One point that should be made about suing for money damages is that this 

 really does not help the environment in any direct way. The money goes into 

 general funds, which may be good for the national treasury, and may help deter 

 people from spilling, but which does not repair the harm to the area where the 

 spill occurred. This is why we are trying to encourage spillers, under court 

 order, to actually replace or repair the destroyed resource themselves rather 

 than just giving money. In addition, there are several court decisions saying 

 that in cases where the Government could obtain an injunction forcing a de- 

 fendant to carry out certain actions, it has the alternative of repairing the 

 harm itself and then sending the defendant the bill. Recent drafts of the 

 Superfund legislation would allow access to the fund for the loss of natural 

 resources. 



OTHER SANCTIONS AGAINST SPILLERS 



Now I would like to discuss for a few minutes some of the other actions 

 that can be taken against those spillers who harm or kill migratory birds or 

 endangered species. There is presently a trend in the U.S. Department of 

 Justice to criminally prosecute individuals as well as corporations for vio- 

 lations of Federal pollution statutes (See Norton F. Tennille, Jr., "Criminal 

 Prosecution of Individuals: A New Trend in Federal Environmental Enforcement?' 

 ALI-ABA, (1978.) 



Under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, 16 U.S.C. §703, it is unlawful to 



...at any time, by any means or in any manner, to... take, 

 ...or kill,... any migratory bird, any part, nest, or eggs 

 of any such bird, ...included in the terms of the conven- 

 tions between the United States and Great Britain, ... 

 the United States and the United Mexican States, and the 

 United States and the Government of Japan for the protec- 

 tion of migratory birds and birds in danger of extinction ... 



A violation of this broadly worded prohibition is a criminal offense, 16 

 U.S.C. §707, punishable by a fine of up to $500.00, imprisonment for up to 

 6 months, or both. Most North American birds are covered by the Act. 



Similarly, the Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. SI 538, forbids the tak- 

 ing of endangered or threatened species, and defines "take" broadly to include 

 "harm." FWS's regulations define "harm" to include 



...an act or omission which actually injures or kills wild- 

 life, including acts which annoy it to such an extent as to 

 significantly disrupt essential behavior patterns, which in- 

 clude ...breeding, feeding, or sheltering; significant envi- 

 ronmental modification or degradation which has such effects 

 is included within the meaning of "harm." 50 C.F.R. §17.3 (1977). 



This Act also provides criminal and civil penalties for taking listed species. 



33 



