Law360, New York (August 19, 2014, 10:26 AM EDT) -- The Ninth Circuit's recent decision in Arizona v. Tucson rebuked a district court's rubber-stamp approval of several consent decrees under the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act. The district court failed to adequately scrutinize the decrees because it did not compare the proportion of total projected costs to be paid by the settling parties with the proportion of liability attributable to them. The Ninth Circuit further found that where a state, as opposed to the federal government, is a party to a proposed CERCLA consent decree, the state will not be afforded the same degree of deference as would the federal government. This decision does not change the legal standards for approval of CERCLA consent decrees, but it does suggest that courts will be taking a closer view of even de minimis settlements, and approval orders will more specifically identify how the court evaluated and applied the standards. In addition, it appears that state agencies will not be granted the same level of deference as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in the consent decree approval process....