IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-30883

IN RE: DEEPWATER HORIZON

_____________________________________________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee

v.

B.P. EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INCORPORATED; ANADARKO 

PETROLEUM CORPORATION,

Defendants – Appellants

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

Before KING, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

FORTUNATO P. BENAVIDES, Circuit Judge:

Before the Court is the federal government’s civil enforcement action for 

Clean Water Act violations associated with the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil 

spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Defendants BP Exploration & Production, Inc. 

(“BP”) and Anadarko Petroleum Corporation (“Anadarko”) appeal summary 

judgment in favor of the government on the question of their liability for civil 

penalties under 33 U.S.C. § 1321(b)(7)(A) (2006), which imposes mandatory 

penalties upon the owners of facilities “from which oil or a hazardous substance 

is discharged.” The district court held that discharge is the point where

“uncontrolled movement” begins. In re Oil Spill by the Oil Rig “Deepwater 

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 4, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 12-30883 Document: 00512652727 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/04/2014
No. 12-30883

Horizon” in the Gulf of Mexico, on April 20, 2010, 844 F. Supp. 2d 746, 758 

(E.D. La. 2012). Applying this standard, the court concluded that oil flowing 

from the well through the Deepwater Horizon’s riser was a discharge from the 

well. Id. at 761. The court then entered summary judgment on the issue of 

BP’s and Anadarko’s liability as co-owners of that well. Id. at 762. Because

we agree that there is no dispute of material fact regarding the discharge of oil 

from the well, we affirm. 

I.

The Macondo Well (“the well”) was an exploratory well located about fifty 

miles off the Louisiana coast in the Gulf of Mexico. Anadarko and BP (together, 

“the defendants” or “the well owners”) were co-owners of the well and co-lessees 

of the continental shelf block in which the well was located.1 The well itself 

was drilled by the Deepwater Horizon, a mobile offshore drilling vessel owned 

and operated by several Transocean entities.2 The Deepwater Horizon was 

connected to the well by a riser. At the junction of the well and the riser was 

a blowout preventer that could be used automatically or manually to interrupt 

an impending blowout. Both the blowout preventer and riser were 

appurtenances of the Deepwater Horizon. 

The blowout occurred on April 20, 2010, while the Deepwater Horizon 

was preparing to depart from the site in anticipation of the permanent 

extraction operation. As part of this preparation, the well had been lined and 

sealed with cement. Before the Deepwater Horizon departed, this cement 

failed, resulting in the high-pressure release of gas, oil, and other fluids. The 

1 The well was also co-owned by MOEX Offshore 2007, LLC, which has settled with 

the government and is not party to this appeal. 

2 The vessel was owned or operated by various Transocean entities, including

Transocean Deepwater, Inc., Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc., Transocean 

Holdings, LLC, and Triton Asset Leasing GmbH (collectively “Transocean”). These entities 

were originally named as defendants, but have settled with the government.

2

 

 Case: 12-30883 Document: 00512652727 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/04/2014
No. 12-30883

blowout preventer also failed, thus allowing these fluids to burst from the well,

flowing up through the riser and onto the deck of the Deepwater Horizon. The 

oil and gas subsequently caught fire, and the ensuing blaze capsized the

Deepwater Horizon, which was still connected to the well via the riser. The 

strain from the sinking vessel severed the riser, and for nearly three months 

oil flowed continuously through the broken riser and into the Gulf of Mexico. 

Authorities eventually installed a cap over what remained of the riser, and oil 

continued to leak for two days, with the well finally sealed on July 15, 2010.

Following the incident, the federal government filed the present action, 

seeking civil penalties under § 311 of the Clean Water Act, which mandates 

the assessment of fines on the owners or operators of any vessel or facility 

“from which oil or a hazardous substance is discharged.”3 The government 

then moved for summary judgment on several issues, including the well 

owners’ civil-penalty liability for any “subsurface” discharge of oil. Anadarko 

filed a cross-motion for summary judgment on the same issue, arguing that the 

subsurface discharge emanated from the riser owned by Transocean, and thus 

that the oil was not discharged from any facility owned or operated by 

Anadarko or BP. Holding that discharge is the point where “uncontrolled 

movement” begins, the court concluded that the oil released from the well via 

the third party’s broken riser was a discharge from the well. In re Oil Spill, 

844 F. Supp. 2d at 758, 761. Because Anadarko and BP did not contest their 

ownership of the well, the district court then entered summary judgment in 

favor of the Government. Id. at 762. Anadarko and BP filed a timely appeal. 

3 33 U.S.C. § 1321(a)(7)(A). All statutory references are to the 2006 edition of the U.S. 

Code. The government named a total of eight defendants and also sought reimbursement for 

clean-up costs pursuant to the Oil Pollution Act, 33 U.S.C. § 2702. These other parties and 

claims are not presently at bar.

3

 

 Case: 12-30883 Document: 00512652727 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/04/2014
No. 12-30883

II.

We review summary judgment de novo, applying the same standard as 

the district court. Bd. of Miss. Levee Comm’rs v. United States EPA, 674 F.3d 

409, 417 (5th Cir. 2012); see also Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio 

Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986). Summary judgment is proper when the 

pleadings and other materials on file indicate that “there is no genuine dispute 

as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a 

matter of law.” FED R. CIV. P. 56(a); see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 

317, 323–25 (1986). We are not bound by the district court’s analysis, and are 

free to affirm on any basis raised below and supported by the record. United 

States v. Ho, 311 F.3d 589, 602 n.12 (5th Cir. 2002). 

III.

The Clean Water Act is “not a model of clarity.”4 In its current form, the 

Act is the result of over a century of successive statutory schemes and 

amendments.5 Yet it is, in some respects, not overly complex. The legislation 

attempts to eliminate the introduction of any kind of pollutant—everything

from paint and pesticides to rocks and dirt—into the waters of the United 

States. 33 U.S.C. §§ 1251(a), 1362(6). The Act does so by creating a regulatory 

framework and then prohibiting any discharge in violation of the regulations. 

See 33 U.S.C. §§ 1252, 1311–1313, 1316–17, 1319, 1329, 1342. Because of the 

heightened potential for “environmental disaster” resulting from the release of 

oil or hazardous waste, 33 U.S.C. § 1321 establishes increased fines for the 

discharge of these pollutants. See S. Rep. No. 92-414 (1972), reprinted in 1972 

U.S.C.C.A.N. 3668, 3732 (referring to possible disaster).

4 Atl. States Legal Found., Inc. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 897 F.2d 1128, 1137 (11th Cir. 

1990); accord Platte Pipe Line Co. v. United States, 846 F.2d 610, 611 (10th Cir. 1988).

5 Discharge into U.S. waters was first prohibited by the Rivers and Harbors 

Appropriation Act of 1899, 30 Stat. 1121 (codified as amended at 33 U.S.C. § 401, et seq.). 

4

 

 Case: 12-30883 Document: 00512652727 Page: 4 Date Filed: 06/04/2014
No. 12-30883

Specifically, the section prohibits the “discharge of oil or hazardous 

substances (i) into or upon the navigable waters of the United States, adjoining 

shorelines, or into or upon the waters of the contiguous zone . . . in such 

quantities as may be harmful,” except under circumstances not implicated by 

the present case. 33 U.S.C. § 1321(b)(3). The section further provides that:

Any person who is the owner, operator, or person in charge of any 

vessel, onshore facility, or offshore facility from which oil or a 

hazardous substance is discharged in violation of [33 U.S.C. 

§ 1321(b)(3)] shall be subject to a civil penalty in an amount up to 

$25,000 per day of violation or an amount up to $1,000 per barrel 

of oil or unit of reportable quantity of hazardous substances 

discharged. 

Id. § 1321(b)(7)(A); see also 33 C.F.R. § 27.3 (2006) (indicating dollar amounts 

as increased by regulation). In the instant case, no one denies that there has 

been a discharge of harmful quantities of oil into navigable waters. Anadarko 

and BP further stipulate that the well is an offshore facility, and that they are 

the owners of that facility.6 The only question, then, is whether it is beyond 

factual dispute that the well is a facility “from which” the harmful quantity of

oil was discharged. We find no dispute as to the question.

Discharge is not defined for the purposes of this section, but is instead 

illustrated by a list of examples. Discharge “includes, but is not limited to, any 

spilling, leaking, pumping, pouring, emitting, emptying or dumping[.]” 33 

U.S.C. § 1321(a)(2). Each of these statutory examples denotes the loss of

controlled confinement. Similarly, the ordinary use of “discharge” refers to a 

fluid “flow[ing] out from where it has been confined.”7 Accordingly, a vessel or 

6 The government argues that BP was also an operator of the Deepwater Horizon. BP 

disagrees. Because we find Anadarko and BP liable as owners of the well, we do not reach 

this question.

7 Discharge, Oxford Dictionaries Online, U.S. Edition, 

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/discharge (last visited 

Feb. 24, 2014). We further note that Congress intended for the section to apply to “classic 

spill” situations, 124 Cong. Rec. 37502 (1978), and dictionaries generally define a spill in 

5

 

 Case: 12-30883 Document: 00512652727 Page: 5 Date Filed: 06/04/2014
No. 12-30883

facility is a point “from which oil or a hazardous substance is discharged” if it 

is a point at which controlled confinement is lost. Turning to the facts, we find 

no dispute as to whether the well is such a facility. The parties stipulate that

cement had been deposited at the well. There is no genuine dispute that 

controlled confinement was lost when this cement failed—the defendants do 

not contest the cement’s failure, and they concede that oil then “escaped” and

“flowed freely” from the well and ultimately into navigable waters. And 

although the defendants argue that the blowout preventer should have 

engaged and prevented the progression of the blowout, the need for this

intervention only underscores the extent to which the oil was already 

unconfined and flowing freely. Accordingly, we find that the well is a facility 

from which oil was discharged in violation of 33 U.S.C. § 1321(b)(3).

It is immaterial that the oil flowed through parts of the vessel before 

entering the Gulf of Mexico. Anadarko argues that discharge is the point at 

which oil “enters the marine environment.”8 Yet Anadarko provides no 

relevant legal authority in support of the proffered interpretation. Nor does 

our research reveal any. On the contrary, it seems well settled that the section 

proscribes any discharge of oil that ultimately flows “into or upon . . . navigable 

waters,” irrespective of the path traversed by the discharged oil.9 For example, 

terms of a loss or exit from a container. See, e.g., Spill, Oxford English Dictionary Online, 

http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/186634 (subscription required) (last visited February 20, 

2014) (“to allow or cause (a liquid) to fall, pour, or run out (esp. over the edge of the containing 

vessel)”); Spill, Merriam-Webster Online, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/spill 

(last visited February 24, 2014) (“to cause or allow (something) to fall, flow, or run over the 

edge of a container”).

8 Counsel used this phrase at oral argument. Similarly, the briefs argue that 

discharge denotes “direct” or “immediate” release into water. None of these proposed 

standards is consistent with existing law.

9 33 U.S.C. § 1321(b)(3); see also Pepperell Assocs. v. United States EPA, 246 F.3d 15 

(1st Cir. 2001) (administrative penalties under 33 U.S.C. § 1321) (oil traversed third-party 

culvert); Union Petroleum Corp. v. United States, 651 F.2d 734 (Ct. Cl. 1981) (reimbursement 

provision under 33 U.S.C. § 1321) (oil ran across third-party rail line); Pryor Oil Co., Inc. v. 

6

 

 Case: 12-30883 Document: 00512652727 Page: 6 Date Filed: 06/04/2014
No. 12-30883

a discharge of oil violates the section even where the oil flows over a rail yard 

or hillside before reaching water. See generally Union Petroleum Corp. v. 

United States, 651 F.2d 734 (Ct. Cl. 1981); Pryor Oil Co., Inc. v. United States, 

299 F. Supp. 2d 804 (E.D. Tenn. 2003). Similarly, the Environmental 

Protection Agency fined a factory owner for oil that spilled from a boiler gasket, 

into an industrial drain, through a conduit, and eventually into a creek. See 

generally Pepperell Assocs. v. United States EPA, 246 F.3d 15 (1st Cir. 2001). 

The First Circuit ultimately denied review of the case, finding the agency’s 

decision reasonable. Id. at 30. So oil need not flow from a facility directly into 

navigable waters to give rise to civil-penalty liability under 33 U.S.C. § 1321.

Nor is liability precluded by the fact that the property traversed by the 

oil was owned by a third party. The Pepperell factory owner was held liable for 

his facility’s discharge even though the oil had traveled through a third party’s 

conduit before reaching water. Id. at 20. Likewise, when spilled oil 

subsequently traverses municipal sewers or ditches, liability is imposed upon 

the owner of the facility where the oil was first discharged, and not on the 

owner of the municipal facilities. See generally In re D&L Energy, Inc., V-W13 C-006 (EPA ALJ Feb. 27, 2013) (unpublished). In one recent incident, EPA 

authorities discovered that oil and brine were being released from an oil 

exploration site. In re D&L Energy, Inc., V-W-13 C-006, at 2. Authorities 

found that a nearby river was polluted with oil and that a tributary was 

“impacted with oil at least a foot deep.” Id. Upon further investigation, they 

realized that fluids from the drilling site were flowing through a municipal 

United States, 299 F. Supp. 2d 804 (E.D. Tenn. 2003) (action under 33 U.S.C. § 1321(c)) (oil 

“ran down hillside”); In re D&L Energy, Inc., V-W-13 C-006 (EPA ALJ Feb. 27, 2013) 

(administrative penalties under 33 U.S.C. § 1321) (unpublished) (pollutant traversed storm 

sewer); In re Philadelphia Macaroni Co., CWA-III-187 (EPA ALJ May 28, 1998) 

(administrative penalties under 33 U.S.C. § 1321) (unpublished) (oil traversed field and ran 

into unnamed creek). 

7

 

 Case: 12-30883 Document: 00512652727 Page: 7 Date Filed: 06/04/2014
No. 12-30883

sewer, into a creek, and eventually to the Mahoning River. Id. The agency 

found the drilling site’s owner liable, notwithstanding the fact that the oil 

flowed through third-party facilities before reaching water. Id. Indeed, we are 

aware of no case in which a court or administrative agency exempted a 

defendant from liability on account of the path traversed by discharged oil. 

The well owners’ liability is thus unaffected by the fact that the oil traversed 

part of Transocean’s vessel before entering the Gulf of Mexico. 

We recognize that the aforementioned incidents involved blameless third 

parties, whereas here the owner or operator of the Deepwater Horizon might 

have contributed to the discharge. By all accounts, if the vessel’s blowout 

preventer had functioned properly, the oil would not have entered navigable

waters in violation of the Clean Water Act. The defendants therefore reason

that liability is properly imposed upon the owner or operator of the Deepwater 

Horizon. Yet it is well established that this section of the Clean Water Act

leaves no room for civil-penalty defendants to shift liability via allegations of 

third-party fault. See United States v. Tex-Tow, Inc., 589 F.2d 1310, 1314 (7th 

Cir. 1978) (holding defendant liable for penalty notwithstanding fault of a third 

party). Early in the implementation of the Act’s regulatory framework, there 

was some uncertainty as to where and how the law should apply. It was not 

uncommon for defendants to argue that the statute should not apply where a 

pollutant is accidentally discharged, or where a third party causes the 

discharge. See Sierra Club v. Abston Const. Co., Inc., 620 F.2d 41, 45 (5th Cir. 

1980) (summarizing early cases). Courts, however, now acknowledge that 

civil-penalty liability under 33 U.S.C. § 1321 arises irrespective of knowledge, 

intent, or fault.10 In fact, courts have consistently rejected attempts to shift 

10 Kelly v. United States EPA, 203 F.3d 519, 522 (7th Cir. 2000) (“Civil liability under 

the Clean Water Act, therefore, is strict.”); United States v. Coastal States Crude Gathering 

Co., 643 F.2d 1125, 1127 (5th Cir. Unit A Apr. 1981) (referring to civil penalties in what is 

8

 

 Case: 12-30883 Document: 00512652727 Page: 8 Date Filed: 06/04/2014
No. 12-30883

liability on the basis of shared fault, instead choosing to consider any 

contributing cause as a mitigating factor at penalty calculation.11 This Court, 

in particular, recognizes the section as “an absolute liability system with 

limited exceptions, which are to be narrowly construed.” United States v. W. 

of Eng. Ship Owner’s Mut. Prot. & Indem., 872 F.2d 1192, 1196 (5th Cir. 1989). 

And although 33 U.S.C. § 1321 includes a third-party-fault exception for 

removal-cost liability, it includes no such exception for civil-penalty liability.12 

That being the case, any culpability on the part of the Deepwater Horizon’s 

operators does not exempt the well owners from the liability at issue here.

After reviewing the record and the law, we find no genuine dispute as to

the defendants’ liability for civil penalties pursuant to § 311 of the Clean Water 

Act. As explained herein, it is undisputed that the well’s cement failed, 

resulting in the loss of controlled confinement of oil such that the oil ultimately 

entered navigable waters. The well is therefore a facility “from which oil or a 

hazardous substance was discharged” “into or upon the navigable waters of the 

United States.” 33 U.S.C. §§ 1321(a)(2), (b)(3), (b)(7)(A). Anadarko and BP do 

not dispute their ownership of the well. Therefore, by the express terms of the 

statute, Anadarko and BP “shall be subject to a civil penalty” calculated in 

now 33 U.S.C. § 1321(b)(6), which uses the same liability standard as § 1321(b)(7)); Sierra 

Club, Mineral Policy Ctr. v. El Paso Gold Mines, Inc., No. A. 01 PC 2163 OES, 2002 WL 

33932715, at *11 (D. Colo. Nov. 15, 2002) (rejecting argument that a defendant must 

“actively” contribute to a spill before liability may be imposed).

11 E.g., Coastal States Crude, 643 F.2d at 1128 (reducing penalty in enforcement order 

due to lack of fault); United States v. Egan Marine Corp., No. 08 C 3160, 2011 WL 8144393, 

at *5–6 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 13, 2011) (explaining that the majority of circuits have concluded that 

the imposition of penalties is mandatory); United States v. General Motors Corp., 403 F. Supp. 

1151, 1165 (D. Conn. 1975) (finding that liability was mandatory but fine of $1 was 

appropriate where no fault shown); cf. United States v. Scruggs, No. G-06-776, 2009 WL 

500608, at *6 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 26 2009) (imposing fine of $65,000 where over $1 million was 

authorized by statute).

12 Compare 33 U.S.C. § 1321(g) (allowing subrogation of removal costs where discharge 

was “caused solely by an act or omission of a third party”), with id. § 1321(b) (making no 

mention that such an option is available vis-à-vis civil-penalty liability).

9

 

 Case: 12-30883 Document: 00512652727 Page: 9 Date Filed: 06/04/2014
No. 12-30883

accordance with statutory and regulatory guidelines. Id. § 1321(b)(7)(A). This 

liability is unaffected by the path traversed by the discharged oil. Nor is 

liability precluded by any culpability on the part of the vessel’s owner or 

operator. 

IV.

For the reasons stated, we AFFIRM the grant of partial summary 

judgment with respect to the well owners’ liability for civil penalties pursuant 

to 33 U.S.C. § 1321(b)(7)(A).13 

13 We do not adopt the district court’s interpretation of § 1321(b)(7)(A) to the extent 

that such an interpretation differs from our own. Further, we express no opinion as to any 

other issues addressed in the district court’s order.

10

 

 Case: 12-30883 Document: 00512652727 Page: 10 Date Filed: 06/04/2014