Oil spill governance in the United States the "Exxon Valdez" incident a number of laws were in place to prevent and respond to oil spills. These include: The above legislations were the principle governing instruments of oil spills incidents prior to the "Exxon Valdez" oil spill. Several attempts by congress to establish more encompassing and elaborate oil pollution laws were hindered by belligerent issues which mostly produced stalemates. One such conflict was federal law limiting a state's ability to enforce requirements and liability for parties responsible for causing oil spills. The focus of the debates was mostly centred on party liability. An example of the type of
Deepwater Horizon oil spill be appealed. Barbier ruled that BP had acted with “conscious disregard of known risks" and rejected BP's assertion that other parties were equally responsible for the oil spill. His ruling stated that BP "employees took risks that led to the largest environmental disaster in U.S. history,” that the company was “reckless,” and determined that several crucial BP decisions were “primarily driven by a desire to save time and money, rather than ensuring that the well was secure.” The ruling means that BP, which had already spent more than $28 billion on cleanup costs and damage claims, may be liable for