## Facts

- The United States, joined by the Interstate Sanitation Commission, brought consolidated Clean Water Act enforcement actions against multiple Hudson County, New Jersey municipalities and related sewerage authorities, including Hoboken, Bayonne, North Bergen, Jersey City, and West New York.
- The suits concerned repeated discharges of untreated or inadequately treated sewage and wastewater into surrounding waters, including the Hudson River, Newark Bay, and the Kill Van Kull.
- Defendants operated publicly owned treatment works and sewer systems regulated through NPDES permits issued by EPA and by New Jersey’s environmental agency under delegated federal authority.
- The permits imposed numeric effluent limitations and compliance schedules, including requirements tied to secondary treatment standards.
- Plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment on liability, relying substantially on defendants’ discharge monitoring reports showing multiple exceedances of permit effluent limits.
- Defendants raised legal and equitable defenses, including asserted permit ambiguity (including interim limits and compliance schedules), practical and financial obstacles to compliance, and the involvement or delays of other governmental entities in regional planning.

## Issues

1. Whether undisputed discharge-monitoring data showing exceedances of NPDES effluent limits established Clean Water Act liability as a matter of law.
2. Whether asserted permit ambiguity or contract-style interpretation could defeat liability for numeric exceedances.
3. Whether financial constraints, engineering complexity, or the conduct of other governmental actors could excuse noncompliance at the liability stage.

## Decision

- The court granted plaintiffs’ motions for partial summary judgment on liability against the Hudson County municipal defendants and their sewerage authorities.
- The court held that documented exceedances of NPDES effluent limitations constituted violations of the Clean Water Act.
- The court rejected defenses based on permit-interpretation theories and equitable considerations as grounds to avoid liability.
- The ruling resolved liability only and left remedies (including injunctive relief, compliance schedules, and potential penalties) for later proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- Discharging pollutants into covered waters is unlawful unless in compliance with the Clean Water Act and a valid NPDES permit.
- Exceeding numeric effluent limitations in an NPDES permit is a per se violation of the Act; proof of intent or negligence is not required.
- NPDES permits implement statutory and regulatory requirements and are not treated as ordinary contracts whose alleged ambiguity can negate clear exceedances of numeric limits.
- Hardship defenses (including cost, infrastructure limits, and project complexity) generally do not bar liability for permit violations, though such factors may be considered when fashioning remedies.

## Conclusion

The court imposed Clean Water Act liability on Hudson County municipal permit holders based on undisputed monitoring data showing repeated NPDES effluent-limit exceedances, holding that interpretive and hardship-based defenses did not preclude liability and reserving remedial issues for later proceedings.


United States v. City of Hoboken, 675 F. Supp. 189 (D.N.J. 1987)