Plea and Settlement Agreements for Environmental Disasters: Three Factors the Courts Consider and Application to the Mayflower, Arkansas Oil Spill

Abstract

This Note will examine the non-adjudicatory settlement or plea agreements available to environmental disasters and their appropriate application. Oftentimes, environmental disasters can be so complicated, that one single lawsuit is not an available option to the parties involved. It may not be clear whether damages, fines or penalties should be shared, many different groups of individuals may be harmed, making a class action suit impractical, or parties may choose to use a non-adjudicatory method for each other’s mutual benefit. In cases involving environmental disasters, parties can use a variety of different methods to solve their problem. This can include alternative dispute resolution techniques such as arbitration or mediation, settlement; or a defendant’s guilty plea to the criminal charges associated with an environmental disaster. This Note will examine three common factors courts have looked to when deciding whether to accept a non-adjudicatory solution to an environmental disaster: (1) the likelihood of plaintiff’s success in trial; (2) the degree of environmental cleanup and remediation that will result from the settlement or agreement; and (3) whether the non-adjudicatory method is more beneficial to the plaintiff. The significance of these three factors is that judges did not explicitly examine them as “factors” in the typical legal sense. Rather, judges conducted these examinations either implicitly or outside of the typical frameworks for considering settlements and plea agreements. In order to accomplish this examination, this Note will look to two past environmental disasters: the British Petroleum (BP) oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010 and the Love Canal disaster of the 1970s. For each of these cases, one of the important settlements or guilty pleas will be discussed. These two case studies exemplify the application of these three factors. In both cases, the courts considered these factors in addition to the typical factors considered when accepting guilty plea or settlement agreements. By considering these additional factors, courts were able to accept agreements that involved a greater deal of environmental remediation and a better solution for the plaintiffs in each respective case.This Note will then apply these factors to the Mayflower, Arkansas oil spill of 2013, where approximately 5,000 barrels of crude oil spilled into the suburban neighborhood near Little Rock. In addition to at least once civil suit brought by a private citizen, the US DOJ and the State of Arkansas have brought a civil suit against ExxonMobil for the rupture of the pipeline. Even though litigation of this case will not begin until February 2014, it is useful to determine what would be included in an acceptable settlement agreement. The application of these factors to the Mayflower, Arkansas case is not only important for that individual case, but is a useful analysis to conduct because of the possible creation of the Keystone XL Pipeline. Predicting an appropriate settlement agreement for the Mayflower, Arkansas spill will allow us to predict an appropriate settlement or guilty plea agreement that could occur with a disaster relating to the Keystone XL Pipeline.I conclude that a successful settlement agreement for the Mayflower, Arkansas oil spill will, in fact, include the three factors discussed in this note. Particularly, a successful agreement will include necessary environmental remediation and will provide the plaintiffs, the Department of Justice and the State of Arkansas, with civil penalties that are unlikely to be available in traditional litigation.