Int'l Paper Co. v. Ouellette

Int'l Paper Co. v. Ouellette

Opinion

 [*483]  [***891]  [**807]    JUSTICE POWELL delivered the opinion of the Court.

 This case involves the pre-emptive scope of the Clean Water Act, 86 Stat. 816, as amended, 33 U. S. C. § 1251 et seq. (CWA or Act). ² The question presented is whether the Act pre-empts a common-law nuisance suit filed in a Vermont court under Vermont law, when the source of the alleged injury is located in New York.

 [****7]  I

Lake Champlain forms part of the border between the States of New York and Vermont. Petitioner International  [*484]  Paper Company (IPC) operates a pulp and paper mill on the New York side of the lake. In the course of its business, IPC discharges a variety of effluents into the lake through a diffusion pipe. The pipe runs from the mill through the water toward Vermont, ending a short distance before the state boundary line that divides the lake.

Respondents are a group of property owners who reside or lease land on the Vermont shore. In 1978 the owners filed a class action suit against IPC, claiming, inter alia, that the discharge of effluents constituted a "continuing nuisance" under Vermont common law. Respondents alleged that the pollutants made the water "foul, unhealthy, smelly, and . . . unfit for recreational use," thereby diminishing the value of  [***892]  their property. App. 29. The owners asked for $ 20 million in compensatory damages, $ 100 million in punitive damages, and injunctive relief that would require IPC to restructure part of its water treatment system. ³ The action was filed in State Superior Court, and then later removed to Federal District [****8]  Court for the District of Vermont.

IPC moved for summary judgment and judgment on the pleadings, claiming that the CWA pre-empted respondents' state-law suit. With the parties' consent, the District Judge deferred a ruling on the motion pending the decision by the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in a similar case involving Illinois and the city of Milwaukee.  In that dispute, Illinois filed a nuisance action against the city under Illinois statutory and common law, seeking to abate the alleged pollution of Lake Michigan. Illinois v. Milwaukee, 731 F.2d 403 (1984) (Milwaukee III), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1196  [**808]  (1985). ⁴ The Court of Appeals ultimately remanded the case  [*485]  for dismissal of Illinois' claim, finding that the CWA precluded the application of one State's law against a [****9]  pollution source located in a different State.  The decision was based in part on the court's conclusion that the application of different state laws to a single "point source" ⁵ would interfere with the carefully devised regulatory system established by the CWA. 731 F.2d, at 414. The court also concluded that the only suits that were not pre-empted were those alleging violations of the laws of the polluting, or "source," State. Id., at 413-414.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.