## Facts

- White Fuel Corporation operated a tank farm abutting a small cove connected to the Reserved Channel in Boston Harbor, both navigable waters of the United States.
- On May 3, 1972, the Coast Guard обнаружed oil in the cove’s waters.
- State authorities had warned White Fuel months earlier about possible oil spoilage problems, and after the May detection White Fuel began cleanup and attempted to trace the source.
- Investigation ultimately identified seepage from a large underground accumulation (about 500,000 gallons) beneath White Fuel’s property.
- White Fuel conceded ownership of the oil; the oil continued to seep into the cove throughout the summer of 1972 despite efforts to drain or divert it, and seepage ceased by September 1972.
- White Fuel installed booms across the cove; there was testimony that improper tending at times allowed some oil to drift into the channel.
- After a bench trial, the district court convicted White Fuel of violating § 13 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. § 407) and imposed a $1,000 fine, treating lack of knowledge and due care as irrelevant to guilt.

## Issues

1. Whether a conviction under 33 U.S.C. § 407 for an oil discharge into navigable waters requires proof of scienter or negligence.
2. Whether a defendant may avoid liability under § 407 by showing it lacked knowledge of an underground oil accumulation and exercised due care once the discharge was discovered.

## Decision

- The First Circuit affirmed the conviction.
- The court held that § 407 is properly construed as imposing strict criminal liability for unauthorized discharges into navigable waters.
- The government was not required to prove that White Fuel intended the discharge, knew of the accumulation, or acted negligently.
- The district court did not err in excluding evidence offered solely to show lack of knowledge or due care as a defense to guilt.

## Legal Principles

- 33 U.S.C. § 407 prohibits unauthorized discharges of “refuse matter,” including oil, into navigable waters; liability does not depend on intent, knowledge, or negligence.
- For § 407, the prosecution must show (1) a discharge into navigable waters and (2) that the material came from a source owned or controlled by the defendant, without authorization.
- Post-discovery cleanup efforts do not negate a completed § 407 violation, though they may bear on sentencing.
- A narrow defense may exist where the defendant proves the discharge came from a source not owned or controlled by the defendant (for example, third-party causation or forces outside the defendant’s control).

## Conclusion

The court upheld White Fuel’s conviction because § 407 treats unauthorized oil discharges into navigable waters as a strict-liability offense, making the defendant’s lack of knowledge, absence of negligence, and subsequent remedial efforts irrelevant to guilt where the discharge originated from oil owned or controlled by the defendant.


United States v. White Fuel Corp., 498 F.2d 619 (1st Cir. 1974)