U.S. v. Chevron Pipe Line Co.

Decision Date28 June 2006
Docket NumberCivil Action No. 5:05-CV-293-C ECF.
Citation437 F.Supp.2d 605
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. CHEVRON PIPE LINE COMPANY, Defendant.
CourtU.S. District Court — Northern District of Texas

Scott E. Stewart, U.S. Department of Justice, Environmental Enforcement Section, Washington, DC, E. Scott Frost, U.S. Attorney's Office, Lubbock, TX, for Plaintiff.

Richard P. Hogan, Jr., Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, Houston, TX, for Defendant.

ORDER

CUMMINGS, District Judge.

On this date, the Court considered the Motion for Summary Judgment, filed March 21, 2006, by Defendant, Chevron Pipe Line Company ("Chevron"). Plaintiff, the United States of America, filed its Response in Opposition on April 10, 2006. The Court further considered the parties' Briefs and Appendixes in support of their arguments.

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The United States filed its Complaint on December 30, 2005. Chevron filed its Answer on February 23, 2006. On March 9, 2006, the United States filed a Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending United States Supreme Court Ruling in Rapanos and Carabell. Chevron filed its Response to the Motion to Stay on March 21, 2006. Chevron also filed the pending Motion for Summary Judgment on March 21, 2006. On April 7, 2006, the Court ruled on the United States' Motion to Stay by denying said Motion.1 The United States then filed its Response to the pending Motion for Summary Judgment on April 10, 2006. On May 16, 2006, Chevron filed a Notice of Traditional Filing of Appendix 1.B (USGS Map) to Brief in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment.

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Chevron operated a six-inch crude oil gathering pipeline in the Kelly-Snyder oil field (near Snyder, Texas). Sometime on or before August 24, 2000, the pipeline failed from alleged external corrosion. Crude oil was discharged from the pipeline. Chevron admits that approximately 3000 barrels of crude oil were discharged in this spill (approximately 126,000 gallons). The oil migrated into a unnamed channel/tributary where it ponded and stained the soil for a distance of approximately 100 feet up gradient and approximately 500 feet down gradient from the spill site.

On August 24, 2000, Chevron began its remedial response. Chevron performed substantial cleanup work in the areas of spill including soil excavation, groundwater remediation, and other activities. Chevron removed oil on the surface which had ponded and soil was excavated where the oil had percolated into the ground. The response included efforts in the initial unnamed channel/tributary into which the oil had run, as well as in the bed of Ennis Creek where some of the subsurface oil had migrated. By early October 2000, Chevron had removed the crude oil-stained and saturated bank of the unnamed channel/tributary in the area near the pipeline rupture using a series of excavations done by Chevron contractors.

Chevron contends that the beds of the unnamed channel/tributary and of Ennis Creek contained no flowing surface water during August, September, and early October 2000. The United States appears to allege that there might have been some pooled water present in either the unnamed channel/tributary or Ennis Creek at its confluence with the unnamed channel/tributary on August 25, 2000.2 The parties do not dispute that no measurable rainfall occurred during August or September 2000 and the first measurable rainfall admitted to by Chevron occurred on October 12, 2000. The unnamed channel/tributary into which the oil spilled is an "intermittent" stream—usually dry in the absence of a significant rainfall event.3 Likewise, Ennis Creek, also characterized as intermittent by the United States Geological Survey ("USGS") topographical map, only flows surface water during or shortly after a significant rainfall event. The unnamed channel/tributary joins Ennis Creek approximately 500 feet from the location of the spill. Ennis Creek then extends 17.5 river miles to its confluence with Rough Creek. The USGS topographical and hydrological maps also depict Rough Creek as "intermittent," meaning that it generally only flows after receiving water from rainfall runoff. Rough Creek extends 23.8 river miles to its confluence with the Double Mountain Fork of the Brazos River.4 The Double Mountain Fork of the Brazos is alleged to flow approximately 82.2 river miles to its confluence with the Brazos River. The United States asserts that "[d]uring times of flow, there is an unbroken surface water tributary connection from the unnamed tributary creek [channel] at the site of the [Chevron pipeline] spill through Ennis Creek, Rough Creek, to the Double Mountain Fork of the Brazos River and into the Brazos River." (PI.Br.11) (emphasis added).

Chevron alleges that "there was no flow in either the channel or Ennis Creek between the time of the spill and the conclusion of remediation efforts" and that "[a]t no time did oil from the spill contact any water flowing in either the dry channel or Ennis Creek." (Def.Br.4, 10.) However, the United States argues that reports written by Chevron's contractor document two extensive areas of oil-contaminated soil which still remained after October 12, 2000 (the date of rainfall in the area and the first date Chevron admits there was flow in the channel). The United States also contends that Texas Railroad Commission Field Inspection Reports dated in November and December of 2000 state that there was "[s]till oily soil present in the draw . . . [and a] good deal of work left to be done," (Pl.App.61), and that Chevron was not in compliance with regard to oil spill clean-up and water protection at the site. (Id. at 62.)

Chevron did not request certification from the Texas Railroad Commission that no further cleanup work was required until May 17, 2005. The Railroad Commission responded that additional samples from the area were required to verify that cleanup was complete. The United States argues that as of the date its Response was filed, the Railroad Commission has not yet certified that the cleanup is complete.

It appears that this lawsuit was not filed in an effort to force Chevron to remediate the spill—as it is clear that Chevron has already begun, if not completed, that task. Rather, it appears that the United States has sought to impose civil fines upon Chevron arising from the spill. Chevron argues that fines cannot be imposed because jurisdiction under the relevant provisions allowing said fines is lacking absent "navigable waters."

III. STANDARD5

Summary judgment is appropriate only if "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any," when viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, "show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986) (internal quotations omitted). A dispute about a material fact is "genuine" if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the non-moving party. Id. at 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505. An actual controversy of fact exists only where both parties have submitted evidence of contradictory facts. Olabisiomotosho v. City of Houston, 185 F.3d 521, 525 (5th Cir.1999). The contradictory facts must be relevant, because disputed fact issues which are irrelevant and unnecessary will not be considered by the court when ruling on a summary judgment. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505. In making its determination, the court must draw all justifiable inferences in favor of the non-moving party. Id. at 255, 106 S.Ct. 2505 (emphasis added).

Once the moving party has initially shown "that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party's case," Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986), the non-movant must come forward, after adequate time for discovery, with significant probative evidence showing a triable issue of fact. FED.R.Civ.P. 56(e); State Farm Life Ins. Co. v. Gutterman, 896 F.2d 116, 118 (5th Cir.1990). Conclusory allegations and denials, speculation, improbable inferences, unsubstantiated assertions, and legalistic argumentation are not adequate substitutes for specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428 (5th Cir.1996) (en banc); SEC v. Recile, 10 F.3d 1093, 1097 (5th Cir.1993).

To defeat a properly supported motion for summary judgment, the non-movant must present more than a mere scintilla of evidence. See Anderson, 477 U.S. at 251, 106 S.Ct. 2505. Rather, the non-movant must present sufficient evidence upon which a jury could reasonably find in the non-movant's favor. Id. Absent such a showing, a properly supported motion for summary judgment should be granted. See Eversley v. MBank Dallas, 843 F.2d 172, 173-74 (5th Cir.1988); Resolution Trust Corp. v. Starkey, 41 F.3d 1018, 1022-23 (5th Cir.1995). If the nonmoving party fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to its case and on which it will bear the burden of proof at trial, summary judgment must be granted. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322-23, 106 S.Ct. 2548.

If no factual showing is made in opposition to a motion for summary judgment, the district court is not required to search the record sua sponte for some genuine issue of material fact. In reviewing the summary judgment evidence, "Rule 56 does not impose upon this Court a duty to sift through the record in search of evidence to support a party's opposition to summary judgment." Ragas v. Tenn. Gas Pipeline Co., 136 F.3d 455, 458 (5th Cir. 1998). Rather, the Court need rely only on those portions of the submitted documents to which the nonmoving party directs the Court's attention. Id.; see also Forsyth v. Barr, 19 F.3d 1527, 1536-37 (5th Cir.1994) (finding that two volumes...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • U.S. v. Cundiff, 05-5469.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • February 4, 2009
    ...them and instead opted for earlier circuit precedent which it felt was clearer and more readily applied. United States v. Chevron Pipe Line Co., 437 F.Supp.2d 605, 613 (N.D.Tex.2006). The Courts of Appeals have not fared much better. The Ninth Circuit has stated that Justice Kennedy's test ......
  • U.S. v. Bailey, 05-CV-2245 (PJS/RLE).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. United States District Court of Minnesota
    • September 25, 2007
    ...Simsbury-Avon Preservation Soc., LLC v. Metacon Gun Club, Inc., 472 F.Supp.2d 219, 226-27 (D.Conn.2007); United States v. Chevron Pipe Line Co., 437 F.Supp.2d 605, 613 (N.D.Tex.2006).4 The most cogent defense of the latter approach is the First Circuit's opinion in Johnson, which describes ......
  • U.S. v. Johnson, 05-1444.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (1st Circuit)
    • October 31, 2006
    ...Stevens's approach. Evans at *19. The Northern District of Texas used a sharply contrasting approach in United States v. Chevron Pipe Line Co., 437 F.Supp.2d 605 (N.D.Tex.2006), determining that because of the lack of a clear legal standard in Rapanos, it would instead rely on precedent wit......
  • State v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency, Civil Action No. 3:15-CV-00162
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. Southern District of Texas
    • May 28, 2019
    ...and the Kennedy opinion in Rapanos as the controlling test for determining what is a navigable water); United States v. Chevron Pipe Line Co. , 437 F. Supp. 2d 605, 613 (N.D. Tex. 2006) (applying pre- Rapanos Circuit precedent because it could not discern clear direction from Rapanos ).Agai......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
16 books & journal articles
  • What Wetlands Are Regulated? Jurisdiction of the §404 Program
    • United States
    • Wetlands Deskbook Part I. Clean Water Act §404 Programs
    • November 11, 2009
    ...Healdsburg decision, Circuit held that seasonally intermittent tributary was jurisdictional. United States v. Chevron Pipe Line Co., 437 F. Supp. 2d 605 (N.D. Tex. 2006) No jurisdiction under the Oil Pollution Act, which uses the same def‌inition of “navigable waters” as the CWA, where an o......
  • What Wetlands Are Regulated? Jurisdiction of the §404 Program
    • United States
    • Environmental Law Reporter No. 40-4, April 2010
    • April 1, 2010
    ...of Healdsburg decision, Circuit held that seasonally intermittent tributary was jurisdictional United States v. Chevron Pipe Line Co., 437 F. Supp. 2d 605 (N.D. Tex. 2006) No jurisdiction under the Oil Pollution Act, which uses the same def‌inition of “navigable waters” as the CWA, where an......
  • Plain Meaning, Precedent, and Metaphysics: Lessons in Statutory Interpretation From Analyzing the Elements of the Clean Water Act Offense
    • United States
    • Environmental Law Reporter No. 46-4, April 2016
    • April 1, 2016
    ...1 164. United States v. Marion L. Kincaid Trust, 3 F. Supp. 2d 680 (E.D. Mich. 2006) 3 165. United States v. Chevron Pipe Line Co., 437 F. Supp. 2d 605, 36 ELR 20131 (N.D. Tex. 2006) 3 166. Tungett v. Papierski, 2006 WL 51148 (E.D. Tenn. 2006) 2 167. Florida Wildlife Fed’n v. U.S. Army Corp......
  • List of Case Citations
    • United States
    • Wetlands Deskbook Appendices
    • November 11, 2009
    ...F. Supp. 2d 1282 (D. Mont. 2001) ............................................... 25, 31, 35 United States v. Chevron Pipeline Company, 437 F. Supp. 2d 605 (N.D. Tex. 2006)...................... 28, 32 United States v. Ciampitti, 583 F. Supp. 483 (D.N.J. 1984) .....................................
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT