## Facts

- Environmental organizations sued Texaco under the Clean Water Act citizen-suit provision for alleged violations of an NPDES permit governing discharges from an oil refinery into the Delaware River.
- The permit set numeric daily and monthly average limits for multiple pollutant parameters at several designated outfalls and required self-monitoring and monthly Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs) to the state agency.
- The plaintiffs alleged hundreds of exceedances of permit limits over several years, relying largely on Texaco’s DMRs as proof of violations.
- Texaco argued many alleged exceedances were “wholly past” by the time the complaint was filed and therefore outside federal jurisdiction.
- The district court denied Texaco’s jurisdictional challenge, granted summary judgment to plaintiffs on liability based on DMR exceedances, and entered a permanent injunction requiring compliance without applying the traditional equitable test for injunctive relief.
- Texaco appealed, challenging jurisdiction over past violations, standing, and the injunction standard.

## Issues

1. Whether Clean Water Act citizen-suit jurisdiction permits adjudication of “wholly past” NPDES permit violations when the complaint also alleges at least one ongoing or intermittent violation at filing.
2. Whether ongoing violations must be shown separately for each outfall/parameter, or whether jurisdiction may extend to earlier violations that are part of a related pattern.
3. Whether a court may issue an injunction for permit violations without applying traditional equitable principles (irreparable harm, adequacy of legal remedies, balance of hardships, and public interest).
4. Whether the plaintiff organizations had Article III standing based on members’ recreational and aesthetic interests in the affected water body.

## Decision

- The Third Circuit held that a citizen plaintiff must allege (and ultimately prove) at least one ongoing or intermittent violation, or a reasonable likelihood of recurrence, at the time of filing; suits based solely on “wholly past” violations are not authorized.
- The court rejected a rigid rule requiring ongoing violations to be shown for each discrete parameter/outfall; jurisdiction may extend to related prior violations that form part of a continuing or recurring pattern connected to ongoing noncompliance.
- The court ruled that injunctive relief is not automatic upon a showing of statutory violation; traditional equitable standards govern whether an injunction should issue and its scope.
- The court accepted that the organizations could establish standing through members’ use and enjoyment of the affected waters and nearby areas, with alleged injury traceable to discharges and redressable by penalties and equitable relief.
- The court affirmed in part and remanded/vacated in part for reconsideration of injunctive relief under equitable standards and for closer delineation of which alleged violations were cognizable under the “wholly past” limitation.

## Legal Principles

- Clean Water Act § 505 authorizes citizen suits only for violations that are ongoing or reasonably likely to recur at the time of filing; “wholly past” violations alone do not support jurisdiction.
- When at least one ongoing/intermittent violation exists, the court may consider related earlier violations within a continuing pattern; isolated, unconnected past violations remain outside § 505.
- Self-reported DMR exceedances are strong evidence of permit violations and can support summary judgment on liability when they show numeric limit exceedances.
- Injunctive relief in Clean Water Act citizen suits requires application of traditional equitable factors; statutory enforcement authorization does not eliminate equitable discretion absent clear congressional command.
- Environmental organizations may satisfy Article III standing based on members’ recreational and aesthetic injuries from pollution, plus traceability and redressability.

## Conclusion

The Third Circuit allowed the citizen suit to proceed where ongoing violations were alleged, permitted jurisdiction over related past exceedances as part of a connected pattern, and required that any injunction be justified under traditional equitable principles rather than issued automatically upon proof of permit violations.


Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. Texaco Refin. & Mktg., Inc., 906 F.2d 934 (3d Cir. 1990)