Tanker Seeks Return to Alaskan Waters

In 1990, the year after it spilled 10.6 million gallons of crude oil into Alaska’s Prince William Sound, the Exxon Valdez was banned from the environmentally sensitive, marine-rich waterway.

Now, with a new name on the bow of the 987-foot ship, its corporate owner is trying to return the vessel to work in Alaskan waters, or to get the U.S. government to pay for its losses.

The request, which would have seemed bold just a few years ago, brings to life a controversial concept that the GOP-led Congress has moved to the center of environmental debate in Washington this year: Should the government be required to pay individuals or companies for the financial damages they suffer when forced to comply with federal anti-pollution laws?

SeaRiver Maritime, the Exxon Corp. subsidiary that operated the ship at the time the vessel’s name became synonymous with the risks of ocean transport of oil and that still owns it, has brought two suits in federal courts:

One, filed in U.S. District Court in Houston, where the shipping company is based, seeks to have the law banning the vessel from Prince William Sound declared unconstitutional.

The other, filed in the U.S. Court of Claims in Washington, demands unspecified compensation for income lost because the ship can no longer operate on the San Francisco-Alaska route for which it was designed. Instead, the ship--now known as the Mediterranean--is running what SeaRiver Maritime says is a less profitable route between Europe and Egypt.

The arguments are consistent with Republican-driven legislation approved by the House and pending in the Senate. The measure, strongly favored by Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole (R-Kan.), the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, would delve deeply into the question of individual property rights and what happens when they clash with government efforts to protect the environment.

The measure would establish the right to public payment whenever the federal government’s action, or inaction, lowers the value of private property. Its supporters have focused on the restrictions government regulations place on individuals, such as how wildlife protections might affect plans to build a back porch that threatens the habitat of a rare squirrel. But the Exxon Valdez case adds a new, far-reaching dimension to the debate.

Citing a cost figure established by the White House Office of Management and Budget, Ralph De Gennaro, representing a budget watchdog group called Taxpayers for Common Sense, said that by establishing a right to government compensation, the GOP bill “would create a new entitlement that could cost $100 billion over seven years.”

Environmentalists argue that the measure would undercut a broad range of laws, among them the Endangered Species Act and wetlands protections, while creating vast opportunities for special interests to challenge government action in time-consuming court actions.

They say it would reverse a long-held policy under which polluters are responsible for meeting the cost of cleaning up damages they cause, with one in which the government would, in effect, pay businesses and individuals not to pollute.

The measure also has drawn sharp attacks from Democrats in the Senate and House.

Dole has indicated several times in recent months that he was ready to bring it to the Senate floor, only to pull back. He recently suggested that he might seek a vote early this month.

Addressing the issue as recently as April 22 in an Earth Day speech to the Senate, Dole said: “Owning property is a right that makes us strong and is a powerful force for the environment. If the government takes somebody’s property for a public purpose, that person should be compensated. If we as a society believe that that person’s property is needed for an important purpose, let us make that choice as a nation and ensure that we are not diminishing our citizens’ rights.”

No one is more at the center of that debate than Sen. Ted Stevens, a Republican and senior senator from Alaska.

Stevens’ legislative work made sure at the last minute that the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 blocked the Exxon Valdez from Prince William Sound. It barred from the waterway any tanker that spilled more than 1 million gallons into “the marine environment after March 22, 1989 . . . from operating on the navigable waters of Prince William Sound, Alaska.”

Only one ship--the Exxon Valdez--fell into that category. It ran aground on Bligh Reef at 12:05 a.m. on March 24, 1989, leaving behind the worst oil spill in U.S. history.

Now, Stevens is one of the supporters of the Dole legislation, a position that puzzles environmentalists.

“He’s talking out of both sides of his tanker on this one,” said Dan Becker, legislative director of the Sierra Club.

Mitch Rose, a spokesman for Stevens, said Friday that after Exxon asked to have the restrictions removed so the ship could return to Alaskan waters, “we consulted with everyone in the state and everyone agreed memories were too strong of the damage that was done.”

Pete Rupp, the company’s vice president, said that under U.S. law, the $125-million ship must be operated by an American crew adhering to U.S. maritime standards. These are stricter than regulations of other nations. Thus, the ship’s operating expenses are greater than are those of the foreign vessels with which it now competes in the Middle East and Europe.

“She’s operating at a loss,” he said. “She’s being forced to trade in an uncompetitive environment.”

He said that the company was not seeking a specific amount, leaving determination of compensation for the trial before the Court of Claims. Nor, he said, had he seen a specific figure for the ship’s losses.

In its suit, the shipping company argues that the provision keeping the vessel out of Prince William Sound is unconstitutional because it:

* Was applied retroactively and denied the company “both procedural and substantive due process.

* Violated the 5th Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection, by singling out the company “for selective and injurious treatment.”

* Amounted to an ex post facto law “since it inflicts a greater punishment than the law applied at the time of the incident in Prince William Sound.”

As a result of multiple legal actions, Exxon paid at least $1 billion to settle civil and criminal cases stemming from the spill.

Rupp said the 20-year-old former Exxon Valdez and a sister ship, the Long Beach, were built specifically for use in the waters of the West Coast, and are the two newest vessels built for such operations.

“They are the two newest ships, with the latest technology, computerized bridges. It’s ironic they can’t trade up there,” he said.