Full opinion text
AMENDED ORDER WM. MATTHEW BYRNE, Jr., Chief Judge. I. BACKGROUND A. History of the Action This action arises out of efforts to clean up hazardous substances at a facility in Monterey Park, California, known as the Operating Industries, Inc. (Oil) landfill. In 1988, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the State of California, and the California Hazardous Substance Account sued a number of parties, including plaintiffs in this action, alleging that those parties were liable to perform certain remedial actions at the Oil landfill and to reimburse the United States and the State of California for response costs incurred in abating various hazardous conditions at the landfill. The 1988 action was settled with a Partial Consent decree entered on May 11, 1989. Under the terms of the decree, plaintiffs here agreed to perform certain work at the Oil landfill and to pay approximately $61,-000.000.to the EPA and the State of California. However, plaintiffs expressly reserved the right to assert claims for reimbursement and indemnification against other potentially liable persons who were not signatories of the decree. Plaintiffs now assert that right by bringing this action against fourteen municipal defendants, the County of Los Angeles and five County Garbage Disposal Districts (GDDs), and the State of California Department of Transportation (CalTrans). Plaintiffs seek to recover from these defendants a fair share of the costs incurred pursuant to the Partial Consent Decree, on the grounds that (1) defendants either owned, operated, or utilized the Oil landfill, and (2) defendants were not signatories of the decree. On December 5,1990, the Court issued an Order denying in part and granting in part defendant cities’ motion for an order specifying issues without substantial controversy. The Court granted defendant cities’ motion to specify that “[r]ubbish generated by residences and businesses located within the city limits of defendant cities is not a ‘hazardous substance’ under CERCLA absent specific evidence that the particular rubbish generated by those residences and businesses that was disposed of at the Oil landfill site contained ‘hazardous substances’ as defined by CERCLA § 101(14)” only to the extent that it sought a ruling that for arranger liability, plaintiffs must prove that the waste disposed of at the Oil landfill contained “hazardous substances” under CERCLA. Additionally, the Court found that CERCLA § 101(14) does not expressly exempt from liability the disposal of household wastes. The Court denied defendants’ motion with regard to all remaining issues presented. In its order of September 24, 1991 (Sept. Order), the Court found the following issues were without substantial controversy: 1) A “release” of a “hazardous substance,” as those terms are defined in CERCLA §§ 101(14), 101(38) has occurred at the Oil landfill; 2) In connection with the Oil site, plaintiffs have incurred “necessary costs of response” that are “consistent with the national contingency plan” within the meaning of CERCLA § 107(a)(4)(B); 3) By contracting with a disposal company for the collection and disposal of the waste of city residents, defendant City of Alhambra “by contract, agreement, or otherwise arranged for disposal ... or arranged with a transporter for transport for disposal” of that residential waste, within the meaning of CERCLA § 107(a)(3). The Court further ruled that liability under § 107(a)(3) requires proof that defendants “owned or possessed” the hazardous substances for which defendants arranged for disposal and that plaintiffs could satisfy this requirement by showing constructive, as well as actual, ownership or possession. II. DISCUSSION Plaintiffs claim defendants fall within the class of persons liable as an arranger under CERCLA § 107(a)(3). Arrangers liable under CERCLA include: Any person who by contract, agreement, or otherwise arranged for disposal or treatment, or arranged with a transporter for transport for disposal or treatment, of hazardous substances owned or possessed by such person, by any other party or entity, at any facility or incineration vessel owned or operated by another party or entity and containing such hazardous substances. CERCLA § 107(a)(3); 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a)(3). To be liable as an arranger, the substances disposed of must have been “hazardous” under CERCLA, the liable party must have “owned or possessed” the substances, and it must have “arranged” for their disposal. Phase I of this action presents three categories of issues. First, the parties have identified several legal issues for pre-trial legal determination. Second, the Court will determine whether defendants “arranged with a transporter for transport for disposal” within the meaning of CERCLA § 107(a)(3). Lastly, the Court will determine if defendants “owned or possessed” the waste for which they arranged disposal within the meaning of CERCLA § 107(a)(3). A. Pre-Trial Legal Determinations 1. Do Plaintiffs Have Standing To Sue For Cost Recovery Under CERCLA § 107 or Are They Limited to Remedies For Contribution Under CERCLA § 113(f) ? Plaintiffs have brought this action under CERCLA § 107(a)(3), which imposes liability on arrangers for “all costs of removal or remedial action incurred by the United States Government or a State or an Indian tribe not inconsistent with the national contingency plan; (R) any other necessary costs of response incurred by any other person consistent with the national contingency plan.” CERCLA § 107(a)(4); 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a)(4). Defendants argue plaintiffs may not bring an action to recover response costs under § 107. Each group of defendants takes a different position on this issue. The County defendants argue the enactment of CERCLA § 113(f) in the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA), makes an action for contribution under § 113(f) the only remedy available to plaintiffs against defendants. Section 113(f)(1) provides that: Any person may seek contribution from any other person who is liable or potentially liable under section 9607(a) of this title, during or following any civil action under section 9606 of this title or under section 9607(a) of this title.... In resolving contribution claims, the court may allocate response costs among liable parties using such equitable factors as the court determines are appropriate. CERCLA § 113(f)(1); 42 U.S.C. § 9613(f)(1). Defendant cities argue this issue is not susceptible to pre-trial determination because the decision on whether to utilize § 107(a) or § 113(f) depends on the specific facts of this case. CalTrans does not address the § 107/§ 113 issue in its papers, a. Can This Issue Be Determined Pre-Trial? In addition to determining whether or not plaintiffs can bring suit under § 107, the parties have requested the Court to decide before trial whether defendants can be held jointly and severally liable. Defendant cities seem to view the question of whether plaintiffs can sue under § 107 as another way of determining the joint and several liability question. Defendant cities apparently equate § 107 with joint and several liability and § 113(f) with several liability. The cities argue plaintiffs are limited to a contribution remedy under § 113(f) absent a showing justifying joint and several liability. Unless an individual defendant can show that the harm caused by that defendant is divisible and that a reasonable basis for apportionment of damages exists, liability under § 107 is joint and several. United States v. Chem-Dyne, 572 F.Supp. 802, 811 (S.D.Ohio 1983). Under § 113(f), on the other hand, the court may allocate response costs using such equitable facts as the court determines appropriate. According to defendant cities, neither the § 107/§ 113 issue nor the issue of joint and several liability can be determined before trial because the divisibility of the harm depends on the particular facts of this case. The question of whether plaintiffs can bring suit under § 107(a) does not depend on whether defendants may be held jointly and severally hable. Similarly, the question of whether joint or several liability applies does not determine whether this action can be brought under § 107 or must be brought under § 113. This issue can be resolved before trial. b. Can Plaintiffs Bring This Action under § 107? Section 107 makes certain persons, such as arrangers, hable for any “necessary costs of response incurred by any other person consistent with the national contingency plan.” CERCLA § 107(a)(4); 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a)(4). In its September order, the Court found plaintiffs have incurred “necessary costs of response ... consistent with the national contingency plan.” Sept. Order at 20. Plaintiffs thus conclude they are entitled to bring an action against alleged arrangers such as defendants under § 107(a) to recover the response costs they have incurred. In the face of this statutory language, the County defendants argue that potentially responsible parties (PRPs) whose liability is based on a judgment (such as the consent decree entered against plaintiffs) are entitled to contribution under § 113(f)(1) but not full indemnity under § 107(a). Section 107(a)(4) allows a plaintiff to recover all its response costs. Section 113(f)(1), on the other hand, does not ahow a plaintiff to recover all its costs. Instead, it allows persons hable or potentially hable under § 107(a) to “seek contribution from any other person who is hable or potentially hable” and provides that the court “may allocate response costs among hable parties using such equitable factors as the court determines are appropriate.” 42 U.S.C. § 9613(f)(1). When it was originally enacted, CERCLA did not provide a mechanism for a PRP held jointly and severally hable for cleanup costs to seek contribution from other PRPs. In the absence of such a provision, courts implied a private right of contribution into the statutory scheme. See Sand Springs Home v. Interplastic Corp., 670 F.Supp. 913, 916-17 (N.D.OWa.1987); United States v. New Castle County, 642 F.Supp. 1258 (D.Del.1986). Congress ratified this approach in SARA by adding § 113(f) to CERCLA. The County argues § 113(f)’s enactment demonstrates that indemnity under § 107 is limited to situations in which a PRP promptly and voluntarily cleans up a site without the necessity of a lawsuit. The County defendants claim PRPs such as plaintiffs, who incur response costs pursuant to a court order (in plaintiffs’ case, the partial consent decree in the 1988 action), cannot obtain full indemnity under § 107(a) but are instead limited to contribution under § 113(f)(1) from other PRPs. The eases which have compared and contrasted sections 107(a) and 113(f) have concluded PRPs can bring actions under § 107(a). In General Elec. Co. v. Litton Indus. Automation Sys., Inc., defendant Litton contended plaintiff General Electric (GE) could not bring suit under § 107(a) because GE did not incur response costs until after GE was threatened with a lawsuit. 920 F.2d 1415, 1418 (8th Cir.1990), cert. denied, 499 U.S. 937, 111 S.Ct. 1390, 113 L.Ed.2d 446 (1991). The court rejected this argument, holding that: the motives of the private party attempting to recoup response costs under 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a)(4)(B) are irrelevant. The purpose of allowing a private party to recover its response costs is to encourage timely cleanup of hazardous waste sites. This purpose would be frustrated if a plaintiff’s motives were subject to question. We will not look at the impetus behind a plaintiffs decision to begin the cleanup process; we will look only to see if there has been a release or threatened release for which the defendant is responsible. Id. United States v. Kramer contains perhaps the most detailed discussion of the differences between § 107(a) actions and § 113(f) actions. 757 F.Supp. 397 (D.N.J.1991). In Kramer, the United States brought an action against various defendants under § 107(a) to recover its response costs. Defendants argued the government’s action was properly characterized as a § 113(f) action because the United States generated large amounts of the waste at the site. Id. at 413. The court held: The Government’s potential liability for contribution does not affect this section 107(a) response cost recovery action. The Government’s potential liability alters neither the type of affirmative defenses permissible under section 107(a), nor the Government’s right to full recovery of its response costs. Defendants are correct that the Government’s ultimate recovery of its response costs would be decreased, once it was found liable for contribution and the amount to be apportioned to it of total response costs was determined. However, it is in the nature of the claims made, that even when, as here, a section 107(a) claim co-exists in a single action with section 113 contribution claims, defendants’ liability on the Government’s section 107(a) claim almost certainly will be determined before the Government’s liability for contribution. Id. at 414. The court went on to state: the structure of CERCLA does not preclude consideration of equitable factors, including the liability of a PRP who was (or is) a plaintiff in a section 107 action. Rather, CERCLA separates those equitable factors from section 107 and considers them in a section 113 contribution action---- [Sections 107 and 113 serve distinct purposes---- Section 107 permits the Government or a private party to go in, clean up the mess, pay the bill, then collect all its costs not inconsistent with the NCP from other responsible parties—even if plaintiff was also responsible for the contamination. Any PRP is entitled under section 113 to bring a contribution action against other PRPs—including the PRP who previously cleaned up the mess and was paid for its trouble through a section 107 proceeding—to apportion costs equitably among all the PRPs. Practically speaking, section 107 permits a PRP, including the Government, to collect all its response costs, even those that same PRP may be required to pay back to other PRPs as its equitable share in a section 113 proceeding. Id. at 416 (emphasis in original). Other courts have reached the same conclusion, albeit not necessarily for the same reasons. E.g., Sand Springs Home v. Interplastic Corp., 670 F.Supp. 913, 916 (N.D.Okla.1987); Chemical Waste Management, Inc. v. Armstrong World Indus., Inc., 669 F.Supp. 1285, 1291-92 (E.D.Pa.1987). The County defendants distinguish the above cases by arguing that each involved either an innocent landowner, e.g., General Electric, or PRPs who voluntarily incurred response costs before being forced to do so by judicial decree, e.g., Kramer. CERCLA permits plaintiffs to sue under § 107. Section 113 does not abrogate § 107 but instead codifies the efforts of federal courts to imply a contribution remedy to assist those held jointly and severally liable. No reported decision has drawn the distinction suggested by the County defendants, and numerous courts have rejected similar arguments. Plaintiffs have incurred necessary response costs, and § 107(a)(4)(B) explicitly states arrangers shall be hable for any necessary costs of response incurred by any other person consistent with the NCP. 2. Do Public Policy Considerations and Regard For a City’s Sovereign Power to Protect the Public Health, Safety, and Welfare Preclude Imposition of CERCLA Liability? Defendant cities claim they are exempt from CERCLA liability because they were exercising sovereign power to abate a public nuisance and to protect the public health, safety, and welfare. Defendants claim both CERCLA § 101(20)(D) and considerations of public policy support such an exemption. In making this argument, defendant cities rely almost exclusively on Lincoln v. Republic Ecology, 765 F.Supp. 683 (C.D.Cal.1991). In Lincoln, plaintiffs alleged the City of Pasadena was liable as an arranger based upon contracts which the city had signed with private companies providing for the towing of vehicles abandoned on public streets. The Lincoln court granted the city’s motion for summary judgment, holding that: an unmistakable purpose behind CERCLA’s strict liability standard was to force parties who profit from the use and generation of hazardous wastes, or directly cause or contribute to their release, to account, in the pricing of their products, for the environmental externalities associated with improper disposal. This rationale simply does not apply to the City’s abatement of public nuisances. Id. at 635-36 (emphasis in original). The court went on to state that: strict liability under CERCLA should not attach to government entities engaged in legitimate sovereign, as opposed to proprietary or commercial, functions. This is especially true when, as here, the City had no “hands on” involvement with or control over the hazardous substances and enjoyed no commercial interest or benefits by virtue of the regulatory legislation. Id. at 637-38. The municipal defendants conclude that Lincoln should apply to exempt them for liability for their conduct in this case because their regulation of waste collection, like the City of Pasadena’s activity in Lincoln, constituted a “non-contributory exercise of sovereign power.” Faced with this argument, the Second Circuit recently rejected defendant cities’ interpretation of Lincoln in B.F. Goodrich Co. v. Murtha, 958 F.2d 1192, 1199 (2d Cir.1992). In Murtha, plaintiffs and defendants alleged several municipalities were liable under § 107(a)(3) because they had arranged for the disposal and/or treatment of hazardous substances at two landfills. Id. at 1196. The municipalities cited Lincoln for the proposition that liability could not attach to municipalities which arranged for the disposal or treatment of hazardous substances in their sovereign capacity. Id. at 1199. The Second Circuit rejected the argument, stating: We regard Lincoln as merely holding that the city’s activities in that case, taken in furtherance of its sovereign function to abate public nuisances, were insufficient to give rise to “arranger” status for purposes of liability under CERCLA. See id. at 636-38. To the extent Lincoln can be construed as extending the “function as a sovereign” exception beyond the liability provision for owners or operators to that for arrangers, we disagree with it. Congress limited the sovereign function exception to those situations where liability is premised on the state or local government entity being an “owner or operator” of a vessel or facility. Nothing in the language of the Act suggests that it be extended. Id. (citations omitted). Murtha’s interpretation of Lincoln is persuasive. A governmental body is not automatically foreclosed from CERCLA liability merely because it is acting in a regulatory capacity pursuant to a statutory mandate. United States v. New Castle County, 727 F.Supp. 854, 875 (D.Del.1989). Indeed, this Court has already implicitly rejected the cities’ argument in its September order by finding a defendant city could be held liable under § 107(a)(3) if the prerequisites of the statute are met. Congress intended that state governmental entities be liable along with everyone else for cleanup costs recoverable under CERCLA. Thus, they may be liable under any circumstance described in § 107(a) from which they were not expressly excluded. Cf. Pennsylvania v. Union Gas Co., 491 U.S. 1, 7, 109 S.Ct. 2273, 2278, 105 L.Ed.2d 1 (1989). 3. Joint and Several Liability All defendants dispute whether plaintiffs are entitled to joint and several liability. Regardless of whether plaintiffs are allowed to sue under § 107(a) or are limited to § 113(f), the County defendants and Cal-Trans argue this Court should apply several liability. Defendant cities appear to argue the Court’s decision on whether or not to impose joint and several liability follows from its decision with regard to whether plaintiffs can sue under § 107(a). The cities argue the Court has discretion to impose or not to impose joint or several liability depending on the facts of the case and equitable considerations, citing Allied Corp. v. Acme Solvents Reclaiming, Inc., 691 F.Supp. 1100, 1116 (N.D.Ill.1988); United States v. Cherry-Dyne Corp., 572 F.Supp. 802, 808 (S.D.Ohio 1983). In Cherry-Dyne, the court interpreted the scope of liability under § 107: If the harm is divisible and if there is a reasonable basis for apportionment of damages, each defendant is liable for only the portion of harm he himself caused. In this situation, the burden of proof as to apportionment is upon each defendant. On the other hand, if the defendants caused an indivisible harm, each is subject to liability for the entire harm. 572 F.Supp. 802, 811 (S.D.Ohio 1983). The majority of courts have adopted Cherry-Dyne’s holding. See O’Neil v. Picillo, 883 F.2d 176, 178 (1st Cir.1989) (citing cases), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1071, 110 S.Ct. 1115, 107 L.Ed.2d 1022 (1990). Plaintiffs assert courts have consistently and unanimously held CERCLA imposes joint and several liability. E.g., County Line Investment Co. v. Tinney, 933 F.2d 1508, 1516 (10th Cir.1991); O’Neil, 883 F.2d at 178-79; United States v. Monsanto Co., 858 F.2d 160, 171 (4th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1106, 109 S.Ct. 3156, 104 L.Ed.2d 1019 (1989). However, plaintiffs themselves recognize that the majority of courts will apportion damages when defendants can demonstrate that the harm is divisible. E.g., O’Neil, 883 F.2d at 178. With regard to the issue of joint and several liability, the Court holds joint and several liability applies under § 107. However, individual defendants may be entitled to several liability if they can show the harm they caused is divisible. The parties dispute the divisibility .of the harm caused at the Oil site. While plaintiffs claim the harm at Oil is indivisible, defendants claim the harm is divisible. The parties have presented no evidence to suggest whether the harm is divisible or indivisible because the question of divisibility involves issues not before the Court in this phase of the case. Because the divisibility of the harm cannot be resolved at the present time, the Court’s final decision on joint and several liability must wait until it considers evidence relating to the divisibility of harm, 4. Does the Doctrine of De Minimis Non Curat Lex’ Absolve Defendants From Liability? Defendant cities argue that a cost recovery or contribution action under CERCLA amounts to an equitable proceeding for restitution in which equitable defenses, particularly ‘de minimis non curat lex,’ should apply. Some courts have recognized the availability of equitable defenses in cost recovery actions under CERCLA § 107. E.g., United States v. Mottolo, 695 F.Supp. 615, 626-27 (D.N.H.1988); United States v. Hardage, 116 F.R.D. 460 (W.D.Okla.1987). Relying on the above, defendant cities argue the Court can apply, if appropriate, ‘de minimis non curat lex’ (the law does not concern itself with trifles) to this action. Defendant cities realize the application of this doctrine depends on the introduction of evidence regarding the amount and toxicity of the waste attributable to the cities. Accordingly, the cities request only a ruling that they may assert this defense at the appropriate time. Section 107(a) states those arranging for the transport for disposal of hazardous waste which they own or possess shall be liable “[njotwithstanding any other provision or rule of law, and subject only to the defenses set forth in subsection (b) of this section.” Section 107(b) does not set forth the defense of ‘de minimis non curat lex.’ Numerous courts have construed § 107(b) as precluding all defenses not enumerated in CERCLA. E.g., United States v. Bliss, 667 F.Supp. 1298, 1304 (E.D.Mo.1987); United States v. Stringfellow, 661 F.Supp. 1053, 1061-62 (C.D.Cal.1987). Given the Court’s finding that plaintiffs can sue under § 107(a), ‘de minimis non curat lex’ is not an available defense because § 107(b) limits the defenses available. “The principle of ‘de minimis non curat lex’ (the law does not concern itself with trifles) is simply not a defense to CERCLA liability.” United States v. Western Processing Co., 734 F.Supp. 930, 936 (W.D.Wash.1990). B. The First Trial Phase Plaintiffs claim defendants fall within the class of persons liable as an arranger under CERCLA § 107(a)(3). Arrangers liable under CERCLA include: Any person who by contract, agreement, or otherwise arranged for disposal or treatment, or arranged with a transporter for transport for disposal or treatment, of hazardous substances owned or possessed by such person, by any other party or entity, at any facility or incineration vessel owned or operated by another party or entity and containing such hazardous substances. CERCLA § 107(a)(3); 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a)(3). To be liable as an arranger, the substances disposed of must have been “hazardous” under CERCLA, the liable party must have “owned or possessed” the substances, and it must have “arranged” for their disposal. For the purposes of this phase of the trial, the Court will determine only if the defendants “arranged for transport for disposal” of waste “owned or possessed” by defendants. Later phases of this action will determine issues such as the volume of the waste and whether or not the waste contained hazardous substances. 1. Arranger Issues In its last order, the Court delineated three principles which have emerged from the case law to guide determinations of whether a particular contract or agreement constitutes an arrangement for disposal: First, courts have not hesitated to look beyond a defendant’s characterizations to determine whether a transaction in fact involved an arrangement for the disposal of a hazardous substance. Second, if persons have a legal responsibility for disposal of hazardous substances, they cannot evade liability if they do nothing and simply “close their eyes” to the method of disposal of their hazardous substances. Third, courts have stated that “a liberal judicial interpretation of the term is required in order (to) achieve CERCLA’s ‘overwhelming remedial’ statutory scheme.” Sept. Order at 26 (citations omitted). The Court applied these principles to find that defendant City of Alhambra could be held liable as an arranger because the city had contracted with a disposal company for the transportation and disposal of its residential waste. a. The Defendant Cities Plaintiffs argue each defendant city arranged for transport for disposal by contracting with waste haulers to pick up waste within the city. In addition, plaintiffs argue five defendant cities (Bell, Commerce, Compton, Lynwood, and South Gate) arranged for disposal by licensing waste haulers to operate within those cities. i. Contractual Agreements With Waste Haulers Defendant cities raise three basic arguments on the arranger by contract issue. First, they point to the language of § 107(a)(3), which states defendants must have arranged for the disposal of “hazardous substances.” Defendant cities claim they are not arrangers because the contracts at issue said nothing about hazardous substances. It is undisputed defendant cities contracted with disposal companies to transport residential, commercial, and governmental waste for disposal. In other cases, courts have not hesitated to look beyond a defendant’s characterizations to determine whether a transaction in fact involved an arrangement for the disposal of a hazardous substance. See Sept. Order at 26. The fact that the contracts at issue in this case did not specifically mention hazardous substances does not prevent defendant cities from being held to be arrangers. Second, defendant cities point out that § 107(a)(3) imposes liability on those who arrange for transport for disposal to a “facility.” Defendant cities argue their contracts with private waste haulers do not qualify as arrangements because no city picked Oil as the site for waste from within the city to be dumped. In its most recent order, the Court noted that “it is well settled that one who contracts for disposal has ‘arranged’ for disposal even if the contract does not mention the disposal site.” Sept. Order at 22. One who contracts for disposal has “arranged” for disposal even if the contract does not mention the disposal site. Id. at 48. Defendant cities did not have to pick Oil as the site to qualify as arrangers under § 107(a)(3). By contracting with disposal companies, the municipal defendants arranged for waste to be taken to a facility. The fact they did not pick Oil as the final destination is not determinative. Lastly, defendant cities reiterate the policy arguments they make in asserting their sovereign power defense, namely that considerations of public policy should prevent the imposition of CERCLA liability on municipalities. As stated above, the Court does not find those policy arguments persuasive under the facts of this ease. As stated below, the Court finds the stipulated facts demonstrate each municipal defendant arranged with a transporter for transport for disposal within the meaning of CERCLA § 107(a)(3). In discussing the arranger issue, plaintiffs and defendant cities have divided the waste collected by the disposal companies into three categories. The first category is “residential waste”—refuse from households and apartments within the defendant city. The second category is “commercial waste”—refuse from businesses located with the defendant city. The third category is “governmental waste”—waste from governmental operations and city refuse receptacles. In making its findings, the Court adopts this nomenclature. 1.Alhambra Alhambra arranged with a transporter for • transport for disposal of residential waste by contracting with CV Disposal and Athens Disposal from 1960 to 1984. [1.2; 1.3] Alhambra’s contracts with Athens Disposal further provided Athens would collect, transport, and dispose of governmental waste and some commercial waste. [1.4; 1.5] Based on the stipulated facts, the Court finds Alhambra arranged with a transporter for transport for disposal of residential, commercial, and governmental waste within the meaning of CERCLA § 107(a)(3) from 1960 to 1984. 2.Bell Bell contracted with System Disposal Services, Inc. (System Disposal) to collect, transport, and dispose of residential and governmental waste from 1970 to 1984. [2.2] The Court finds Bell arranged with a transporter for transport for disposal of residential and governmental waste within the meaning of CERCLA § 107(a)(3) from 1970 to 1984. 3. Commerce From 1962 until 1977, Commerce contracted with O.G. Cannavo to collect, transport, and dispose of residential waste. [5.2] From 1977 until 1984, Commerce contracted with Metropolitan Waste Disposal Company to collect, transport, and dispose of residential waste. [5.4] The Court finds Commerce arranged with a transporter for transport for disposal of residential waste within the meaning of CERCLA § 107(a)(3) from 1962 until 1984. In 1976 and 1977, the Commerce-Cannavo contracts required Cannavo to collect, transport and dispose of Commerce governmental refuse. [5.3] The Commerce-Metropolitan contracts from 1977 to 1984 required Metropolitan to collect, transport, and dispose of Commerce governmental refuse. [5.5] The Court finds Commerce arranged with a transporter for transport for disposal of governmental waste within the meaning of CERCLA § 107(a)(3) from 1976 to 1984. 4. Compton Compton contracted with Murcole, Inc. to collect, transport and dispose of residential waste from 1969 to 1984 except for a portion of East Compton and the ‘Nestor Tract’ from 1975-1980. [6.2] The Compton-Murcole contracts also covered Compton governmental waste from 1969 to 1984. [6.3] The Court finds Compton arranged with a transporter for transport for disposal of residential and governmental waste within the meaning of CERCLA § 107(a)(3) from 1969 to 1984. 5. Cudahy From 1981 to 1984, Cudahy contracted with System to collect, transport and dispose of residential and governmental waste from Cudahy. [7.2] The Court finds Cudahy arranged with a transporter for transport for disposal of residential and governmental waste within the meaning of CERCLA § 107(a)(3) from 1981 to 1984. 6. Lynwood Lynwood contracted with CV Disposal Service from 1962 to 1984 to collect, transport and dispose of residential and commercial waste. [12.2; 12.3] From 1978 to 1984, the Lynwood-CV contracts required CV to collect, transport, and dispose of governmental waste as well. [12.4] The Court finds Lynwood arranged with a transporter for transport for disposal within the meaning of CERCLA § 107(a)(3) of residential and commercial waste from 1962 to 1984, and for disposal of government waste from 1978 to 1984. 7. Maywood From 1958 to 1972 Maywood contracted with Pacific Waste Disposal Company, a transporter, to collect, transport, and dispose of residential and governmental waste. [13.3; 13.8] From 1958 to 1970, the May-wood-Pacific contracts required Pacific to collect, transport, and dispose of commercial waste. [13.6] From 1972 to 1984, Maywood contracted with System Disposal to collect, transport, and dispose of residential and governmental waste. [13.4; 13.9] The Court finds Maywood arranged with a transporter for transport for disposal of residential and governmental waste within the meaning of CERCLA § 107(a)(3) from 1958 to 1984. The Court further finds Maywood arranged with a transporter for transport for disposal of commercial waste within the meaning of CERCLA § 107(a)(3) from 1958 to 1970. 8.Montebello From 1952 to 1958, Montebello contracted with Michael Harabedian and George Slater to collect, transport, and dispose of residential and commercial waste. [14.2] From 1962 to 1984, Montebello contracted with Athens Disposal to collect, transport, and dispose of residential, commercial, and governmental waste. [14.7; 14.10] The Court finds Montebello arranged with a transporter for transport for disposal within the meaning of CERCLA § 107(a)(3) of residential and commercial waste from 1952-1958 and from 1962-1984. The Court further finds Montebello arranged with a transporter for transport for disposal of governmental waste within the meaning of CERCLA § 107(a)(3) from 1962-1984. 9.Monterey Park Monterey Park contracted with Michael Harabedian to collect, transport, and dispose of residential waste from 1947-1958. [15.2] Monterey Park contracted with CV Disposal to collect, transport, and dispose of residential and governmental waste from 1960-1970. [15.3; 15.5] From 1970 until 1984, Monterey Park contracted with Athens Disposal to collect, transport, and dispose of residential and governmental waste. [15.4; 15.6] The Court finds Monterey Park arranged with a transporter for transport for disposal of residential and governmental waste within the meaning of CERCLA § 107(a)(3) from 1960-1984. The Court also finds Monterey Park arranged with a transporter for transport for disposal of residential waste within the meaning of CERCLA § 107(a)(3) from 1947-1958. 10.Rosemead Rosemead contracted with Dick Griegorian (doing business as Griegorian Disposal Service and Modern Service Co.) to collect, transport, and dispose of residential waste from 1961 until 1984. [18.2] During the period 1965-1984, the Rosemead-Griegorian contracts required Griegorian to collect, transport, and dispose of commercial and governmental waste. [18.3; 18.4] The Court finds Rosemead arranged with a transporter for transport for disposal of residential waste within the meaning of CERCLA § 107(a)(3) from 1961-1964, and for disposal of residential, commercial, and governmental waste within the meaning of CERCLA § 107(a)(3) from 1965-1984. 11. San Gabriel San Gabriel contracted with George Solomon to collect, transport and dispose of residential and commercial waste from 1948 to 1956. [19.2] During 1954-1956, the San Gabriel-Solomon contracts provided that Solomon would also collect, transport, and dispose of governmental refuse. [19.3] From 1957 to 1964, San Gabriel contracted with Community Disposal Company to collect, transport, and dispose of residential, commercial, and governmental waste. [19.8; 19.9] In 1956-1957, and from 1964-1984, San Gabriel contracted with San Gabriel Valley Disposal Company (also known as San Gabriel Disposal Company) to collect transport and dispose of residential, commercial, and governmental waste. [19.5; 19.6; 19.7] Based on this series of contracts, the Court finds San Gabriel arranged with a transporter for transport for disposal of residential, commercial, and governmental waste within the meaning of CERCLA § 107(a)(3) from 1948-1984. 12. South Gate From 1955-1957, South Gate contracted with System Disposal to collect, transport, and dispose of residential and commercial waste. [23.2] From 1957-1962, South Gate contracted with Santa Ana Commercial for collection, transportation, and disposal of residential and commercial waste. [23.4] From September 26 to December 15, 1962, the South Gate-Santa Ana contract provided for collection, transportation and disposal of South Gate governmental waste as well. [/¿] From 1962-1967, South Gate contracted with Andrew Hohn to collect, transport, and dispose of residential, commercial, and governmental waste. [23.5] From 1967 to 1984, South Gate contracted with CV Disposal Service to collect, transport, and dispose of residential and governmental waste. [23.6] The Court finds that by making these contracts, South Gate arranged with a transporter for transport for disposal of residential waste within the meaning of CERCLA § 107(a)(3) from 1955-1984, of commercial waste within the meaning of CERCLA § 107(a)(3) from 1955-1967, and of governmental waste "within the meaning of CERCLA § 107(a)(3) from Sept. 26, 1962 to 1984. 13.South Pasadena From 1950 to 1979, South Pasadena contracted with South Pasadena Rubbish Company and South Pasadena Disposal Company to collect, transport, and dispose of residential and commercial waste. [24.1; 24.2] From 1979 to 1984, South Pasadena contracted with Roñara to collect, transport, and dispose of residential, commercial, and governmental waste. [24.4; 24.5; 24.6] Based on these contracts, the Court finds South Pasadena arranged with a transporter for transport for disposal of residential and commercial waste within the meaning of CERCLA § 107(a)(3) from 1950-1984, and of governmental waste within the meaning of CERCLA § 107(a)(3) from 1979-1984. 14.Temple City From 1960 to 1984, Temple City contracted with Community Disposal to collect, transport and dispose of residential, commercial, and governmental waste. [25.1; 25.2; 25.3] Accordingly, the Court finds Temple City arranged with a transporter for transport for disposal of residential, commercial, and governmental waste within the meaning of CERCLA § 107(a)(3) from 1960-1984. b. Licenses Plaintiffs claim the issuance of business licenses by five municipal defendants (Bell, Commerce, Compton, Lynwood, and South Gate) which permitted a waste hauler to conduct business within city limits constituted an “arrangement” subjecting the cities to liability under CERCLA § 107(a)(3). These five defendants claim the licenses they issued were generic licenses no different than those issued to other types of businesses. Plaintiffs claim the licenses issued by these five defendants were not generic business licenses but explicit permits to collect and dispose of refuse. The parties have stipulated that Bell licensed a hauler to collect and dispose of commercial waste [2.33], Commerce licensed a hauler to collect and dispose of commercial waste [5.46], Compton licensed a hauler to engage in the business of rubbish collection within Compton [6.57], Lynwood licensed two haulers to operate refuse collection and disposal businesses in Lynwood [12.21, 12.23], and South Gate licensed three different haulers to collect and dispose of commercial waste [23.57-23.59]. California law requires municipal corporations like defendants “to make adequate provision for solid waste handling ... within their respective jurisdictions.” Cal.Pub.Res. Code § 40002. Municipalities can fulfill this duty by delegating it to private parties through a “nonexclusive franchise.” Id. at § 40059. Plaintiffs argue Bell, Commerce, Compton, Lynwood, and South Gate arranged within the meaning of CERCLA § 107(a)(3) because each had a statutory duty to arrange for disposal of waste, their licensing of private haulers was an approved method for carrying out this duty, and they exercised control over aspects of waste collection and disposal. In particular, plaintiffs argue Bell, Compton, and South Gate extensively controlled disposal companies they licensed. Each of these three defendants contracted with a transporter to collect and dispose of residential waste and licensed that same transporter to collect and dispose of commercial waste. Defendants argue the issuance of a business license does not constitute a contract or agreement by which the city arranges for disposal because a license permits, but does not require, a licensee to conduct the business for which it is licensed. Defendants suggest plaintiffs’ license argument would hold the Department of Motor Vehicles liable as an arranger because it issued vehicle registrations and drivers’ licenses to waste haulers. In support of their argument that they are not liable as arrangers, defendants rely on Hassayampa Steering Comm. v. Arizona, 768 F.Supp. 697 (D.Ariz.1991). In Hassayampa, the plaintiffs alleged the State of Arizona was liable as an “arranger” for the disposal of hazardous substances because it issued manifests which permitted hazardous waste to be deposited at a landfill. The court refused to impose liability, holding that: the State’s issuance of a permit does not constitute an agreement with the permit-tee. The manifest merely allowed the waste generator or transporter to deposit the waste at [the site] and did not require such disposal, even after the manifest was approved. 768 F.Supp. at 700. Hassayampa, however, is distinguishable from this case. The Hassayampa court rested it decision on the issue of “owned or possessed,” not the arranger issue. Indeed, the Hassayampa court noted that plaintiffs’ arguments “may establish the State’s activities constituted ‘arranging’ for disposal.” Id. Defendant cities’ DMV licensing argument is without merit. By issuing drivers’ licenses and vehicle registrations, the DMV does not arrange for transport for disposal but instead only permits garbage trucks to be driven. While DMV has a duty to register such vehicles, it does not have a duty to arrange for garbage disposal such as defendant cities have. Thus, DMVs licensing cannot amount to an arrangement for disposal. Based on the stipulated facts discussed below, the Court finds defendants Bell, Commerce, Compton, Lynwood, and South Gate arranged with a transporter for transport for disposal within the meaning of CERCLA § 107(a)(3) by issuing business licenses to private haulers. Given these defendants’ statutory and common law duty to assure the pick-up and disposal of residential trash, defendants’ licensing of private haulers amounted to an arrangement. 1. Bell In 1977 and in 1982, Bell licensed System Disposal to collect and dispose of commercial waste. The Court finds Bell arranged with a transporter for transport for disposal of commercial waste within the meaning of CERCLA § 107(a)(3) in 1977 and 1982. 2. Commerce In 1983 and 1984, Commerce licensed Athens Disposal to collect and dispose of commercial refuse. The Court finds Commerce arranged with a transporter for transport for disposal of commercial waste within the meaning of CERCLA § 107(a)(3) in 1983 and 1984. 3. Compton From 1972 to 1977, Compton licensed Murcole to engage in the business of commercial waste collection within Compton. The Court finds Compton arranged with a transporter for transport for disposal of commercial waste within the meaning of CERCLA § 107(a)(3) from 1972 to 1977. 4. Lynwood From 1963 to 1969, Lynwood issued business licenses to Lynwood Disposal Service to operate a refuse collection and disposal business. In 1962, 1965-1969, 1973-1975, 1977, and 1979-1981, Lynwood licensed System Disposal to operate a refuse collection and disposal business. Lynwood 1’equired its licensees to apply for a special permit, including fingerprinting, a police background check, and approval by the City Council. [Exh. 1758; 1763; 1780] The Court finds Lynwood arranged with a transporter for transport for disposal within the meaning of CERCLA § 107(a)(3) in 1962, 1963-1969, 1973-1975, 1977, and 1979-1981. 5.South Gate South Gate licensed three companies to collect and dispose of commercial waste. From 1967 to 1984, South Gate licensed CV Disposal. From 1964 to 1984, South Gate licensed System Disposal. From 1970 to 1984, South Gate licensed Murcole. Like Lynwood, South Gate had special permitting features for waste haulers. [Exh. 2344; 2345; 2355] Accordingly, the Court finds South Gate arranged with a transporter for transport for disposal from 1967 to 1984. 2. The County Defendants The Athens-Wooderest-Olivita GDD, Belvedere GDD, Firestone GDD, Mesa Heights GDD, and Walnut Park GDD each entered contracts with private disposal companies to collect, transport, and dispose of refuse. For the same reasons outlined above, the Court finds each GDD arranged for transport for disposal of waste within the meaning of CERCLA § 107(a)(3). With respect to the County itself, however, the issue presented is somewhat different. However, the Court finds it' too arranged for disposal. a.Athens-Woodcresh-Olivita GDD Stipulated facts 26.1 to 26.6 demonstrate the Athens-Wooderest-Olivita GDD arranged with a transporter for transport for disposal of residential, commercial, and curbside public waste from 1963 to 1984. Accordingly, the Court finds the Athens-Wood-crest-Olivita GDD arranged with a transporter for transport for disposal of residential commercial, and curbside public waste within the meaning of CERCLA § 107(a)(3) from 1963 to 1984. b. Belvedere GDD Stipulated facts 27.1 to 27.7 demonstrate the Belvedere GDD arranged with a transporter for transport for disposal of residential and commercial waste from 1953 to 1983. Stipulated facts 27.9 to 27.10 demonstrate the Belvedere GDD arranged with a transporter for transport for disposal of curbside government waste from July 1, 1964 to June 30, 1983. Accordingly, the Court finds the Belvedere GDD arranged with a transporter for transport for disposal of residential and commercial waste within the meaning of CERCLA § 107(a)(3) from 1953 to 1983, and of curbside governmental waste within the meaning of CERCLA § 107(a)(3) from July 1, 1964 to June 30, 1983. c. Firestone GDD Stipulated facts 28.1 to 28.4 reveal the Firestone GDD arranged with a transporter for transport for disposal of residential, commercial, and curbside government waste from 1971 to 1984. Accordingly, the Court finds the Firestone GDD arranged with a transporter for transport for disposal of residential, commercial, and curbside governmental waste within the meaning of CERCLA § 107(a)(3) from 1971 to 1984. d.Mesa Heights GDD Stipulated facts 29.1 to 29.4 reveal the Mesa Heights GDD arranged with a transporter for transport for disposal of residential, commercial, and curbside governmental waste from 1969 to 1974. Accordingly, the Court finds the Mesa Heights GDD arranged with a transporter for transport for disposal of residential, commercial, and curbside governmental waste within the meaning of CERCLA § 107(a)(3) from 1969 to 1974. e.Walnut Park GDD Stipulated facts 30.1 to 30.13 reveal the Walnut Park GDD arranged with transporters for the transport for disposal of residential, commercial, and curbside governmental waste from 1964 to 1983. Accordingly, the Court finds the Walnut Park GDD arranged with a transporter for transport for disposal of residential, commercial, and curbside governmental waste within the meaning of CERCLA § 107(a)(3) between 1964 and 1983. f.West Hollywood-Sherman GDD Stipulated facts 31.1 to 31.4 demonstrate that the West Hollywood-Sherman GDD arranged with a transporter for transport for disposal of residential, commercial, and curbside public waste from July 1953 through December 1957 and July 1964 through June 1984. Accordingly, the Court finds that the West Hollywood-Sherman GDD arranged with a transporter for transport for disposal of residential, commercial, and curbside public waste within the meaning of CERCLA § 107(a)(3) from July 1953 through December 1957 and July 1964 through June 1984. g.County of Los Angeles Plaintiffs argue the County itself is liable for two types of arrangements. First, the County arranged to haul some waste generated by County facilities in County-owned trucks. Second, plaintiffs claim the County is liable for all waste collected under the GDDs’ contracts because the County also acted as an arranger with respect to that waste. i. Waste Hauled in County Owned Trucks From 1958 until 1981, the County disposed of some of its governmental waste by transporting that waste to disposal sites in County vehicles. [32.5] By transporting that waste in County vehicles, the County arranged for disposal of its governmental waste. [32.6] Accordingly, the Court finds the County arranged for transport for disposal of its governmental waste from 1958 through 1981 within the meaning of CERCLA § 107(a)(3) by transporting that waste in County-owned vehicles. ii. Waste Collected Under GDD Contracts Plaintiffs claim the County acted as an arranger with respect to waste collected under the GDDs’ contracts because the County created, controlled, and operated every aspect of the GDDs. The County responds that it is an entity separate from the GDDs and is thus not liable for the conduct of the GDDs. The County argues plaintiffs seek to impose some version of corporate alter ego liability on it for the acts of its GDDs. The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors created the GDDs to organize garbage collection services and to provide for payment of those services. [32.49, 32.50] The Board of Supervisors governed the GDDs [32.51], and County employees had daily responsibility for operation of the GDDs [32.-60]. The GDDs had no offices [32.61], owned no property [32.62], had no employees [32.-59], and had no physical existence separate from the County [32.63]. Plaintiffs claim the County prepared for and brought about the transport and disposal of waste by drafting, approving, executing, monitoring, and enforcing the contracts between the GDDs and the private disposal companies. The County claims the GDDs are entities separate from the County. The GDDs have their own budgets and pay for their expenses by charging district residents a user fee. See generally Cal.Pub.Res.Code §§ 49000 et seq. The County argues that transferring the GDDs’ potential liability to it would impose an inequitable burden on County residents located outside the boundaries of the GDDs. The Court finds the County did arrange for transport for disposal of waste by creating and controlling the GDDs. By creating the GDDs and taking day to day responsibility for their operation, the County itself arranged for transport for disposal of residential, commercial, and curbside governmental waste from within the boundaries of the GDDs within the meaning of CERCLA § 107(a)(3). 3. CalTrans Plaintiffs claim CalTrans arranged with a transporter for transport for disposal by contracting with private companies during two freeway projects, the Pomona Freeway (State Route 60) and the Century Freeway (Interstate 105). CalTrans disputes that these contracts amounted to an arrangement for transport for disposal within the meaning of CERCLA § 107(a)(3). a. Willco Site While building the Century Freeway, CalTrans hired Papac & Sons, a private contractor, to excavate and remove material (Willco material) from the Willco site (a former landfill in Lynwood). [33.1] From March 1983 to June 30, 1983, some of the excavated Willco material was deposited at the Oil site by Papac & Sons. [33.4] Plaintiffs argue CalTrans arranged with a transporter for transport for disposal by contracting with Papac & Sons to excavate and remove the Willco material. CERCLA § 101(29) equates the CERCLA definition of “disposal” with that of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, namely: the discharge, deposit, injection, dumping, spilling, leaking, or placing of any solid waste or hazardous waste into or on any land or water. 42 U.S.C. § 6903(3). Plaintiffs claim Cal-Trans arranged for disposal because it contracted with Papac & Sons to excavate material and then discard it by placing it elsewhere. CalTrans asserts it is not liable as an arranger because its contract with Papac & Sons explicitly provided that any hazardous materials were not to go to a class II landfill such as the Oil site. Under CalTrans’ contract with Papac & Sons, CalTrans had no discretion to decide where the excavated material would be disposed other than requiring that material was to be tested during excavation and was not to go to a class II landfill such as Oil if hazardous. Section 107(a)(3) imposes liability on persons who “arranged for disposal or treatment, or arranged with a transporter for transport for disposal or treatment, of hazardous substances____” CalTrans claims it does not fall within this language because it adhered to its contract by hiring Calscience Research to provide environmental consulting services at the Willco site, including monitoring the excavation being performed by Papac & Sons and characterizing the excavated material as hazardous or non-hazardous. [33.7] Despite the exclusionary language of the contract, the Court finds CalTrans did arrange for disposal of the Willco site material. CalTrans hired a transporter to take the Willco material away, and that material ended up at Oil. If that waste contained hazardous substances, CalTrans cannot escape liability by pointing to a contractual clause stating hazardous waste should not have been taken to Oil. Instead, CalTrans will have to wait until a later phase of this action to rebut plaintiffs’ proffered evidence that the Willco material which went to the Oil site contained hazardous substances. b. Pomona Freeway Right of Way The current day Pomona Freeway traverses the Oil site. In building the freeway, CalTrans contracted with Milburn & Sansone, a private contractor, to construct a portion of the Pomona Freeway between Woods Avenue and Arroyo Drive, which included the right of way. [33.15] Pursuant to this contract, CalTrans or its agents excavated and removed material (the Pomona material) from the right of way. [33.16] Plaintiffs argue CalTrans thus arranged for disposal of the Pomona material. CalTrans argues it did not “arrange” for disposal of the Pomona material because there is no evidence that any of the material excavated during this grading was transported and placed at the Oil site. Plaintiffs have not provided enough evidence in this first phase for the Court to determine whether CalTrans “arranged” with regard to any excavated Pomona Freeway right of way material. Plaintiffs need to show with greater factual specificity what Milburn & Sansone was hired to do and what they in fact did. Pursuant to the stipulation between the parties, plaintiffs can (if they desire) present disputed evidence on this issue before the Court makes its final ruling on this issue. C. Owned or Possessed Issues CERCLA § 107(a)(3) provides that persons who have “arranged for disposal ..., or arranged with a transporter for transport for disposal” are liable for those hazardous substances they “owned or possessed.” The Court has previously held arranger liability under § 107(a)(3) requires that defendants own or possess waste in addition to arranging with a transporter for transport for disposal. Sept. Order at 44. Ownership or possession under § 107(a)(3) can be either actual or constructive. Id. 1. The Municipal Defendants a. Waste Actually Owned or Possessed i. Governmental Waste With regard to the “owned or possessed” issue, all defendant cities have stipulated that they arranged with a transporter for transport for disposal of their governmental waste. These municipal defendants admit they owned and possessed their governmental waste. Thus, each defendant city “owned or possessed” the governmental waste for which it arranged for transport for disposal within the meaning of CERCLA § 107(a)(3). ii. Residential and Commercial Waste In their trial brief, plaintiffs further argued defendant cities actually owned or possessed (as opposed to constructively owned or possessed) the residential and commercial waste for which they arranged transport because (1) individual citizens and businesses abandoned their waste on city property by placing it out for collection, (2) defendants had complete authority to decide what happened to the waste once it was set out for collection, and (3) the ownership interest of defendant cities in the refuse was acknowledged by both the cities and their disposal companies. At oral argument, plaintiffs abandoned this argument. However, plaintiffs still assert these facts tend to show constructive ownership or possession of residential and commercial waste. Because plaintiffs no longer assert defendant cities’ actually owned or possessed residential and commercial waste, the Court need not address plaintiffs’ actual ownership or possession argument further. b. Constructive Ownership or Possession Plaintiffs contend that defendant cities constructively owned or possessed residential and commercial waste. In its prior order, the Court stated: the broad remedial objectives of CERCLA counsel in favor of holding that this requirement may be satisfied by a showing of constructive, rather than actual, ownership or possession. Constructive ownership or possession will be established by a demonstration of the existence of defendants’ exercise of control over the waste. Sept. Order, at 44. Plaintiffs argue defendants constructively owned or possessed residential and commercial waste by controlling aspects of waste handling and disposal from the point after waste was generated by a resident or business to the point it was hauled away by the transporter. Courts have developed two different tests to judge whether a defendant constructively owns or possesses waste within the meaning of CERCLA § 107(a)(3). The first focuses on a defendant’s authority to control waste. The second examines whether defendant had a sufficient nexus with the actual owner or possessor to satisfy § 107(a)(3)’s “owned or possessed” requirement. The Court agrees with the parties that these two tests are essentially different formulations of the same legal standard. However, the Court’s discussion is divided into “control” and “nexus” sections to reflect the different formulations developed by these two strands of case law. i. The Control Test 1. Exercise, of Control or Authority to Control? In its prior order, the Court held constructive ownership or possession “will be established by a demonstration of the existence of defendants’ exercise of control over the waste.” Sept. Order at 44. Plaintiffs attempt to loosen this test by arguing authority to control, rather that the existence of actual control, can satisfy the “owned or possessed” requirement. California law “authorize^] and require[s] local agencies, as subdivisions of the state, to make adequate provision for solid waste handling.” Cal.Pub.Res.Code § 40002. While state statutes authorizing and requiring waste collection only date back to 1980, California state courts have long held local political subdivisions (such as defendant cities) have a duty to collect waste or cause it to be