Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill has rebuffed a request by former U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr to marginalize the legal theory of Louisiana parishes in their coastal erosion lawsuits and to appeal a recent $745 million judgment against Chevron.
Murrill said that though she had respect for Barr, the former attorney general’s position on the April 4 jury verdict against Chevron in Plaquemines Parish was at odds with the facts of the case and the law. She also seemed to dispute Barr’s argument in an April 9 letter that the litigation has the potential to negatively affect liquefied natural gas plant operations in the state and curtail oil and gas investments in Louisiana.
“... These lawsuits seek to impose ruinous, retroactive liability for oil and gas producers based on decades of activities that were expressly permitted by all relevant federal, state and local authorities and that generated the energy, employment and revenue that once made Louisiana a leading contributor to American prosperity,” Barr wrote on behalf of several groups, including the American Free Enterprise Chamber of Commerce and the American Energy Institute.
Murrill, however, rejected the idea that Louisiana’s economic future hinges on issues surrounding the coastal erosion litigation, saying that the state will continue to be one of the major energy producers in the nation.
“Chevron and its predecessor Texaco, like other oil and gas companies, was grandfathered into the permitting regime established in the early (1980s) unless its prior actions were illegal and continued after 1980,” Murrill said in an April 10 statement. “The facts at trial showed Chevron’s predecessor Texaco illegally dumped 100 million gallons of contaminated water into the marsh and continued to do so after 1980, while also being paid by other companies to inject their wastewater into Chevron/Texaco’s saltwater disposal wells.”
She defended the Plaquemines Parish jury verdict, indicating that Chevron/Texaco understood the law but instead “chose profits over environmental compliance.”
“The jury carefully examined the evidence and only held Chevron responsible for its share of fault,” Murrill said. “I will continue to be a champion of this energy sector, which contributes greatly to American energy independence and security. I will also ensure that industry complies with our laws.”
Barr had urged Louisiana officials to reconsider their “acquiescence” of the 43 coastal erosion lawsuits that have been filed by plaintiffs’ attorneys against energy companies. His letter places much of the blame for coastal erosion in Louisiana on the federal government for its management of levees along the Mississippi River and dredging activities. The impact of hurricanes was also a factor, he said.
“Specifically, we ask that, through intervention or supersession, you take an active role at this stage in all the cases and particularly in the post-trial motions and appeal in the Plaquemines Parish case,” Barr told Murrill in the letter.
Lana Venable, executive director of Louisiana Lawsuit Abuse Watch (LLAW), said LLAW had not contacted Murrill’s office about this issue but agreed with the former attorney general.
“We have consistently opposed these lawsuits, in principle, and we believe the state’s involvement in them is an overreach, underscoring government support for litigation over job creation,” Venable said in an email to the Louisiana Record. “These unfounded attacks on the oil and gas industry send a message that these companies are not welcome here, disincentivizing future expansion and investment.”
The April 4 jury verdict against Chevron represents a bellwether for the remaining lawsuits filed by coastal parishes and only reinforces Louisiana’s reputation as a “Judicial Hellhole” and one of the worst states to do business in, she said.
Barr argues that Louisiana’s State and Local Coastal Resources Management Act of 1978 (SLCRMA) bars the recovery of damages resulting from industry activities that occurred before 1980. He also urged Murrill to consider the federal government’s liability for land loss in Louisiana and to see that this argument is presented in legal proceedings affecting other energy industry defendants.