Indemnification

[dickboyd@aol.com]

-----------------------------------------------------------
Give Your Team Access to Their PCs from Anywhere. Increase 
productivity with a secure remote-access solution from 
GoToMyPC Pro. Stay in touch with your office. FREE TRIAL:
http://click.topica.com/caaciqXaVxieSa8wsBba/ExpertCity
-----------------------------------------------------------

This is regarding the responsibility (liability) for proper use of formerly 
used defense sites.

At a recent former Camp Beale RAB, the Army Corps of Engineers attorney, 
Allen Curlee, did an excellent job of explaining his duties. Things he could do 
and things he could not do as an attorney. Responsibilities to his client, for 
instance. And prohibitions against giving legal advice to those not his 
clients.

After this briefing, I have more questions than before the briefing.

BACKGROUND: General Services Administration normally acts as the agent for 
the Federal Government in disposing of property. GSA follows a set process and 
uses a defined procedure. The property is "as is", "where is" and there are 
clauses to "save harmless" the federal government if the property is used as 
described. The intent is to limit federal liability. If the property is not used 
as described, the new owner assumes responsibility. In a sense, there is a 
cloud on the title for unrestricted use. Title searches, as used in the Real 
Estate Industry might not catch these restrictions. Buyer beware.

My understanding is that the federal government remains responsible for 
cleaning up any found ordinance, but is not responsible for conducting searches 
beyond some bare minimum consistent with intended use. For instance, surface use 
only based on a records search, cleaning visible items and magnetometer 
sweeps.

According to the archives of the Camp Beale study, there was a request in 
1969 to remove the indemnification clause from properties owned by Clay 
Association. Batzell, Nunn & Bode, a law firm from Washington, DC, requested that GSA 
remove the indemnification clause. The response from GSA was non committal. It 
only acknowledged receipt of the request and indicated further response in two 
weeks. (Early 1970.) I could not find a response that indicated the 
indemnification had been removed.

Was the "save harmless" clause ever removed?

If the clause was removed, did the federal government assume additional 
responsibilities?

If the clause was not removed, and the land use has changed, who assumed 
responsibility for damages that might result from any unexploded ordnance? I 
understand that the federal government will remove the unexploded ordnance. But 
what happens if the ordnance explodes? Is the party that changed the terms of use 
now responsible for payment to survivors?

Since Yuba County has approved a development plan for some of the property, 
does that imply that Yuba County has assumed responsibility for damages that 
might ensue if the ordnance were to explode and injure or kill someone?

dickboyd@aol.com

-----------------------------------------------------------
Apply now for a No-Annual-Fee Discover® Platinum Card 
0% Intro APR*, No Annual Fee, Up to 2% Cashback Bonus® 
award* Start Saving Today ? APPLY NOW! It's fast, easy and 
secure. 
http://click.topica.com/caaciqQaVxieSa8wsBbf/Discover Card
-----------------------------------------------------------

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
CPEO: A DECADE OF SUCCESS.  Your generous support will ensure that our 
important work on military and environmental issues will continue.  
Please consider one of our donation options.  Thank you.
http://www.groundspring.org/donate/index.cfm?ID=2086-0|721-0