Supreme Court To Hear Exxon Valdez Case
19 Years After Worst Oil Spill In U.S. History, Alaskans Will Find Out If Company Pays Damages
-
-
Photo
Steve Smith, a 69-year-old Cordova fisherman, stands by his fishing boat in Cordova, Alaska, Feb. 7, 2008. The U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments on Feb. 27 from Exxon about why the company should not have to pay the $2.5 billion punitive damages awarded to victims of the disaster. (AP Photo/Al Grillo)
-
Photo
Nancy Bird shows oil-soaked soil collected from Smith Island in Prince William Sound on May 20, 2007, on display at the Prince William Sound Science Center in Cordova. Eleven million gallons of crude oil spurted into the rich fishing waters of Prince William Sound when the Exxon Valdez ran aground on Alaska's Bligh Reef. (AP Photo/Al Grillo)
-
Photo
In this March 26, 1989 file photo, the smaller Exxon Baton Rouge attempts to off-load crude from the Exxon Valdez in the Prince William Sound near Valdez, Alaska. (AP Photo/Rob Stapleton, File)
-
-
Play CBS Video
Video
Exxon Oil Spill: Pain Remains
The Exxon Valdez oil spill, which occurred 17 years ago, was the worst ecological disaster in U.S. history. Byron Pitts reports on how the ripple effects of the accident are still being felt.
-
Video Exxon Valdez Fines Unpaid
Exxon still owes billions in fines to people in Alaska 15 years after its disastrous Valdez oil spill, the worst in U.S. history, John Blackstone reports.
-
Interactive
Oil Spills: Disaster At Sea
See the locations of some of the world's worst spills.
-
Photo Essay
South Korea Oil Spill
A tanker accident spills 2.7 million gallons of crude, desolating the South Korean coast.
But mostly, people in Cordova talk about the discouraging wait for legal retribution for the worst oil spill in U.S. history.
It's been almost 19 years since the tanker Exxon Valdez ran aground at Alaska's Bligh Reef, spurting 11 million gallons of crude into the rich fishing waters of Prince William Sound. In 1994, an Anchorage jury awarded victims $5 billion in punitive damages. That amount has since been cut in half by other courts on appeals by Exxon Mobil Corp.
Now the town of 2,200 looks anxiously to the U.S. Supreme Court, which will hear arguments Wednesday from Exxon on why the company should not have to pay punitive damages at all.
Scores of Cordova residents are among almost 33,000 plaintiffs - including commercial fishermen, Alaska Natives, landowners, businesses and local governments - who could see the $2.5 billion judgment taken away by the high court.
"With this legal system the way it has been protracted out, people can't put it behind them," said Cordova Mayor Tim Joyce. "The final recompense has never been made."
Steve Smith, a 69-year-old Cordova fisherman, worries that big business will prevail.
"I really wonder, what do you do if you don't get a just decision out of the Supreme Court," he said on his boat Prince William. "I mean, there's no other court to take it to. What do you got left, really? Anarchy?"
The spill soiled 1,200 miles of shoreline and killed hundreds of thousands of birds and other marine animals, inflicting environmental injuries that have not fully recovered, according to numerous scientific studies. Exxon contends it should not be liable for the actions of the Exxon Valdez skipper, Joseph Hazelwood, when the supertanker ran aground on March 24, 1989, with 53 millions gallons of oil in its hold.
Prosecutors said Hazelwood was drunk, but he denied it and was acquitted of the charge in criminal court.
Cordova itself, 45 miles from Bligh Reef, was not directly touched by the slick. But residents say the spill was a crippling blow for a town so dependent on commercial fishing, particularly for herring, whose numbers plummeted several years after the spill and have yet to return.
The mayor at the time of the spill later killed himself, leaving a long suicide note that mentioned Exxon.
Mike Webber, a 47-year-old Native Alaskan artist and fisherman from Cordova, said his marriage did not survive the strain; he and his wife divorced two years after the spill. With the fishing industry in shreds, he also began drinking heavily, finally checking himself into rehab in 1998.
He said that he has been sober ever since, but that others kept drinking and abusing drugs and sank into severe depression and, in some cases, suicide.
What do you do if you don't get a just decision out of the Supreme Court? I mean, there's no other court to take it to. What do you got left, really? Anarchy?
Fisherman Steve Smith, 69"Well, they didn't," Webber said, his voice breaking. "They just put a hole in us is what they did, right in our hearts and it hurts. And they took part of our soul."
According to plaintiffs, Exxon knew Hazelwood had begun drinking again after seeking treatment, but the company still put him at the helm of the nearly 1,000-foot ship.
At issue is whether Exxon should have to pay any damages under the federal Clean Water Act and centuries-old laws governing shipping.
Exxon maintains that punitive damages would be excessive punishment beside the $3.5 billion in cleanup costs, compensatory payments and fines it already has paid. As for the environmental effects of the spill, the claim about severe, continuing damage to the sound "is simply untrue," according to the Texas company, which earlier this month posted the largest annual profit by a U.S. company - $40.6 billion.
"The environment in Prince William Sound is healthy, robust and thriving," Exxon spokesman Tony Cudmore said in an e-mail to The Associated Press. "That's the conclusion of many scientists who have done extensive studies of the Prince William Sound ecosystem."
To the casual observer, the sound's stunning beauty has been restored, its many islands, fjords and glaciers a photographer's dream. But residents in Cordova and other communities say the region is still a long way from healing. It took years for salmon to rebound, and sea otters and Harlequin ducks are still below pre-spill numbers.
An estimated 85 tons of crude linger, according to a federal study released last year. Jars of oil-stained sand and rocks still being dug up in the spill area can be examined at the Prince William Sound Science Center at the south end of town.
Most devastating to Cordova residents, the once-lucrative Pacific herring fishery has not returned in significant numbers since 1993, a failure precipitated by the spill, according to a recent report by science center researchers. Exxon maintains there is no link between the spill and the virus that reduced the number of herring.
The herring catch used to kick-start the entire town after the quieter winter months. Herring meant a quick bounty for fishermen and ready cash for boat insurance, equipment repairs and new gear. For many, it represented a half-year's earnings. Herring also brought auxiliary ships, processor vessels, and plane crews for spotting the fish.
"A whole lifestyle has gone," said restaurant owner Libbie Graham. "Life was great. I mean, you worked hard but you were rewarded for it."
The year before the spill, Cordova received $1.2 million - or 2 percent of the value of fish caught - through the state's raw fish tax, according to Joyce, the mayor. Post-spill, the town's annual cut has averaged around $500,000, reflecting the loss of the herring and the falling price of salmon.
"When our budget is just $6 million, that's a big hit for us," Joyce said.
Steve Picou, a sociologist with the University of South Alabama who has been researching the effects of the spill on Cordova residents, said that initially, reports of stress and depression were directly linked to the loss of jobs for fishermen and the damage to the environment so crucial to Alaska Natives who hunt and fish for their food. Later, he said, the stress increased because of the drawn-out court battle with Exxon.
"I find it not only ironic but tragic that the very process that is supposed to resolve the social impacts of the Exxon Valdez spill - that is, litigation - has, over time, become a source of stress and disruption itself," Picou said.
© MMVIII, The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.



- 1
- 2
- next
See all 84 CommentsI''m afraid he''s right, especially with the way the court has changed with the Bush appointees.
As for the Exxon issue, I find it pathetic that a company which has the highest recorded fiscal revenues and profits in the history of corporations sees it worthy to avoid paying for a oil spill it clearly is responsible for...as determined by an US court with American jurors. It''s why to this day since the Valdez spill, I have never bought Exxon gas or products. I''m obviously not hurting them, but then again, I could give a rat''s arse about their products...hasn''t bothered my one iota!
As for the Exxon issue, I find it pathetic that a company which has the highest recorded fiscal revenues and profits in the history of corporations sees it worthy to avoid paying for a oil spill it clearly is responsible for...as determined by an US court with American jurors. It''s why to this day since the Valdez spill, I have never bought Exxon gas or products. I''m obviously not hurting them, but then again, I could give a rat''s arse about their products...hasn''t bothered my one iota!
Yep, and when the Court rules for Exxon, it will be time to take them down.
Posted by jerr11 at 01:09 AM : Feb 26, 2008
+ report abuse
******
as soon as they can prove that vomit that you just spewed..i would really wish obama would win..you would learn the meaning of ''fighting'' for your freedom
Posted by libsrweak
Easy enough, Bush''s WMDs lie told 935 times, inclusive Colin Powell telling it to the UN, and Congress, number of US soldiers dead 4,000, these are easily available numbers and events that are public information.
If he wasn''t lying about the WMDs, then where are they? You might call it vomit, but it is truth, maybe to you truth is vomit...
BRAVO! Succinct and to the point. This case personifies the greed and lack of ethics by Big Business in America.
I find it humorous, enough to stop what I''m doing and post here, that you would have sympathy for poor little Exxon, who has paid and paid, etc., and just posted a $40 billion profit, the highest of any company in the world. Truth is that Exxon is the greediest, most corrupt multi-national corporation in the world, has spent more money fighting scientists who warn about global warming than they have cleaning up Prince William Sound, and they use their hard cash to corrupt entire governments to do their bidding. Cheney worked directly with them to hand us our national energy policy, which included taking out Saddam Hussein. Wake up and smell the crude. And speaking of which, it wouldn''t make much difference to them where you buy your gas, because they are mainly in the crude and refinery business, and end retailers buy their gas from regional distributers who may get their supplies from anybody. You want neutralize the power of a monster like Exxon folks, vote for people who will get us off the fossil fuel grid entirely, and get on the bandwagon for utility companies that use solar and wind for electricity that will run our electric cars, and then turn your roof into a wall of solar panels and sell energy back to the grid.
Posted by libsrweak at 01:39 AM : Feb 26, 2008
Geee - what happened on 9-11-2001 - Bush was just like the skipper of the Exxon Valdez - drunk at the wheel...
And yes, the Alaskan people will probably NEVER get anything for it b/c the courts are so pro-business that they''d rather have their pockets fattened than defend it''s people.. Ben Franklin, George Washington & Thomas Jefferson are probably so ashamed of what''s happened to this country.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by IOWEIGN at 08:25 AM : Feb 26, 2008
That''s such an absurd moron.org comment I think I''ll just let it lay.
In oversimplified terms, maritime law exempts ship owners from liability for damage caused by employees acting against the rules of the owners. Exxon will claim that the drunken captain acted against their rules; the other side will surely argue that Exxon
should have known what their employee was doing.
This legal question has little or nothing to do with politics or with who appointed whom to the Supreme Court, nor even much to do with how badly people suffered from the accident. Nobody can blame the people damaged for going after the company with the deep pockets, but they may not prevail, since the law was in effect for decades (at least) before this spill.
If the Supreme Court does not do justice here, it will KILL all new searches for oil in deep sea or in the Artic.
shrub wouldn''t put the polar bear on the endangered species list and Exxon won it with $2 billion bid. (Another in a long list of stupid decisions he makes. GW Shrub, the executor of the polar bear! I can hear the history professors now)
I willing to bet here and now that not a single drilling will happen. The movement to protect the polar is strong and getting stronger.
There are oil accidents all the time and they are generally hushed up, but it is getting harder and harder to do.
You have to admire their legal tactics thou...
"If we stall this case long enough, anyone who witnessed our little oil spill boo boo will die of old age before they can collect any punitive damages."
After all, Exxon knows money does grow on trees as long as those trees are allowed to rot for a million years underground.
Posted by IOWEIGN at 08:25 AM : Feb 26, 2008
And when he ran aground, he realized he''d hit a goldmine... Iraq here we come!!
It''s payday for Halliburton and Bush''s cronies!
Brilliant.
Brilliant." -- Posted by easeup
Actually it is Brilliant.
When the decision comes out of the court, you''ll be able to see how those conservative justices do, and you CAN directly blame Bush for that.
When the decision comes out of the court, you''''ll be able to see how those conservative justices do, and you CAN directly blame Bush for that.
Posted by cozzicon at 10:39 AM : Feb 26, 2008"
Are you so narrow-minded that you think Supreme Court justices are at the beck & call of the President who nominated them? These people are called "conservative" or "liberal" for their SOCIAL ideologies (i.e. abortion, civil rights, etc.) NOT because they are owned by the President.
As usual, you''re out in neocon la-la land.
Bush and co. have done so much to politicize justice in this country, what makes you think the SCOTUS is any different? Justices are mere humans just like everyone else. They are as corruptible and fallible as any other human on the planet.
I doubt that a justice who was appointed by Bush was appointed for any other reason then their slavish loyalty to Bush/Cheney. After all, that''s what got all those fresh-out-of-school US Attorneys their jobs over well-qualified candidates who graduated from real law schools.
The point is that Bush is beholden to the oil companies, and the SCOTUS is partly beholden to Bush. There will be no penalty for Exxon because it would hurt a big GOP contributor.
BTW Exxon recently gave their fat cat (literally) CEO almost 1/2 Billion as a retirement package?
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=1841989
revolution. when the rules don''t work for or serve you ... you don''t need the rules ... and don''t see a need to follow them.
Posted by RickNuber at 11:41 AM : Feb 26, 2008"
Slavish loyalty? That statement proves that you are beyond clueless about the Supreme Court. I can''t even ponder a way to debate someone who stomps his feet & states such utter ignorance. These judges are picked by their beliefs on SOCIAL issues and that is a FACT--AND they are approved by a BIPARTISAN (I''m sure you had to look that word up) committee & the majority of Congress.
Go seek help for your Bush fetish.
It''s a done deal.
Keep drinking, divorcing, commiting suicide.
No one including exxon, the lawyers and the Supremes Court cares.
We will show compassion for you, for a price.
There is no notion of bipartisanship in this government, or hadn''t you noticed? Both major parties are acting against the wishes of the majority of Americans. I find it sad that the neocons are still pushing this misguided notion that the government is infallible...well, as long as they agree with the president, that is.
Neocons. Slavish dullards, every one.
Posted by RickNuber at 11:41 AM : Feb 26, 2008"
j-witless by any other name is still witless.
So until we stop the oil/gas companies and the insurance companies, we as Americans will never be free from debt.
Posted by easeup at 10:45 AM : Feb 26, 2008
Your mistake is they are chosen by the President because they hold his political belief and if that belief is one that business should not pay for any damages then that is why they got chosen.
But the good will be that the people in Alaska may move away from the wacko conservatives they helped put into office. Too bad it takes destruction of their enviornment for them to see it.
- 1
- 2
- next
See all 84 Comments