U.S. v. Texas Pipe Line Co., 78-1398
| Decision Date | 10 January 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 78-1398,78-1398 |
| Citation | 611 F.2d 345 |
| Parties | , 52 A.L.R.Fed. 783, 10 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,184 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. The TEXAS PIPE LINE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
Jack M. Short, Tulsa, Okl., for defendant-appellant.
John R. Osgood, Asst. U. S. Atty., Muskogee, Okl. (Julian K. Fite, U. S. Atty., Muskogee, Okl., with him on the brief), for plaintiff-appellee.
Before BARRETT, McKAY and LOGAN, Circuit Judges.
This is an appeal from summary judgment in favor of the United States in its action against The Texas Pipe Line Company (the Company) to collect a $2,500 civil penalty assessed by the United States Coast Guard under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA or the Act), 33 U.S.C. § 1251, Et seq. The issues on appeal are whether the discharge of oil involved was into "navigable waters" within the meaning of the FWPCA, and if so, whether the penalty was excessive.
The facts are undisputed. The Company's pipeline running through a farm in Atoka County, Oklahoma, was struck by a bulldozer operator working for the farmer-owner of the land. Before the flow could be shut off, approximately 600 barrels of oil escaped. The oil spilled into an unnamed tributary of Caney Creek, which discharges into Clear Boggy Creek, itself a tributary of the Red River. The record shows there was a small flow of water in the unnamed tributary at the time of the spill; there is no evidence that the other streams were or were not flowing. The Company took prompt action both to report the spill and to clean it up, utilizing a temporary dam it built on the unnamed tributary. Some 510 barrels of the oil were recovered. The Company was not at fault in any way; for its speedy action and cooperation the Company was commended by Coast Guard officials charged with responsibility under the FWPCA. Nonetheless, a $2,500 civil penalty was assessed against the Company under 33 U.S.C. § 1321(b)(6).
The Company contends that since the spill was confined to the unnamed tributary, no "navigable waters" within the meaning of the FWPCA were involved. See 33 U.S.C. § 1362(7). But we held in United States v. Earth Sciences, Inc., 599 F.2d 368 (10th Cir. 1979), that Congress did not in this Act use the term "navigable waters" in the traditional sense; Congress intended to extend the coverage of the Act as far as permissible under the Commerce Clause. We there held the Act applied to discharges into a stream entirely confined to one county wherein two dams collected all of the stream flow. While there is nothing in this record to show the effect on interstate commerce of this unnamed tributary, without question it is within the intended coverage of the FWPCA. It was flowing a small amount of water at the time of the spill. Whether or not the flow continued into the Red River at that time, it obviously would during significant rainfall. The intent of the Act was to cover all tributaries to waters like the Red River. See United States v. Ashland Oil & Transp. Co., 504 F.2d 1317 (6th Cir. 1974). It makes no difference that a stream was or was not at the time of the spill discharging water continuously into a river navigable in the traditional sense.
With respect to the penalty assessed, we sympathize with the Company. Despite its lack of fault and prompt actions to clean up the spill, it was assessed a $2,500 civil penalty. Still we must uphold the penalty.
It is admitted the statute does not require fault to support the penalty. See Ward v. Coleman, 598 F.2d 1187, 1191 (10th Cir.), Cert. granted, --- U.S. ----, 100 S.Ct. 291, 62 L.Ed.2d 305 (1979). The assessments are deposited in a revolving fund to pay the costs of administering the Act and to finance the cleanup of oil spills when the costs are not otherwise recoverable. Id.; 33 U.S.C. § 1321(k). In determining the amount of the penalty the officials are to consider "the size of the business of the owner or operator charged, the effect on the owner or operator's ability to continue in business, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Williams Pipe Line Co. v. Bayer Corp.
...could not also be source). "Discharges" include spilling and leaking. 33 U.S.C. § 1321(2); see. e.g.. United States v. Texas Pipe Line Co., 611 F.2d 345, 347 (10th Cir.1979) (holding spill from oil pipeline into waters of unnamed tributary violated CWA). "Discharge," however, does not inclu......
-
North Carolina Growers Ass'n v. Holly Ridge Assoc., 7:01-CV-36-BO(3).
...environmental damage and is thus a "water of the United States" under the Act. Id. at 1342 (quoting United States v. Texas Pipe Line Co., 611 F.2d 345, 347 (10th Cir.1979)). See also Headwaters, Inc. v. Talent Irrigation Dist., 243 F.3d 526, 534 (9th Cir.2001) (quoting Eidson); Quivira Mini......
-
Aiello v. Town of Brookhaven
...tributary comes under the CWA), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 899, 118 S.Ct. 248, 139 L.Ed.2d 177 (1997); United States v. Texas Pipe Line Co., 611 F.2d 345, 347 (10th Cir.1979) (small unnamed tributary comes under the CWA); United States v. Ashland Oil & Transp. Co., 504 F.2d 1317, 1325 (6th Cir.......
-
U.S. v. Healy Tibbitts Const. Co., 82-4568
...is neither arbitrary nor capricious. United States v. Texas Pipe Line Co., 528 F.Supp. 728, 731-33 (E.D.Okla.1978), aff'd, 611 F.2d 345 (10th Cir.1979); United States v. Slade, Inc., 447 F.Supp. 638, 645-46 (E.D.Tex.1978); Puerto Rico v. S.S. Zoe Colocotroni, 456 F.Supp. 1327, 1350 (D.P.R.1......
-
Plain Meaning, Precedent, and Metaphysics: Lessons in Statutory Interpretation From Analyzing the Elements of the Clean Water Act Offense
...Cl. 1981) 3 113. Sierra Club v. Abston Constr. Co., 620 F.2d 41, 10 ELR 20552 (5th Cir. 1980) 4 114. United States v. Texas Pipe Line Co., 611 F.2d 345, 10 ELR 20184 (5th Cir. 1980) 3 115. United States v. Byrd, 609 F.2d 1204, 9 ELR 20757 (7th Cir. 1979) 3 116. United States v. Earth Sci., ......
-
Navigable Waters
...63. Compare United States v. Robinson, 505 F.3d 1208 (11th Cir. 2007), decided after Rapanos , with United States v. Texas Pipe Line Co., 611 F.2d 345, 10 ELR 20184 (10th Cir. 1979); United States v. Ashland Oil & Transp. Co., F.2d 1317, 4 ELR 20784 (6th Cir. 1974); and Sun Enters., Inc. v.......
-
CHAPTER 3 Waters of the United States (How Many Drops Does It Take)
...tributary of a navigable-in-fact river is subject to jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act). [77] 599 F.2d at 373. [78] Id. at 375. [79] 611 F.2d 345, 347 (10th Cir. 1979). [80] 765 F.2d 126, 130 (10th Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1055 (1986). [81] Id. at 130. [82] 106 S. Ct. 455. [8......
-
Table A: Decisions Interpreting the Elements of the Water Pollution Offense
...Cl. 1981) 113. Sierra Club v. Abston Constr. Co., 620 F.2d 41, 10 ELR 20552 (5th Cir. 1980) 114. United States v. Texas Pipe Line Co., 611 F.2d 345, 10 ELR 20184 (5th Cir. 1980) 115. United States v. Byrd, 609 F.2d 1204, 9 ELR 20757 (7th Cir. 1979) 116. United States v. Earth Sci., Inc., 59......