLA arranger liability under § 107(a)(3) requires more than purchasing or requesting a service that incidentally results in the generation of hazardous substances.
- Ownership of the hazardous substance and foreseeability that waste will be produced do not, by themselves, show an arrangement for disposal.
- A viable arranger claim generally requires factual allegations indicating intent to dispose or control over disposal decisions (e.g., directing the disposal method or site, or participating in waste-handling practices).

## Conclusion

The court held that agricultural landowners who merely hired aerial sprayers to apply pesticides were not liable as CERCLA arrangers for contamination at the sprayers’ airstrip site where the complaint did not allege landowner knowledge of, intent regarding, or control over disposal-related practices.


S. Fla. Water Mgmt. Dist. v. Montalvo, 84 F.3d 402 (11th Cir. 1996)