Facts
- Gwaltney of Smithfield, Ltd. operated a pork-processing facility in Virginia under an NPDES permit issued pursuant to the Clean Water Act (CWA).
- From 1981 to 1984, Gwaltney repeatedly exceeded effluent limitations in its permit.
- After installing new equipment, Gwaltney’s last reported violation occurred in May 1984.
- In June 1984, after giving the CWA’s 60-day notice to Gwaltney and regulators, Chesapeake Bay Foundation and NRDC filed a § 505(a) citizen suit alleging Gwaltney had violated and would continue to violate the permit.
- The suit sought injunctive relief and civil penalties, although the asserted permit violations were admitted to have occurred before filing.
Issues
- Whether CWA § 505(a) authorizes federal jurisdiction over citizen suits based solely on wholly past NPDES permit violations.
- Whether § 505(a)’s phrase “alleged to be in violation” requires an allegation of continuous or intermittent violations at the time the complaint is filed.
- Whether a good-faith allegation of ongoing or intermittent violations is sufficient to satisfy the statute’s jurisdictional requirement.
Decision
- The Supreme Court reversed the Fourth Circuit.
- The Court held § 505(a) does not confer federal jurisdiction over citizen suits for wholly past violations.
- The Court held a citizen plaintiff must allege, in good faith, a state of continuous or intermittent violation—i.e., a reasonable likelihood that violations will recur.
- The Court remanded for determination whether the complaint contained a good-faith allegation of ongoing or intermittent violations when filed.
Legal Principles
- CWA § 505(a) permits citizen suits only where the defendant is alleged to be “in violation” in a continuous or intermittent sense; purely historical violations, without a reasonable likelihood of recurrence, are insufficient.
- Present-tense statutory language (“to be in violation”) is read to require more than completed violations; citizen-suit jurisdiction is primarily prospective.
- Jurisdiction is assessed at the pleading stage: a good-faith allegation of ongoing or intermittent violations can satisfy § 505(a) even if the plaintiff later fails to prove the allegation on the merits.
- EPA enforcement authority to seek penalties for past violations does not expand citizen-suit jurisdiction beyond § 505(a)’s terms.
Conclusion
The Court limited Clean Water Act citizen-suit jurisdiction to cases where plaintiffs, in good faith, allege ongoing or intermittently recurring permit violations at filing, rejecting jurisdiction for suits based solely on wholly past violations and remanding for evaluation of the complaint under that standard.