By Angelica Leicht
By Dianna Wray
By Aaron Reiss
By Camilo Smith
By Craig Malisow
By Jeff Balke
By Angelica Leicht
By Jeff Balke
Two years ago Roger Haseman, the Harris County D.A.'s environmental crimes chief, had reason to celebrate: He had just won a case unprecedented in the history of the state. His office convicted the L.B. Foster company of "passive disposal" violations -- allowing hazardous paint waste from a container to contaminate soil and groundwater through mere neglect, rather than deliberate dumping.
Federal prosecutors have gained criminal verdicts against defendants in passive disposal cases, but only one state, Ohio, has been successful in taking that theory into a criminal prosecution.
Haseman succeeded -- at least until late March, when a regional appellate court overturned the jury's decision.
Call it a bad first impression. Rendering its opinion in what in legalese is called a case of first impression, the First Court of Appeals ruled that state criminal laws cover only the active disposal of wastes. L.B. Foster's $150,000 fine was thrown out.
It was a victory for the Pittsburgh-based corporation, which cuts rail for railroads, as well as a triumph for Haseman's critics, who believe his office undertakes prosecutions with the kind of overzealous fervor that would make the Gestapo blush. Haseman feels the decision was yet another signal that Texas is a state where industry lines lawmakers' pockets, and where punishing polluters is Sisyphean work.
Haseman explains that he hates pollution so much that he'll do whatever he can -- and in this case, that means even using legal theories like passive disposal, which hadn't been recognized by the state (see "Dumped On" and "Getting Wasted," by George Flynn, January 31, 2002).
L.B. Foster initially seemed like a slam-dunk for the environmental crimes division.
In December 1997, Houston police investigating municipal code violations at the Burlington Northern Railway stumbled upon L.B. Foster's property off West Little York Road, southeast of Beltway 8, and discovered an uncovered metal container filled with hazardous paint waste. Officers felt the waste had spilled or overflowed at some time in the past. (L.B. Foster has occupied the property since 1969.)
Investigators also discovered what they believed to be illegal dumping of used oil, which led to one charge and conviction that was upheld in the recent appellate ruling.
Two months after the initial visit, the city took soil tests that revealed a lead content about 12 times the level considered hazardous by the Environmental Protection Agency, evidence showed.
L.B. Foster immediately hired a consultant to remove 71 tons of lead-contaminated soil and 2,916 cubic yards of oil-contaminated soil, spending $610,000 in the process.
But two years later, after L.B. Foster had fixed the problem, Haseman got the company indicted anyway.
"They had never been punished for those violations," Haseman says. Even though Foster paid more than a half-million dollars to remove the soil, Haseman contended the company had allowed hazardous waste to stew there for years, seeping into the aquifer and contaminating drinking water, he says. "If you had a robber that committed a robbery and the next day decides he has a change of heart and gives the money back he still committed a crime."
But defense attorneys who've squared off with Haseman argue that his office often waits until the day before the statute of limitations expires before filing charges. That method makes it harder to mount a defense, since the allegations cover conduct that could have happened years before. Or, in the case of L.B. Foster, if the problem was already corrected.
Tom Hagemann, who defended L.B. Foster, says he doesn't know why Haseman would pursue the company two years later. But he's more concerned with the prosecutor trying to cook up criminal charges for passive disposal -- he says that doctrine could ultimately hold innocent property owners liable for a previous owner's mistakes. Armed with passive disposal, Hagemann says, Haseman could target virtually any citizen in Harris County.
"It was its potential effect on individuals that was as frightening as its potential effect on companies," Hagemann says.
Referring to one appellate justice's assessment of passive disposal, Hagemann says, "You mean to tell me that if I had an oil leak one day under my car that I didn't even know about, and a couple days later I come and see that oil leak, that at that point I am committing a felony?"
For Hagemann, "the critical question in L.B. Foster was 'Can you be indicted for doing nothing?' And to me, the answer to that has to be 'No way.' "
Haseman says passive disposal wouldn't mean charging with impunity. He says he would have to show that a defendant was aware of contamination and still did nothing.
"If I don't feel like I have evidence to prove knowledge, then I'm not going to be bringing that charge," he says.
Haseman is seeking a rehearing on the appellate ruling. However, he found hardly any supporters among the three-judge panel that delivered the opinion, authored by Justice Laura Carter Higley.
In deciding on the L.B. Foster issues, justices examined cases dealing with a federal statute that applies passive disposal to civil suits. The First Court ruling stated that it could find only one case dealing with a criminal application to passive disposal of hazardous wastes -- and that conviction had been vacated in Colorado. (The Ohio case was tried under a law patterned after a different federal statute.) A Colorado appeals court found that the passive theory "would render the applicable statute of limitations meaningless."