## Facts

- Hudson Riverkeeper Fund, Inc., a nonprofit environmental organization, alleged that Putnam Hospital Center, Inc. operated a sewage treatment plant discharging into the Croton Falls Reservoir, part of New York City’s drinking-water supply.
- Riverkeeper claimed the plant discharged pollutants in excess of limits in its State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) permit, including exceedances involving coliform, suspended solids, and pH.
- On September 19, 1994, Riverkeeper sent a 60-day notice of intent to sue under the Clean Water Act (CWA) citizen-suit provision, asserting ongoing permit violations.
- The notice identified the alleged violator, location, relevant permit parameters, and permit limits, and alleged the violations were continuing.
- The notice did not state the date or dates of the alleged violations.
- Riverkeeper filed its complaint on January 17, 1995.
- The hospital moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), arguing the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction due to deficient pre-suit notice.

## Issues

1. Whether a CWA citizen suit may proceed when the pre-suit notice omits the date or dates of the alleged violations required by 40 C.F.R. § 135.3(a).
2. Whether the notice requirement under CWA § 505(b) is a jurisdictional prerequisite requiring dismissal for noncompliance.

## Decision

- The court granted the hospital’s Rule 12(b)(1) motion and dismissed the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
- The court held the notice was defective because it failed to include the date or dates of the alleged violations as required by 40 C.F.R. § 135.3(a).
- The court rejected the argument that the hospital could infer dates from discharge monitoring reports or other materials; the regulation required the notice itself to provide the required information.

## Legal Principles

- Compliance with the CWA citizen-suit notice and 60-day waiting requirements is a mandatory, jurisdictional condition precedent to suit.
- Under 40 C.F.R. § 135.3(a), a notice of intent to sue must include sufficient information to identify the specific standard or limitation, the activity alleged to constitute a violation, responsible persons, the location, and the date or dates of the alleged violations, along with the notifier’s contact information.
- Courts lack discretion to excuse failure to satisfy clear statutory and regulatory pre-suit notice requirements; dismissal is required when the notice is deficient.
- The purpose of pre-suit notice is to provide regulators an opportunity to act and to allow the alleged violator a meaningful chance to investigate and achieve compliance; omission of violation dates frustrates those purposes.

## Conclusion

The court dismissed the Clean Water Act citizen suit because the plaintiff’s 60-day notice failed to specify the date or dates of the alleged SPDES permit violations, a required element under EPA’s notice regulation and a jurisdictional prerequisite to suit.


Hudson Riverkeeper Fund, Inc. v. Putnam Hosp. Ctr., Inc., 891 F. Supp. 152 (S.D.N.Y. 1995)