## Facts

- Ketchikan Pulp Company operated a pulp mill in Alaska that discharged effluent into navigable waters pursuant to a federal permit issued under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act).
- The United States, through EPA, alleged that Ketchikan Pulp Company violated effluent limitations in its permit.
- After extended negotiations, the United States and Ketchikan Pulp Company filed an enforcement action and simultaneously lodged a proposed consent decree to resolve the alleged violations.
- The proposed decree set a compliance schedule and technical measures, imposed a civil penalty, and extended certain permit terms and compliance dates.
- After public notice and comment, Trustees for Alaska and Alaska Center for the Environment were permitted to intervene under the Act’s citizen-intervention provision.
- The intervenors objected that the decree was too lenient, focusing on the permit extension, the time allowed for compliance, the adequacy of the civil penalty, and monitoring/enforcement provisions.
- The court considered whether it could enter the consent decree over the objections of the intervenors.

## Issues

1. Whether citizen intervenors in a Clean Water Act enforcement action can prevent entry of a negotiated consent decree by withholding consent.
2. What standard governs judicial approval of a consent decree in a Clean Water Act enforcement case.
3. Whether the proposed decree’s compliance schedule, permit-related extensions, and civil penalty were sufficiently fair and consistent with the Act to warrant approval over intervenors’ objections.

## Decision

- The court held that citizen intervenors may participate and challenge the proposed remedy, but they do not have authority to block entry of a consent decree by withholding consent.
- The court applied a fairness and reasonableness review focused on consistency with the Clean Water Act’s purposes and the public interest, while giving substantial weight to EPA’s and the Department of Justice’s enforcement judgments.
- The court approved and entered the consent decree, concluding it was within the range of acceptable outcomes despite intervenors’ objections regarding timing, permit effects, and penalty size.

## Legal Principles

- Citizen intervenors under 33 U.S.C. § 1365(b)(1)(B) have the right to be heard and to contest the adequacy of proposed relief, but they lack a settlement veto; the court may enter a consent decree if it finds the remedy appropriate.
- A consent decree in environmental enforcement must be fair, reasonable, and consistent with statutory objectives and the public interest, not necessarily the most stringent remedy available.
- In assessing fairness, a court may consider the government’s likelihood of success, the parties’ good-faith negotiations, counsel’s evaluations, and the delay and uncertainty of litigation relative to the enforceable benefits of settlement.
- Judicial review does not displace agency enforcement discretion; absent inconsistency with statutory commands, courts may defer to EPA’s technical and prosecutorial judgments embodied in a negotiated compliance plan and penalty package.

## Conclusion

The court entered a Clean Water Act consent decree over environmental intervenors’ objections, holding intervenors may challenge the remedy but cannot veto settlement, and finding the negotiated compliance schedule, permit-related provisions, and civil penalty fair, reasonable, and consistent with the Act and the public interest.


United States v. Ketchikan Pulp Co., 430 F. Supp. 83 (D. Alaska 1977)