Read Part 1 of the Buffalo Creek Disaster. Review the Part 1 Buffalo Creek Questions and respond to them in detail. At a minimum you response should be 5 pages double spaced. Due date is Monday, April

Buffalo Creek Disaster

{Student’s Name}

{Instructor’s Name}

{Institutional Affiliate}

{Date}

What were the actual facts which gave rise to the Buffalo Creek disaster?

Buffalo Creek Disaster occurred on February 26th 1972 when the coal slurry impounded dam number 3 which was owned by Pittston Coal Company. The dam was located in West Virginia, Logan County and it busted four days after it was declared satisfactory by the federal mine inspector. The resultants was the commonly known Buffalo Creek Flood which will remain in the memory of miners. The flood unleashed about 132million US gallon which is approximately 500,000 m3 of water covering over 30fts high on the residents along the Buffalo Creek in 16 coal towns with a population of about 5,000 people. The flood caused numerous damages where 125 people were killed and 1,121 were injured and more than 4,000 individuals were left without homes while others suffered mentally (Stern, 1976). The flood also destroyed and damaged some businesses in the region. The survivors filed a legal suit against the company and they won the case. The dam was built of abrasive mining dumped at Buffalo Creek in 1968 but failed following heavy rains. The water from dam number 3 overwhelmed dams number 2 and 1. It was constructed on top of coal slurry sediment collected behind dam number 1 and 2 rather being built on a solid bedrock. Following the investigation that was launched to investigate the disaster, the following facts were revealed that gave rise to the Buffalo Creek Disaster.

Improper construction of the dam No. 3 – the dam was not built based on professionalism of engineering practices and the standards of earth-dam construction were never followed. The foundation was not prepared and even there was no attempts of compacting the filling material by use of bulldozers (Stern, 1976). It was only built as a result of dumping the refuse bank of impounding water to function as a dam. It was therefore noted that the dam had not met the required standards despite it being investigated by the federal mine inspector and found to be satisfactory. The resultant was a disaster that led to numerous damages and loss of lives.

Weak foundation material – another fact that gave rise to Buffalo Creek Disaster was the use of weak foundation material. Dam 3 was built on a thick sludge layer with thickness of about 40 to 100 feet which was impounded by Dam number one and two. The sludge was of weak material with negligible trim metier which is believed to be the major cause of the disaster. The use of weak foundation material initiated a mechanism that precipitated the failure and eventually leading to the burst of the dam causing uncontrollable flood in Buffalo Creek Hollow (Stern, 1976).

Inadequate overflow system – the dam did not have a well-positioned overflow pipe. For instance, the 24-inch overflow pipe which was placed in June 1971 was not of sufficient size to control water increase in case if failure. It was placed at approximately 7 to 10 feet below the last level of the compacted crest of the dam (Stern, 1976). The investigation report stated that this was a great negligence and the pipe could have been placed at lower level for it to be effective. The damage could have been prevented if the dam had a fool-proof spillway or decant system constructed under supervision of a professional engineer who possessed adequate skills on dam construction. The system could have provided sufficient regulation on water levels in the dam and hence preventing the occurrence of water level control failure.

Lack of proper monitoring system – dam 3 owned by Pittston Company was not well-instrumented with slope indicators and piezometers which are very essential for every dam in estimating the water levels. These instruments ought to have been provided by the person engaged in the construction of the dam. If proper monitoring of these instrument was done, the failure of the dam could have been and precaution measures taken prior to its collapse.

What was the relationship between Buffalo Creek Mining Company and Pittston Co.?

Buffalo Creek Mining Company was a subsidiary to Pittston Company that was based in New York. It operated 4 underground mines in West Virginia in Buffalo Creek area. All the mines was processed by the plant located at Buffalo Creek Mining Company in West Virginia in the north of Middle Fork. The company employed over 350 men prior to the dam failure. The parent company Pittston acquired Buffalo Creek Mining Company in June 1970. At this time the Dam No. 3 was construction and over 50% complete as revealed by the president of the company Nicholas T. Camicia (Stern, 1976). However, Pittston Company did not applied for a permit to the Public Commission of West Virginia to construct the dam as per the requirements of the Chapter 61, Article 3 Sec 47 of the West Virginia Code (Fitzpatrick, 2018).

Pittston Company as a legal entity was aware of the existence of such law. As per the record, the company had applied for the permit in 1964 for the construction of an earth-fill dam which was constructed in West Virginia, Harrison County in Sardis District. This was a clear indication that the company was aware of the need for compliance with the law but it just neglected the process. According to Mr. Camicia, Buffalo Mining Company was in charge of maintaining the dams on Middle Fork. It also had full-responsibility over the people living in the neighbouring community in Buffalo Creek as well as the workers in the coal mines. The company was also responsible for the safety and the well-being of the plants and other facilities in the organization. However, it was argued that Pittston Company having entirety owned Buffalo Creek Mining Company was responsible for the damages caused. The lawsuit was brought against Pittston contrary to what the parent company intended by issuing a press release in the name of “Buffalo Creek Mining Company.”

Was this lawsuit proper in West Virginia? In a Federal Court? What difference did it make whether the case ended up in Federal or State court?

The decision of filling the lawsuit in West Virginia or in a Federal Court would depend on the company being sued. It would be proper to file the lawsuit in the District Court of West Virginia instead of filling the case in the Federal Court. If the survivors of the Buffalo Creek Disaster were to sue the mining company it would be appropriate to do so only in the West Virginia State Court because Buffalo Creek Mining Company was incorporated in this state. Also, it is provided that citizens of the same state cannot sue each other in federal court. However, if the survivors were to sue Pittston Company, they could have done it in the Federal Court since this involved citizens of two different states.

The major difference in this case can be traced from the fact that the coal companies were having a significant influence over the local courts in West Virginia as opposed to the influence that they could have in the Federal Courts (Holter, 2013). Therefore, justice and fairness could only be attained when the trial was brought to a Federal Court system. Similarly, in this situation the issue of corporate veil would arise. Buffalo Creek Mining Company needed to piece its corporate veil being fully owned by Pittston Coal Company.

Explain the meaning of diversity jurisdiction. Why was the corporate veil issue so important?

The diversity of jurisdiction means that the district court in the United States has the power and authority to hear a certain case where individuals involved are from diverse citizenship. For instance, the doctrine of diversity of jurisdiction would apply to the Buffalo Creek Disaster since the survivors were from different states and countries and the defendant, Pittston Company was based in New York. Diversity jurisdiction also provides the court with powers to hear a civil case where the amount of controversy is more than $75,000. It is a form of jurisdiction in the civil procedure that provides District Courts in the U.S. the powers to hear cases diverse citizenship and higher value of the damages. For example, it was estimated that the 625 survivors of the Buffalo Creek Disaster sued Pittston Coal Company to claim compensation for damages of $64 million as per that time and the total damages amounted to $292 million in the year 2011. Therefore, diversity of jurisdiction applied in the case was to be heard at West Virginia District Court. This is because it meets all the requirements for diversity of jurisdiction since the value of damages was more than $75,000 and it involved parties from different states. Corporate veil was also essential in ensuring that the diversity jurisdiction would apply in this case of Buffalo Creek Disaster. In this scenario, the case could be held at the Federal Court. This implies that, for the survivors to be able to sue Pittston Coal Company which wholly own Buffalo Creek Mining Company, the mining company ought to pierce its corporate veil.

Fitzpatrick, L. (2018). Surface Coal Mining and Human Health: Evidence from West Virginia. Southern Economic Journal, 6(5), 245-258. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/soej.12260

Holter, D. (2013). The battle for coal. DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press.

Stern, G. (1976). The Buffalo Creek Disaster. New York: Vintage Books, a Division of Random House.