United States v. Healy Tibbitts Construction Company

Good Law
713 F.2d 1469·20 ERC (BNA) 1684·20 ERC 1684·1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 24510
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAugust 26, 198382-4568California4,047 words

Opinion

Opinion

Schroeder, J.

We are concerned here with an application of the civil penalty provisions of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. A $3,000 civil penalty was assessed under that Act against the Healy Tibbitts Company, based upon the Coast Guard’s findings that its vessel had discharged oil into navigable waters. The United States sued to collect the fine and the district court granted summary judgment in its favor, holding that the Coast Guard’s findings were supported by substantial evidence in the administrative record.

On appeal, Healy Tibbitts contends that the Coast Guard’s procedures violated both the Due Process Clause and the Administrative Procedures Act, that it was entitled to a de novo hearing in district court, and that the civil penalty provisions were misapplied in this case. We reject these contentions and affirm the district court’s judgment.

I

STATUTE

The Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA), originally enacted in 1948, was extensively amended and recodified in 1972 to strengthen the national policy against the discharge of pollutants into navigable and ground waters. Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, Pub.L. No. 92-500 § 2 , 86 Stat. 816…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.