## Facts

- Total Petroleum, Inc. owned and operated a crude-oil gathering pipeline that crossed Caddo Creek in Oklahoma above the creek bed, supported by H-braces on each bank near the waterline.
- In late October 1984, unusually heavy rains caused Caddo Creek to flood and overflow its banks, submerging the pipeline at the crossing.
- On October 27, 1984 around noon, Total’s maintenance manager inspected the crossing, observed the pipeline was submerged, and concluded there was no immediate danger to the brace supports.
- Total did not shut down or reduce the flow of oil after learning the pipeline was submerged, a condition not previously observed by the manager.
- By the next morning (October 28), a brace support and part of the bank had washed out; the pipeline ruptured and discharged oil into the creek. Oil from an upstream Mobil spill also entered the creek.
- Total and Mobil undertook cleanup operations.
- Total sued the United States under FWPCA § 311(i)(1), seeking reimbursement of its cleanup costs on the theory that the discharge was caused solely by an “act of God.”
- The United States argued Total failed to use reasonable care in pipeline design/location and in continuing operations and monitoring during the flood; it cited industry guidance recommending planning and operational precautions for natural-disaster conditions.
- The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment on liability.

## Issues

1. Whether the flood constituted an “act of God” that solely caused the discharge, permitting reimbursement under FWPCA § 311(i)(1).
2. Whether Total’s design, maintenance, and flood-response decisions constituted fault that was a substantial contributing cause of the spill or its magnitude, defeating reimbursement.

## Decision

- Summary judgment was granted for the United States and Total’s motion was denied.
- The court held Total failed to prove the discharge was caused solely by an act of God within the meaning of FWPCA § 311(i)(1).
- The court found Total failed to exercise reasonable care in pipeline design/siting and in operational response after learning the line was submerged.
- Because Total was not “totally without fault” and its conduct substantially contributed to the spill and its severity, it could not recover cleanup costs from the United States.

## Legal Principles

- Under FWPCA § 311, dischargers are generally strictly liable for cleanup costs; reimbursement from the United States is available only under narrow statutory exceptions.
- The claimant bears the burden to prove the discharge was caused solely by an enumerated exception and that the claimant was entirely without fault.
- “Act of God” is strictly construed as an exceptional natural phenomenon whose effects could not have been prevented by due care or foresight; if reasonable precautions could have prevented or reduced the harm, sole-cause is not shown.
- Any substantial contributing fault by the discharger—whether in design, maintenance, monitoring, or operational decisions—breaks “sole causation” and bars reimbursement.
- Industry guidance may be considered as evidence relevant to reasonable care, though it is not conclusive.

## Conclusion

The court denied reimbursement because the flood was not the sole cause of the discharge: Total’s preventable choices in pipeline configuration and its decision to continue pumping and delay further inspection after discovering submergence materially contributed to the rupture and the amount of oil released, disqualifying Total from FWPCA § 311(i)(1) relief.


Total Petroleum, Inc. v. United States, 12 Cl. Ct. 178 (1987)