MERLO’s liability scheme cannot be so easily resolved, however. Here, the Insurers argue that MERLO conflicts "with CERCLA and HSAA because “CERCLA and HSAA allow any PRP that has incurred response costs to seek contribution from any other PRP,” while under MERLO, Lodi cannot be sued for contribution. This conflict preemption argument is rooted in the Insurers’ assumption that Lodi is a PRP. To date, however, Lodi has not been administratively adjudged a PRP by either the federal EPA or California’s DTSC. Nor has a court adjudged Lodi a PRP. Indeed, as discussed above, it is not clear as a matter of law whether a municipality such as Lodi may be considered a PRP solely as a result of operating a municipal sewer system. Compare Lincoln Prop., 823 F.Supp. at 1539-44 (E.D.Cal.1992) (<HOLDING>), with Westfarm Assoc., 66 F.3d at 675-80
holding that a municipal sewer system is liable for the acts of a third party that discharged hazardous waste into the system holding that a municipal sewer system that leaked hazardous waste could rely on a thirdparty defense to avoid liability under cercla recognizing cercla successor liability holding that releases between tortfeasors to avoid liability under cercla are not valid holding that state law determines successor liability under cercla