Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Oil Field Remediation Legacy Lawsuits topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Louisiana committee debates bill aimed at speeding cleanup of legacy oil-and-gas sites
Summary
Lawmakers and stakeholders sparred over House Bill 694, a proposal to streamline remediation of contaminated oil-field sites and limit some litigation outcomes as a way to attract investment; the measure drew support from industry and opposition from landowners and legacy-plaintiff attorneys and remains in committee after amendments.
House Bill 694 by Representative Jacob Landry — a bill intended to speed remediation of oil-and-gas exploration and production sites and to provide a clearer path for cleanup — drew extended debate at the Senate Natural Resources Committee meeting.
Supporters, led by Representative Jacob Landry, said the bill would encourage remediation using Department of Energy and Natural Resources procedures rather than lengthy court fights. “This bill ensures property affected by oil and gas operations is officially remediated to state standards using RECAP and 29(B) without encouraging windfall judgments,” Landry told the committee.
The bill would allow the Department to approve a “most feasible plan” (MFP) for cleanup, give the department a role in resolving remediation plans, and permit a party who admits liability to deposit funds for cleanup or perform the work. Mike Moncla of the Louisiana Oil and Gas Association said legacy lawsuits have discouraged investment and praised the bill’s focus on remediation and agency-driven plans.
Landowners and lawyers who represent legacy-plaintiff claims raised concerns the bill would lower private-law protections and shift remedies to regulatory cleanup. Victor Marcello, who said he represents legacy plaintiffs, argued the measure would “impose a lesser standard by using regulatory standards” and cautioned that contractual and tort rights should not be cut off by administrative rules.
Committee discussion focused on several contested items: whether an MFP should be evaluated under a “clear and convincing” standard on appeal or by preponderance of the evidence; whether property-value and economic-loss recoveries should be limited; and what role contractual indemnities between operators and assignees should play. Senator Lambert proposed an anti-indemnity amendment intended to prevent parties from evading liability by assigning remediation obligations; that amendment failed on a roll call (4 nays, 2 yays).
The committee adopted a technical and substantive amendment package (amendment 23405) that changed multiple provisions, including extending some deadlines, restoring preponderance-of-evidence standards in certain provisions, adjusting appeal routes, and removing the bill’s earlier cap language on non-remediation damages. After discussion and additional red-card testimony from landowners and plaintiffs, the committee did not move the bill to a favorable report and left it in committee for further work between the author and stakeholders.
Committee members said they would work with the author and stakeholders before the bill returns to the floor.
The bill drew extensive testimony from industry representatives, parish and landowner groups and attorneys for legacy plaintiffs. The committee debated both environmental and contractual consequences of the statutory changes and asked the author to continue negotiations before floor consideration.
