U.S. v. Coastal States Crude Gathering Co., 80-1533
| Decision Date | 27 April 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 80-1533,80-1533 |
| Citation | 643 F.2d 1125 |
| Parties | , 11 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,438 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. COASTAL STATES CRUDE GATHERING COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant. . Unit A |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
David S. Gamble, Houston, Tex., for defendant-appellant.
J. A. Canales, U.S. Atty., Houston, Tex., James W. Moorman, Asst. Atty. Gen., Anne S. Almy, Martin W. Matzen, Attys., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for plaintiff-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas.
Before INGRAHAM, POLITZ and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Coastal States Crude Gathering Company (Coastal) appeals a summary judgment in favor of the United States enforcing a "civil" penalty in the amount of $5,000 against Coastal pursuant to 33 U.S.C. § 1321(b)(6). We amend the judgment to provide for a penalty of $1,000 and, as amended, affirm.
Finding no genuine issue of material fact, the district court summarized the facts as follows:
Both parties agree that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact in this case. On or about June 7, 1977, approximately 5,200 barrels of gasoline were discharged into Nueces Bay, near Corpus Christi, Texas, from a product pipeline known as the Houston 12-inch pipeline owned and operated by the Defendant. The gasoline escaped from the pipeline through a small "hairline" fracture at a point well outside the navigational channel in Nueces Bay. At the point of the fracture in the pipeline, Nueces Bay was at least four feet deep, and the pipeline was buried at a depth of at least three feet below the bottom of the Bay. The pipeline in question had been installed by the Defendant in accordance with all applicable governmental regulations and standard industry practice.
It seems that the discharge resulted solely from the acts of an unknown third party. Inspection of the pipeline, conducted immediately after the discharge was discovered, revealed that the leak was caused when the pipe was struck by a vessel owned by an unknown third party traveling well outside the navigation channel in Nueces Bay. The vessel struck the pipeline with enough force to penetrate the two inches of concrete in which the pipeline had been encased and to dent and gouge the body of the pipe.
In brief and in oral argument counsel for Coastal forcefully contends that the imposition of a monetary penalty on Coastal for a discharge resulting solely from the acts of an unknown third person violates the Fifth Amendment proscription against the taking of property without due process of law. The district court rejected this contention, upheld the constitutionality of the statute, granted summary judgment to the United States and ordered Coastal to pay a civil penalty of $5,000. We likewise find that the statute is constitutional, both on its face and as applied.
Congress enacted the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (FWPCA) making the following unequivocal declaration of policy in 33 U.S.C. § 1321(b)(1):
The Congress hereby declares that it is the policy of the United States that there should be no discharges of oil or hazardous substances into or upon the navigable waters of the United States, adjoining shorelines, or into or upon the waters of the contiguous zone ....
Section 1321(b)(3) prohibits the "discharge of oil or hazardous substances (i) into or upon the navigable waters of the United States ... in such quantities as may be harmful." Congress prescribed various remedies and penalties, including the civil penalty established by § 1321(b)(6). Under this section, after notice and an opportunity for a hearing, the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating shall assess a civil penalty of up to $5,000 for each violation of § 1321(b)(3) by any owner, operator, or person in charge of an onshore facility, offshore facility or vessel from which oil or a hazardous substance has been discharged. In determining the amount of the civil penalty the section directs the Secretary to consider three factors: "the appropriateness of such penalty to 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 the gravity of the violation."
Section 1321(b)(6) provides no defense to the assessment of the civil penalty; indeed, it establishes an absolute liability standard which obviates the need for a finding of fault. By way of contrast, one of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Reyes v. N. Tex. Tollway Auth.
...plaintiffs have defaulted on their debt and NTTA is trying to collect the underlying debt. See United States v. Coastal States Crude Gathering Company , 643 F.2d 1125, 1128 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 454 U.S. 835, 102 S.Ct. 136, 70 L.Ed.2d 114 (1981) (denying a due process violation where t......
-
In re Oil Spill by the Oil RIG "Deepwater Horizon" in teh Gulf of Mexico, on April 20, 2010
...fault, the penalty does not act only as punishment but serves the ends of civil regulation.”); cf. United States v. Coastal States Crude Gathering Co., 643 F.2d 1125, 1128 (5th Cir.1981) (“The purpose of [CWA Section 311] is to achieve the result of clean water as well as deter conduct caus......
-
Laudermilk v. Governor Kirk Fordice, Civil Action No. 1:95cv161-D-D (N.D. Miss. 4/__/2001)
...of such mandatory schemes do not violate the substantive due process rights of citizens. E.g., United States v. Costal States Crude Gathering Co., 643 F.2d 1125, 1127 (5th Cir. 1981) (finding imposition of civil penalties for waste spills not violative of substantive due process under Fifth......
-
Laudermilk v. Fordice
...of such mandatory schemes do not violate the substantive due process rights of citizens. E.g., United States v. Coastal States Crude Gathering Co., 643 F.2d 1125, 1127 (5th Cir.1981) (finding imposition of civil penalties for waste spills not violative of substantive due process under Fifth......
-
Limiting Federal and State Enforcement of the Clean Water Act: Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment 'Takings' of Private Property
...(4th Cir. 1986) (holding that a sewage treat-ment plant had taken riparian rights); United States v. Coastal States Crude Gathering Co., 643 F.2d 1125, 1127-28, 11 ELR 20438 (5th Cir. 1981) (holding that imposition of penalties under the CWA in connection with oil spills does not violate th......
-
A Canary in a Coal Mine: What We Haven’t Learned From Deepwater Horizon and How Courts Can Help
...polluters and deter future oil spills by the violator and potential violators.”); United States v. Coastal States Crude Gathering Co., 643 F.2d 1125, 16 THE GEORGETOWN ENVTL. LAW REVIEW [Vol. 33:1 expresses the will of Congress to deter oil spills and enables courts to do so by giving them ......
-
The Revival of Respondeat Superior and Evolution of Gatekeeper Liability
...“Deepwater Horizon,” 844 F. Supp. 2d 746, 759 (E.D. La. 2012) (alteration in original) (quoting United States v. Coastal States Crude, 643 F.2d 1125, 1128 (5th Cir. 1981)), rev’d in part, 21 F. Supp. 3d 657 (E.D. La. 2014). The court had to read that design into the statute through historic......
-
CHAPTER 4 PREPARING THE DEFENSE TO ADMINISTRATIVE ENFORCEMENT
...Company v. Heller, 316 N.Y.S.2d 226, 265 N.E.2d 72 (1970). [87] See n. 84, supra. [88] U.S. V. Coastal States Crude Gathering Co., 643 F.2d 1125 (4th Cir. 1981). [89] United States v. Delian Cruises, 505 F. Supp. 79, 81 (E.D. Louisana 1980). [90] Hodel v. Virginia Surface Mining and Reclama......