United States v. Hamel

Gilbert Hamel (defendant) discharged gasoline into Lake St. Clair. A jury convicted Hamel of violating § 301 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA). Hamel argued that gasoline was not a pollutant under § 1362(6) of the FWPCA, which defined pollutants for purposes of the FWPCA’s criminal provisions. Hamel noted that § 1321, which defined pollutants for purposes of the FWPCA’s civil-liability provisions, explicitly included oil and oil products. By contrast, the materials listed in § 1362(6) included sewage, chemical wastes, biological materials, and several other types of materials, but not oil or oil products. Additionally, several cases held that the Refuse Act of 1899 barred the discharge of gasoline into navigable waters. Hamel therefore also argued that because criminal penalties were available to punish the discharge of gasoline under the Refuse Act, Congress would not have intended that harsher criminal penalties be available for the same offense under the FWPCA. The FWPCA’s legislative history explained that the FWPCA’s definition of pollutants was intended to include the same materials covered by the Refuse Act, with some additions, and emphasized that “no one has the right to pollute.” At trial, the United States (plaintiff) argued that gasoline was a pollutant under § 1362(6) because it fit the definition of biological materials, and the trial court accepted this argument. Hamel appealed.