Skip to main content

After California Oil Spill, Environmentalists Plan to Sue U.S. | December 2021

December 2021 | Volume 13, Issue 5


Read the full article from ABC News.

According to the article, a month after a Southern California offshore oil spill, environmental advocates said recently that they plan to sue the federal government over the failure to review and update plans for platforms off the coast.

The Center for Biological Diversity said it sent notice to the Secretary of the Interior of its intent to sue, a requirement for lawsuits against the federal government.

The group contends the government approved plans for a cluster of oil platforms in the 1980s and that they are still running though they were expected to wind down production in 2007.

The notice came a month after a pipeline owned by Houston-based Amplify Energy leaked at least about 25,000 gallons (94,635 liters) of crude oil into the ocean off the coast of Orange County. Blobs of oil washed ashore, oiling birds, and shuttering the famed shoreline of Huntington Beach for a week.

Environmentalists braced for the worst, but the damage has been less than initially feared. Much of the oil broke up at sea and local officials put up booms to keep the crude out of sensitive wetlands.

Under federal law, the government is required to review oil development and production plans for leases in federal waters and revise them as needed in response to changing conditions or activities, though that rarely happens, said Miyoko Sakashita, oceans director at the Center for Biological Diversity.

“It is not lawful for them to just continue on with these really old development and production plans,” Sakashita said.

She added: “It's particularly notable in this instance where we've now had this oil spill. The infrastructure is aging, and things need to be done differently.”

An email message seeking comment about the group's lawsuit plan sent to the Department of the Interior was not immediately returned.

The leaky pipeline near Huntington Beach ferried crude oil from the offshore platforms questioned by the Center for Biological Diversity to the coast.

The cause of the spill is under investigation, but federal officials have said the pipeline was likely initially damaged by a ship’s anchor.

Discussion Questions

  1. What is the Center for Biological Diversity?

    The Center for Biological Diversity is a 501(c)(3) registered charitable organization.

    According to its website, the mission of the Center for Biological Diversity is as follows:

    At the Center for Biological Diversity, we believe that the welfare of human beings is deeply linked to nature — to the existence in our world of a vast diversity of wild animals and plants. Because diversity has intrinsic value, and because its loss impoverishes society, we work to secure a future for all species, great and small, hovering on the brink of extinction. We do so through science, law, and creative media, with a focus on protecting the lands, waters, and climate that species need to survive.

    We want those who come after us to inherit a world where the wild is still alive.

    According to its website, the “story” of the Center for Biological Diversity is as follows:

    The Center for Biological Diversity was founded beneath the ancient ponderosa pines of New Mexico's Gila wilderness, where Kierán Suckling, Peter Galvin, and Todd Schulke met while surveying owls for the U.S. Forest Service. It was 1989, and all three were in their early twenties, with a passion for wild places; Kierán was a doctoral student in philosophy, Peter was training in conservation biology, and Todd had a background running outdoor-education programs for high-risk kids. When their surveys turned up a rare Mexican spotted owl nest in an old-growth tree, and they found out that same tree was part of a vast area slated to be razed in a massive timber sale, they took their findings to the local Forest Service manager. The Forest Service had been entrusted with shielding sensitive species from harm, but it soon became clear the agency was more invested in its relationship with big timber than in its commitment to the public to protect forest wildlife. The timber sale would go forward, in violation of the Service's own rules.

    The three young men promptly took the story to a local paper.

    In the end, that big old tree never fell to the chainsaws, and Kierán, Peter, and Todd became personae nongratae at the Forest Service. Along with Dr. Robin Silver, an emergency room doctor, nature photographer, and grassroots advocate who had written an Endangered Species Act petition to protect the Mexican spotted owl — and joined by a growing group of other activists as word of mouth spread — they formed the group that would eventually be known as the Center for Biological Diversity. Tackling cattle-grazing abuses on the public lands where they lived, they leveraged protection for species like the southwestern willow flycatcher into orders to remove cows from hundreds of miles of vulnerable desert streams; with their campaigns to protect goshawks and owls, they shut down major timber operations throughout Arizona and New Mexico and brought an end to large-scale industrial logging in the heritage public lands of the arid Southwest.

    And that was just for starters.

    The Center's innovation was to systematically and ambitiously use biological data, legal expertise, and the citizen petition provision of the powerful Endangered Species Act to obtain sweeping, legally binding new protections for animals, plants, and their habitat — first in New Mexico, then throughout the Southwest, next through all 11 western states and into other key areas across the country. With each passing year, the Center has expanded its territory, which now extends to the protection of species throughout the Pacific and Atlantic oceans and international regions as remote as the North and South poles. As our range grew, and first tens, then hundreds of species gained protection as a result of our groundbreaking petitions, lawsuits, policy advocacy, and outreach to media, we went from living and working on a shoestring to having offices around the country — from relying on donated time from pro bono attorneys at large firms to building a full-time staff of dozens of prominent environmental lawyers and scientists who work exclusively on our campaigns to save species and the places they need to survive.

    We're now fighting a growing number of national and worldwide threats to biodiversity, from the overarching global problems of unsustainable human population and climate change to intensifying domestic sources of species endangerment, such as off-road vehicle excess. Based on our unparalleled record of legal successes — 83 percent of our lawsuits result in favorable outcomes — we've developed a unique negotiating position with both government agencies and private corporations, enabling us, at times, to secure broad protections for species and habitat without the threat of litigation. We look forward to a future of continued expansion, creativity, and no-holds-barred action on behalf of the world's most critically endangered animals and plants.
  2. In your reasoned opinion, does the Center for Biological Diversity have the standing to sue in this case? Why or why not?

    Standing to sue” is the requirement that a person who brings a lawsuit be a proper party to request adjudication of the particular issue involved. In your author’s opinion, the Center for Biological Diversity does have the standing to sue in this case, since a favorable resolution of the lawsuit (one that advances environmental protection and holds parties who degrade the environment responsible) advances the mission of the Center.
  3. In your reasoned opinion, should the United States of America be the responsible party in this case? Why or why not?

    In your author’s opinion, the United States of America should be the responsible party in this case. The case is fundamentally one of negligence, the failure to satisfy a duty of care and the Center for Biological Diversity’s argument is that the U.S. failed to satisfy its duty of care by not properly reviewing and updating plans for oil platforms off the coast.