16 F. Supp. 3d 294
S.D.N.Y.2014Background
- This is a citizen suit under the Clean Water Act and New Jersey/N.Y. common law against Rockland County Sewer District #1 for alleged ongoing SSOs into the Saddle River.
- Plaintiffs include the Borough of Upper Saddle River and individuals who live near the Saddle River or its tributaries and allege post-2005 violations despite a 2006 NY DEC consent order.
- Defendant’s SPDES permit governs discharges; the permit limits discharge location (Orangeburg plant) and parameters, with reporting obligations.
- Two consent orders structure the enforcement history: a 2006 DEC Consent Order addressing pre-2006 SSOs, and a 2012 DEC Consent Order addressing events in 2009-2010 and broader compliance issues.
- Plaintiffs’ First Claim seeks CWA penalties and injunctive relief for spills after 2005; Second through Fourth Claims raise state private nuisance, public nuisance, and trespass.
- The court grants in part and denies in part the cross-motions for summary judgment, denying some claims while granting liability on identified Saddle River spills, and dismissing some state-law claims and others pending further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Plaintiffs have standing under Article III. | Ostrom/Miller etc. show injury in fact and causation from discharges. | Plaintiffs lack injury and redressability; standing not proven. | Plaintiffs have Article III standing. |
| Whether Plaintiffs show ongoing Clean Water Act violations at filing (Gwaltney standard). | Violations persisted after 2006 Order and continued post-complaint. | Post-Order compliance moots continuing violations; precludes further liability. | SAC relates back; ongoing violations shown; not wholly barred by Gwaltney. |
| Whether the 2006 (and 2012) Consent Orders preclude or moot the suit under §1319(g)(6). | Consent orders did not cover all post-2005 spills; claims remain viable. | Diligent prosecution and scope of orders preclude claims. | §1319(g)(6) preclusion not established; claims for post-2005 spills may proceed. |
| Whether Defendant is liable for discharges reaching navigable waters and within SPDES permit violations. | Discharges reached Saddle River/tributaries and violated SPDES limits. | Discharges may be contested in scope and quantity; some did not reach the river. | Liability found for fourteen identified discharges; some other spills unresolved remain disputed; injunctive relief denied for now. |
| Whether New Jersey private nuisance, public nuisance, and trespass claims survive. | Pollution affects land use and public rights; nuisance/trespass viable. | Causation/ownership deficits; trespass disfavored in environmental context; choice of law issues. | Second (private nuisance) and Third (public nuisance) claims denied or unresolved; Fourth (trespass) denied on ownership grounds; state-law claims in flux. |
Key Cases Cited
- Laidlaw Envtl. Servs. (TOC) v. City of Greensboro, 528 U.S. 167 (U.S. 2000) (standing and redressability in citizen suits; injunctive relief emphasis)
- Gwaltney of Smithfield, Inc. v. Chesapeake Bay Found., Inc., 484 U.S. 49 (U.S. 1988) (continuing violations required for jurisdiction; wholley past violations insufficient)
- Riverkeeper, Inc. v. Mirant Lovett, LLC, 675 F. Supp. 2d 337 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (citizen suits supplement government enforcement; redressability considerations)
- Pan Am. Tanning Corp. v. City of New York, 993 F.2d 1017 (2d Cir. 1993) (precludes injunction/penalties if violations cease; settlement coverage limits relief)
- Connecticut Coastal Fishermen’s Ass’n v. Remington Arms Co., Inc., 989 F.2d 1305 (D. Conn. 1993) (diligent prosecution and overlap considerations in preclusion analysis)
- Orange Env’t, Inc. v. County of Orange, 860 F. Supp. 1003 (S.D.N.Y. 1994) (diligence standard for state action preclusion; assistance toward enforcement balance)