Gwaltney of Smithfield v. Chesapeake Bay Found. - 484 U.S. 49, 108 S. Ct. 376 (1987)

Rule:

33 U.S.C.S. § 1365 confers jurisdiction over citizen suits when the citizen-plaintiffs make a good-faith allegation of continuous or intermittent violation.

Facts:

Under certain circumstances, 505(a) of the Clean Water Act (also known as the Federal Water Pollution Control Act) (33 USCS 1365(a)) permits the filing of citizen suits to enforce the Act. Between 1981 and 1984, a company repeatedly violated the conditions of a pollutant discharge permit issued, pursuant to the Act, for a meat-packing plant of the company in Virginia, but the company's last reported violation of the permit occurred in May 1984. In June 1984, two environmental groups filed suit under 505(a) against the company in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, and alleged that the company had violated, and would continue to violate, the Act. Although the company moved for dismissal of the action for want of subject-matter jurisdiction, the District Court ruled that 505(a) authorizes citizens to bring enforcement actions on the basis of wholly past violations; and even if the first ruling were incorrect, the District Court would still have jurisdiction, because the groups' continuing-violation allegation appeared to have been made in good faith. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed, agreeing with the District Court as to the authority under 505(a) to bring citizen suits for past violations, but declining to rule--as unnecessary for a decision of the case--on the District Court's alternative ground of a good-faith continuing-violation allegation.

Issue:

Did the court of appeals err in affirming the decision of the district court concluding that the Clean Water Act authorized citizens to bring enforcement actions on the basis of wholly past violations?

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

The Court reversed, holding that a citizen suit could be brought only for a current, not past, violation of a permit limitation. The notice provisions allowing the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency or the state issuing the permit to begin suit within a 60-day period after receiving notice from a citizen supported the conclusion that citizens could seek civil penalties only in a suit brought to enjoin or abate an ongoing violation. The Court held that 33 U.S.C.S. § 1365 conferred jurisdiction over citizen suits when a good-faith allegation of continuous or intermittent violation was made, and remanded for further determination of whether the nonprofit organization made such an allegation.