## Facts

- A Dixie Carriers tug lost control of tanker barges in tow near New Orleans, Louisiana, and one barge struck the Huey P. Long Bridge on June 22, 1974.
- The collision discharged approximately 1,265,000 gallons of oil into the Mississippi River.
- Dixie began cleanup but stopped after spending about $121,000, asserting this equaled its then-applicable statutory maximum liability under Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA) § 1321(f)(1), calculated at $100 per ton.
- The United States undertook the remaining removal work and spent over $954,400.
- In July 1977, the United States sued Dixie, its insurer (Water Quality Insurance Syndicate), and the involved vessels, seeking recovery of federal cleanup costs.
- The government asserted recovery under FWPCA § 1321(f)(1) and additionally under the Refuse Act (33 U.S.C. § 407) and federal common-law theories (public nuisance and maritime negligence).
- Dixie moved for partial summary judgment, arguing FWPCA § 1321 provided the exclusive remedy for federal cleanup-cost recovery and barred the additional theories.
- The district court granted partial summary judgment for Dixie on exclusivity grounds and certified an interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).
- The courts did not decide whether Dixie’s payments should be credited against any liability or whether the discharge resulted from willful negligence or willful misconduct.

## Issues

1. Whether FWPCA § 1321(f)(1) provides the exclusive federal remedy for the United States to recover oil-spill removal costs, precluding recovery under the Refuse Act or federal common law (public nuisance and maritime negligence).

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s partial summary judgment.
- The court held Congress intended FWPCA § 1321(f)(1) to be the exclusive legal remedy for the federal government to recover oil-spill cleanup costs from dischargers.
- The United States therefore could not bypass the statute’s liability limits by pleading Refuse Act or federal common-law theories to obtain additional cleanup-cost recovery.
- The court limited its ruling to the availability of non-FWPCA theories for federal cleanup-cost recovery and did not address willfulness or crediting of Dixie’s voluntary cleanup payments.

## Legal Principles

- When Congress establishes a detailed federal remedial scheme for a specific type of claim, courts may treat that scheme as exclusive as to that claim, even absent an express preemption clause, where alternative causes of action would conflict with the statutory design.
- FWPCA § 1321(f)(1)’s text (including “notwithstanding any other provision of law”), structure (strict liability, capped liability, and an exception for willful negligence or willful misconduct), and legislative purpose indicate an intent to occupy the field of federal oil-spill cleanup-cost recovery.
- Allowing the United States to recover cleanup costs under the Refuse Act or federal common law in addition to § 1321(f)(1) would effectively nullify Congress’s liability cap and the statute’s specified pathway for exceeding it (proof of willful negligence or willful misconduct under the FWPCA).
- The presumption against implied repeal does not prevent displacement of older statutory or common-law theories where the later statute creates a comprehensive and incompatible remedial framework for the same governmental cost-recovery claim.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit held that FWPCA § 1321(f)(1) supplies the exclusive federal cause of action for the United States to recover oil-spill removal costs, barring additional recovery under the Refuse Act and federal common-law nuisance or maritime negligence theories, and preserving the statute’s limited-liability scheme and willful-misconduct exception.


United States v. Dixie Carriers, Inc., 627 F.2d 736 (5th Cir. 1980)