廢棄物清理法第七一條第一項規定：「不依規定清除、處理之廢棄物，直轄市、縣（市）主管機關或執行機關得命事業、受託清除處理廢棄物者、仲介非法清除處理廢棄物者、容許或因重大過失致廢棄物遭非法棄置於其土地之土地所有人、管理人或使用人，限期清除處理。屆期不為清除處理時，直轄市、縣（市）主管機關或執行機關得代為清除、處理，並向其求償清理、改善及衍生之必要費用。屆期未清償者，移送強制執行；直轄市、縣（市）主管機關或執行機關得免提供擔保向行政法院聲請假扣押、假處分。」第三項規定：「第一項必要費用之求償權，優於一切債權及抵押權。」土壤及地下水污染整治法第四九條規定：「依第四十三條、第四十四條規定應繳納之費用，優先於一切債權及抵押權。」水污染防治法第七一條第一項規定：「地面水體發生污染事件，主管機關得命污染行為人限期清除處理，屆期不為清除處理時，主管機關得代為清除處理，並向其求償清理、改善及衍生之必要費用。屆期未清償者，移送強制執行。」第三項規定：「第一項必要費用之求償權，優於一切債權及抵押權。」依據上開規定，該等費用均優先於一切債權及抵押權，其他債權人與抵押權人的受償次序劣後，其法理依據何在、如何妥適地解釋適用，亟待研究。本文參考美國全面性環境應變補償及責任法與相關文獻探討之。

The first paragraph of Article 71 of Waste Disposal Act provides, “Where waste clearance and disposal conducted in noncompliance with the regulation, the RAML or RAML or the Implementing Agencies may order the enterprise, commissioned waste clearance and disposal organization, agent for illegal waste clearance and disposal organization, land owner, manager or user who allows illegal dumping of waste or serious misconduct that leads to illegal dumping of waste on its land to clear and dispose of the waste in specific time period. The RAML or RAML or the Implementing Agencies may clear and dispose of the waste for them when no clearance or disposal is done within the specified time period and request for compensation for the clearance, improvement and necessary fees sustained from this action. Failure to effect the payment before expiration date, compulsory enforcement shall be imposed. The RAML or RAML or the Implementing Agencies may apply to the administrative court for probational lien or probational attachment without providing collateral.” The third paragraph provides, “The RAML or RAML or the Implementing Agencies may authorize a suitable publicly or privately owned waste clearance and disposal organization when clearing and disposing of the waste prescribed in Paragraph 1.” Article 49 of Soil and Groundwater Pollution Remediation Act provides, “The payment of fees pursuant to Paragraphs 43 and 44 shall
take precedence over all creditor rights and collateral rights.” The first paragraph of Article 71 of Water Pollution Control Act provides, “The competent authority may order the polluter to perform clearance and disposal within a limited period for the occurrence of a pollution incident on a surface water body; when the clearance and disposal is not
performed by the deadline, the competent authority may perform clearance and disposal in place of the polluter and seek compensation from the polluter for necessary clearance and disposal, improvement and derivative expenses.” The third paragraph provides, “The right to seek compensation for necessary expenses in Paragraph 1 shall take precedence over all creditor rights and collateral rights.” The payment of fees pursuant to the provisions above shall take precedence over all creditor rights and collateral rights. Other creditors and mortgagees are subordinated. It is
necessary to study the jurisprudence and the way to explain properly. This study explores the issues by reference to the CERCLA.