## Facts

- Cargill, Inc. operated a facility discharging wastewater under a state-issued permit issued through a Clean Water Act NPDES-type program.
- Public complaints arose about odors associated with Cargill’s wastewater treatment system.
- When renewing the permit, the state environmental agency required Cargill to construct additional treatment facilities to address the odor-related concerns.
- The odor problem worsened, and operation of the new facilities sometimes contributed to permit effluent-limit exceedances.
- The state agency filed two state-court actions: one focused on odor nuisance (air-related) and another focused on water-discharge permit violations.
- Cargill and the state agency reached a settlement providing for a $5,000 civil penalty and requiring studies and construction of specified pollution-control facilities on a schedule tied to study recommendations.
- At EPA’s request, the United States filed a federal enforcement action under Clean Water Act § 309 seeking injunctive relief and substantial civil penalties for permit violations.
- Cargill argued the federal suit risked conflicting relief with the state settlement, particularly regarding compliance measures and construction timing; EPA represented it would not seek relief interfering with installation of the agreed facilities, but disputed the settlement’s penalty level and lack of explicit full-compliance requirements.

## Issues

1. Whether the court should abstain under Younger from hearing a federal Clean Water Act § 309 enforcement action because of related state litigation and a state settlement.
2. Whether other abstention or comity doctrines warrant dismissal or a stay due to parallel state regulatory and judicial efforts addressing connected environmental problems.
3. Whether the possibility of inconsistent remedial orders between a state settlement and federal enforcement justifies declining or delaying federal jurisdiction.

## Decision

- The court denied Cargill’s motion to dismiss and declined to abstain under Younger.
- The court rejected abstention or dismissal under other comity-based doctrines.
- The court denied Cargill’s request to stay the federal case pending state-court resolution or implementation of the settlement.
- The federal enforcement action was permitted to proceed, with merits and remedies to be determined later.

## Legal Principles

- The Clean Water Act preserves federal primacy in enforcement while allowing substantial state participation; state action under an approved permitting program does not eliminate federal enforcement authority under § 309.
- Younger abstention is inappropriate where the federal action asserts an independent federal enforcement interest and does not directly seek to enjoin or control an ongoing state proceeding.
- Parallel state and federal proceedings do not, by themselves, justify abstention or a stay when Congress contemplated overlapping enforcement and the matters are not truly duplicative.
- A state settlement, including agreed penalties and compliance schedules, does not preclude the United States from seeking federal injunctive relief and civil penalties for permit violations.

## Conclusion

The court held that the United States could pursue Clean Water Act § 309 enforcement against Cargill notwithstanding related state litigation and a state settlement, and it refused to dismiss or stay the federal case on abstention or comity grounds.


United States v. Cargill, Inc., 508 F. Supp. 734 (D. Del. 1981)