## Facts

- John and Gizella Pozsgai owned a 14-acre tract in Morrisville, Pennsylvania that included saturated areas with wetland vegetation, hydric soils, and standing water.
- A stream along the property’s eastern border flowed as a tributary to the Pennsylvania Canal.
- Before purchase, Pozsgai obtained engineering advice indicating the site met federal wetlands criteria and that permits for filling/building were unlikely.
- After purchasing the property, Pozsgai arranged for dumping of concrete rubble, earth, and construction debris onto a portion of the wet areas without obtaining a Clean Water Act § 404 permit.
- The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers investigated after receiving reports of filling, concluded most of the tract was wetlands, and issued cease-and-desist communications.
- Filling continued for an extended period despite warnings and administrative efforts to stop it.
- The United States brought a civil enforcement action seeking to halt filling, require restoration, and impose civil sanctions.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court clearly erred in finding the tract contained wetlands that were “waters of the United States” subject to Clean Water Act regulation.
2. Whether dumping concrete and other material constituted an unpermitted “discharge of fill material” prohibited by 33 U.S.C. § 1311(a) and regulated through the § 404 permitting program.
3. Whether the Clean Water Act imposes strict liability for unpermitted discharges into jurisdictional wetlands.
4. Whether the district court abused its discretion by ordering injunctive relief requiring restoration, holding John Pozsgai in civil contempt for violating the injunction, and denying Rule 60(b) relief from judgment.

## Decision

- The Third Circuit affirmed the judgment for the United States.
- The court upheld findings that the property was largely wetlands and that the wetlands were within federal Clean Water Act jurisdiction due to their connection to a tributary of a navigable waterway.
- The court held the unpermitted placement of concrete and other fill in the wetlands violated the Clean Water Act and supported strict liability.
- The court affirmed the permanent injunction, including restoration requirements, as within the district court’s equitable authority.
- The court affirmed the civil contempt order and the denial of Rule 60(b) relief, finding no abuse of discretion.

## Legal Principles

- Wetlands may fall within “waters of the United States” when supported by evidence of wetland vegetation, hydrology, and hydric soils and when connected to regulated waters through adjacency or tributary relationships.
- Discharging dredged or fill material into jurisdictional waters without a § 404 permit violates 33 U.S.C. § 1311(a).
- Civil Clean Water Act liability for unpermitted discharges is strict; intent and knowledge are not required elements of liability, though they may bear on remedies and sanctions.
- District courts have broad equitable power in Clean Water Act enforcement actions to enjoin ongoing violations and order restoration to remedy environmental harm.
- Civil contempt may be used to enforce compliance with environmental injunctions, and Rule 60(b) relief requires extraordinary justification.

## Conclusion

The Third Circuit sustained broad federal regulation of wetlands under the Clean Water Act, treated unauthorized filling as a strict-liability violation, and upheld strong equitable and enforcement measures, including restoration and contempt, to secure compliance and repair harm.


United States v. Pozsgai, 999 F.2d 719 (3d Cir. 1993)