Two U.S. federal laws, the Clean Water Act (CWA) and the Endangered Species Act (ESA),"o contain provisions that specifically ensure that dispersant approval and use will not jeopardize imperiled wildlife and the resources on which they depend. In light of the general lack of knowledge regarding the effects of dispersants used in response to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, and the harm they may have caused, it has become evident that these two environmental laws, their implementation, or both, were inadequate to safeguard the environment and wildlife from the disaster response.

This Article examines the use of dispersants in response to the BP oil spill. The authors describe the ways in which the CWA and the ESA authorize the EPA to regulate the use of dispersants and suggest how the regulation of dispersants could be strengthened. Part II discusses the development of contingency plans for oil spills in the Gulf of Mexico and the pre-spill consultation process for dispersants' effects on wildlife. Part III describes BP's dispersant use in response to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill and recent scientific research identifying potential effects on the ocean and marine wildlife. Part IV discusses lessons learned from the oil spill and concludes that future preparedness will require better agency implementation or even legislative action.

From April 20, 2010, to August 8, 2010, when BP's Macondo well was finally cemented and the flow offi­cially stopped, approximately 205,800,000 gallons of crude oil poured into the Gulf of Mexico. Put into indus­try terms, that's about 4.9 million barrels of oil. That's enough oil to completely fill over 311 Olympic-sized swimming pools. Or, put another away, just imagine for a moment nothing but bubbling crude oil flowing over Horseshoe Falls, Niagara Falls' main cascade, for almost six whole minutes.