In Re DEEPWATER HORIZON
44 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 20041, 2014 A.M.C. 2600, 745 F.3d 157 (2014)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Clean Water Act preempts state law penalty claims brought by an affected state for pollution that originates from a point source outside that state's boundaries, such as the Outer Continental Shelf. Under this "point source" rule, only the law of the jurisdiction where the pollution originates may be applied, and federal law exclusively governs activities on the Outer Continental Shelf.
Facts:
- In April 2010, the Macondo well, being drilled by the DEEPWATER HORIZON mobile offshore rig, experienced a catastrophic blowout and explosion.
- The drilling operation was located on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS), a federal jurisdiction approximately fifty miles offshore.
- The explosion and subsequent well failure caused a massive spill, releasing hydrocarbons and other pollutants into the Gulf of Mexico.
- These pollutants migrated from the OCS and contaminated the shores, estuaries, and territorial waters of several Gulf Coast states, including Louisiana.
- The pollution caused extensive damage to aquatic life and wildlife within Louisiana's state waters.
- BP and other Appellees were the companies involved in the drilling operations at the Macondo well site.
Procedural Posture:
- Eleven Louisiana coastal parishes sued BP and other defendants in Louisiana state court.
- The Parishes sought to recover civil penalties under The Louisiana Wildlife Protection Statute for damages from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.
- The defendants removed the cases from state court to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.
- The cases were consolidated into the ongoing Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) concerning the oil spill.
- The Parishes filed motions to remand the cases back to state court, arguing the federal court lacked jurisdiction.
- The district court denied the motions to remand, finding jurisdiction proper under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA).
- The district court subsequently granted defendants' motions to dismiss, ruling that the Parishes' state law claims were preempted by federal maritime law and the Clean Water Act.
- The Parishes, as appellants, appealed both the denial of their remand motions and the dismissal of their claims to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does federal law, specifically the Clean Water Act, preempt state law penalty claims for environmental damage that occurs within a state's waters but originates from an oil spill on the Outer Continental Shelf?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Edith H. Jones
Yes, federal law preempts the state law penalty claims. The court holds that when a state-law claim concerns interstate or federal-state water pollution, a court must apply the law of the jurisdiction in which the pollution's point source is located. Here, the point source of the pollution was the Macondo well on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS), a federal enclave governed exclusively by federal law. The Supreme Court's decision in International Paper Co. v. Ouellette established this 'point source' rule for interstate pollution to prevent a single polluter from being subjected to multiple, conflicting state laws. This court extends that reasoning to pollution originating in a federal jurisdiction, finding that allowing each affected Gulf state to apply its own penalty statutes would create the same 'legal chaos' that Ouellette sought to avoid. The savings clauses in the Clean Water Act (CWA) and Oil Pollution Act (OPA) do not override this preemption, as the CWA's clause is limited to discharges within a state, and the OPA's clause only prevents the OPA itself, not the CWA, from preempting state law.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the 'point source' preemption rule from Ouellette and extends its application from purely interstate disputes to disputes involving pollution originating in a federal enclave and affecting a state. It clarifies that federal environmental laws create a comprehensive regime that displaces state tort and penalty laws for pollution crossing jurisdictional boundaries, ensuring a uniform legal standard for operators on the OCS. The ruling significantly limits the ability of coastal states to use their own environmental penalty statutes to respond to offshore oil spills from federal waters, channeling their remedies through the frameworks provided by federal statutes like the Oil Pollution Act.
