When the municipality of Clearwater served its cost recovery notice on the property owners in early 2022, the invoice for fire remediation services exceeded what anyone had anticipated, and the property owners found themselves holding a bill they believed others should pay. The developer who had subdivided the rural lots and sold them with assurances of potable water access denied any responsibility, pointing to the water well drilling contractor as the party who had physically penetrated the subsurface and released the gas. The drilling contractor, operating the 2007 heavy-duty truck-mounted unit that had bored to 312 feet depth in December 2021, insisted the gas pocket was unforeseeable and that every regulatory protocol had been followed to the letter. Meanwhile, the emergency responders who had conducted the 3-day industrial well control and cementing response had done so under statutory authority, and the municipality asserted its right to recover those costs from the registered landowner regardless of who was ultimately at fault. This collision of interests — property owners seeking indemnity from commercial actors, those actors deflecting blame onto one another, and a municipality enforcing its statutory remedies against the most readily identifiable debtor — illustrates how apportionment questions arise even before a court assigns percentages of fault.