## Facts

- The Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA) imposed liability for certain oil discharges and authorized civil penalties under 33 U.S.C. § 1321(b)(6) (pre-1977 version).
- Tex-Tow, Inc. operated a tank barge used to transport gasoline on the Mississippi River.
- Tex-Tow’s barge was being loaded with gasoline at a dock owned by Mobil Oil Company.
- As the barge filled, it settled deeper in the water and was impaled on an underwater steel piling that was part of the dock structure.
- The piling punctured the barge, and approximately 1,600 gallons of gasoline spilled into the river.
- Tex-Tow could not reasonably have known of the piling’s existence and was not at fault.
- The United States Coast Guard assessed a $350 civil penalty against Tex-Tow under § 1321(b)(6) for an unlawful discharge.
- Tex-Tow challenged the penalty administratively and then sought review in federal district court, arguing that statutory defenses should be read into § 1321(b)(6), that it did not “cause” the spill, and that a penalty without fault violated substantive due process.
- The district court entered summary judgment for the United States enforcing the penalty, and Tex-Tow appealed to the Seventh Circuit.

## Issues

1. Whether the defenses expressly listed for other FWPCA liabilities (including § 1321(f) defenses such as act of God, act of war, government negligence, or third-party acts/omissions) must be read into § 1321(b)(6)’s civil-penalty provision.
2. Whether § 1321(b)(6) requires proof that the owner/operator “caused” the discharge, as opposed to imposing liability based on ownership or operation of the vessel or facility from which the discharge occurred.
3. Whether imposing a § 1321(b)(6) civil penalty on a blameless owner/operator violates substantive due process.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment enforcing the $350 civil penalty.
- The court held that § 1321(b)(6) imposes “absolute” civil-penalty liability on the owner or operator of the vessel or facility from which oil is discharged, without requiring fault or proof of causation in the tort sense.
- The court declined to import the defenses listed in § 1321(f) into § 1321(b)(6), reasoning that Congress provided defenses in some provisions but omitted them from the civil-penalty section.
- The court rejected the substantive due process challenge, concluding that no-fault civil penalties are rationally related to Congress’s remedial and economic objectives, not solely deterrence.
- The court applied the pre-1977 statutory language because the spill occurred in 1974; the 1977 amendments changing § 1321(b)(6) did not apply.

## Legal Principles

- Under the pre-1977 version of 33 U.S.C. § 1321(b)(6), civil penalties may be assessed against the owner or operator of a vessel or facility from which oil is discharged into navigable waters, regardless of fault.
- Defenses expressly provided in § 1321(f) for cleanup-cost liability are not implied into § 1321(b)(6) when the civil-penalty text contains no defenses.
- For § 1321(b)(6) civil penalties, the statutory trigger is the discharge from the owner/operator’s vessel or facility; the government need not prove negligence or that the owner/operator “caused” the spill in a fault-based sense.
- A no-fault civil-penalty scheme for oil discharges satisfies substantive due process if it bears a rational relationship to legitimate governmental aims, including allocating the economic costs of pollution incidents and supporting response measures.
- When a spill predates statutory amendments, courts apply the version of § 1321 in effect at the time of the discharge.

## Conclusion

United States v. Tex-Tow, Inc. holds that, under the pre-1977 FWPCA, § 1321(b)(6) authorizes a civil penalty against the owner or operator of a vessel from which oil is discharged even when the spill resulted from a hidden third-party condition and the owner/operator lacked fault; defenses in § 1321(f) are not read into the civil-penalty provision, and the no-fault penalty scheme does not violate substantive due process.


United States v. Tex-Tow, Inc., 589 F.2d 1310 (1978)