home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
TIME: Almanac 1993
/
TIME Almanac 1993.iso
/
time
/
031290
/
0312110.000
< prev
next >
Wrap
Text File
|
1992-08-28
|
6KB
|
133 lines
LAW, Page 54Battling Crimes Against Nature
The Exxon indictment spotlights a rapidly growing legal field
When the Exxon Valdez fouled Alaska's waters a year ago,
Americans reacted with shock and indignation. Last week it was
Exxon's turn to be shocked. U.S. Attorney General Dick
Thornburgh announced that the company had been indicted on five
criminal counts stemming from the March 1989 oil spill. That
action, which reportedly followed the breakdown of a plea
bargain that Alaskan officials opposed as too lenient, could
cost Exxon $700 million in fines if the company is convicted.
Said Thornburgh: "We intend to see that the laws are fully and
strictly enforced."
Thornburgh's tough words seemed to signal that the Bush
Administration, stung by charges of foot dragging on the
environment, was moving to crack down on major polluters like
Exxon. The company pronounced itself "disappointed" at the
indictments and vowed to fight them in court. The prosecution
may yet result in a settlement. But no matter what happens, the
case will further complicate a gargantuan legal wrangle that
already involves more than 150 civil complaints as well as the
separate prosecution of tanker captain Joseph Hazelwood by the
state of Alaska.
The Exxon indictment is only the latest example of a
growing legal trend. In the past two decades, rising concerns
over conservation, pollution and industrial accidents have
crystallized into a large body of environmental regulations.
"Congress and the states have created thousands of new laws
governing the environment," says Washington lawyer Ridgway Hall,
"and in each of the past four years the Justice Department has
brought increasing numbers of environmental actions." As a
result, the 20,000 attorneys who specialize in environmental law
have become some of the most sought after professionals in the
U.S. "Business is unbelievable," says Chicago lawyer Richard
Kissel. "It's the largest explosion of legal work that I've
seen."
One of the splashiest growth areas has been criminal
environmental law. The Justice Department now has 20 full-time
lawyers working on such prosecutions, backed up by U.S.
attorneys and FBI agents across the nation, plus 50 criminal
investigators at the Environmental Protection Agency. In seven
years, the Justice Department's special environmental unit has
obtained more than 400 settlements or convictions against
individuals and corporations, yielding fines of $26 million and
prison sentences totaling 270 years. Among the defendants:
Ashland Oil, fined $2.25 million last year for the collapse of a
storage tank near Pittsburgh that discharged more than 700,000
gal. of diesel fuel into the Monongahela and Ohio rivers;
Texaco, fined $750,000 in 1988 for failing to conduct important
safety tests on a California off-shore drilling rig; and Ocean
Spray Cranberries, fined $400,000 in 1988 for discharging acidic
waste water from its processing plant in Middleboro, Mass.
Although the upsurge of prosecutions has naturally created a
demand for top environmental defense attorneys, the biggest draw
of all is corporate work. Gone are the days when environmental
law was the lone province of conservationist lobby groups and
government agencies. Today's environmental lawyer is more likely
to wear a pinstripe suit and dispense advice across the company
conference table. "The reason is simple," says Howard Learner
of Business and Professional People for the Public Interest. "If
you're in a real estate transaction, you want to know what's
buried beneath the land and what's in the water supply."
Preventive action, in short, has become the main focus of this
growing branch of legal practice.
More than any other single factor, it is the federal
Superfund act that gave environmental law its impetus. "Some
have suggested that the statute was the public works act of the
1980s for lawyers," says Tulane University law professor Robert
Kuehn. The complex legislation, which created a trust fund in
the billions to treat hazardous waste sites, mandates that
polluters should be held responsible for the costs of cleaning
up. What keeps Superfund lawyers busy is the effort to determine
exactly who should be found liable. For example, should it be
the firm that discharged the waste, the current property owner,
the banks that hold the mortgage or the insurers?
Proceedings under traditional statutes like the Clean Water
Act also keep lawyers occupied. So does the heavy lobbying
surrounding new legislation. Last week Senate leaders announced a
delicate compromise on a new Clean Air Act to regulate car and
factory emissions, but the measure will face tough going on the
floor.
Legal business also flows from the environmental impact
statements that are now necessary for virtually any major
construction. Meanwhile, good old-fashioned conservationist
causes, like saving trees and endangered animals, continue to
spark hot legal disputes. Says Michael Anderson, an attorney for
the Wilderness Society: "There has never been a time when legal
action has been used more effectively than now." That may be
good news for those seeking to put the law on the side of the
environment. But it is even better news for those lawyers who
are making big bucks from the booming trade.
-- By Alain L. Sanders. Reported by Jerome Cramer/Washington,
with other bureaus.
____________________________________________________________
GETTING TOUGH WITH POLLUTERS
ASHLAND OIL: One violation under the Clean Water Act; one
violation under the Rivers and Harbors Act. Fine: $2.25 million.
TEXACO: Two violations under the Outer Continental Shelf
Lands Act. Fine: $750,000.
OCEAN SPRAY CRANBERRIES: 21 violations under the Clean
Water Act. Fine: $400,000.
EXXON: Accused of one violation under each of the
following: the Clean Water Act, the Refuse Act, the Migratory
Bird Treaty Act, the Ports and Waterways Act, the Dangerous
Cargo Act. Potential fine: $700 million.