Pollution: Oil Spill Oil Pollution Act: 'Responsible Party' Defined; Jury Trial

摘要

In December 2004, an oil spill originated from an old tank battery located on land overlying the Maco Stewart Lease near Hitchcock in Galveston County, Texas. The oil flows into a wetland immediately adjacent to Highland Bayou, a navigable tributary to Galveston Bay. The Coast Guard, the Texas General Land Office ("GLO") and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration conduct water cleanup operations. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") and the Texas Railroad Commission ("TRRC") carry out land-based removal operations. All oil removal operations are completed by January 13, 2005. Substantial costs are incurred by the various governmental entities in connection with their work in remediating the oil spill. The Coast Guard conducts a record search to attempt to identify the "responsible parties," as that term is denned in the Oil Pollution Act ("OPA"), 33 U.S.C. §§2701 et seq., for the Highland Bayou spill. Viking is the last known lessee and operator of a subdivided portion of the Maco Stewart Lease underlying the land where the old tank battery was located. Chambers is the president, sole officer, sole director and sole owner of Viking. Viking last produces oil or gas from the lease sometime in 2001. In April 2008, the United States files the present lawsuit against Viking and Chambers under 33 U.S.C. § 2702. The U.S. asserts that Viking and/or Chambers are strictly liable as "responsible parties" for cleanup costs and damages incurred as a result of the Highland Bayou spill. This case is before the court on cross motions for summary judgment. The U.S. asserts that there are no genuine issues of material fact as to any of the elements that must be proven for liability under 33 U.S. § 2702(a). Viking and Chambers contend that the government failed to produce enough evidence to even create a fact issue was to whether they are responsible parties and takes issue with the U.S. on other positions the government asserts in the case. In ruling on the cross-motions for summary judgment, the court first notes that Viking's lease was owned by multiple prior lessees over its long history, and that Viking's leasehold rights only extended to certain depths.