v. Hunt, 475 U.S. 355, 363, 106 S.Ct. 1103, 89 L.Ed.2d 364 (1986)) ("CERCLA is not ... ‘a model of legislative draftsmanship’ "); Uniroyal Chem. Co., 160 F.3d at 246; Artesian Water Co. v. Gov’t of New Castle County, 851 F.2d 643, 648 (3d. Cir.1988) ("Artesian II") ("CERCLA is not a paradigm of clarity or precision. It has been criticized frequently for inartful drafting and numerous ambiguities attributable to its precipitous passage."); United States v. Mottolo, 605 F.Supp. 898, 902 (D.N.H.1985) ("Mottolo II") ("CERCLA has acquired a well-deserved notoriety for vaguely-drafted provisions”). 97 . Pakootas, 452 F.3d at 1081 (internal quotes and ellipses omitted). 98 . See, e.g., Cadillac Fairview/Calif., Inc. v. United States, 41 F.3d 562, 565 (9th Cir.1994); Aceto, 872 F.2d at 1381-82 (<HOLDING>); NEPACCO, 810 F.2d at 743 (holding that
holding authority to control limits duty to control holding that ownership or possession or actual control is needed recognizing that enhancement requires control over a participant in the scheme not only control over the scheme itself holding that cerclas statutory scheme makes authority to control handling and disposal critical but not squarely addressing the ownership or possession requirement issue holding that the circuit courts statutory power in a divorce suit did not inherently extend to the disposal of the personal property of a party