Lower Susquehanna Riverkeeper Association v. Republic Services of Pennsylvania LLC
1:23-cv-00044
M.D. Penn.Mar 31, 2025Background:
- Lower Susquehanna Riverkeeper Association (LSRA) sued Republic Services of Pennsylvania LLC for violating the Clean Water Act via unlawful discharges from its Modern Landfill into Kreutz Creek.
- The 2017 NPDES permit set effluent limits for osmotic pressure and, effective February 2020, for total boron. Republic’s treatment plant could not meet these standards and exceeded limits 419 times (July 2019–April 2023).
- Republic and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) entered into a Consent Order and Agreement (COA), requiring upgrades and penalties for further exceedances.
- Republic completed mandated upgrades in April 2023 and has since remained compliant.
- LSRA seeks civil penalties and injunctive relief; parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment on jurisdiction, liability, and penalties.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing | Members have standing due to injury from Republic’s pollution. | LSRA lacks standing; members not injured or causally connected to violations. | LSRA’s members have standing. |
| Statutory Bar—COA as Preclusion | COA under Clean Streams Law doesn’t bar this suit under Clean Water Act. | COA is "comparable" state action, precluding federal civil penalty suit. | COA is not comparable; suit not barred. |
| Liability for 419 permit exceedances | Republic’s exceedances constitute strict liability under Clean Water Act. | No dispute on these violations. | Republic liable for 419 violations. |
| Liability for pre-July 2019 exceedances | Republic impliedly consented to litigate these at summary judgment stage. | LSRA never pleaded or properly noticed pre-July 2019 claims. | No liability for pre-July 2019 exceedances. |
| Civil Penalty for proven violations | Substantial penalties are warranted due to economic benefit, seriousness, and history of violations. | No penalty warranted; no economic benefit since compliance was achieved as quickly as possible. | Material fact dispute; penalty to be addressed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hunt v. Wash. State Apple Advert. Comm’n, 432 U.S. 333 (1977) (association standing requirements)
- Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs., 528 U.S. 167 (2000) (standing for environmental plaintiffs based on aesthetic/recreational injury)
- Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330 (2016) (three-part standing test)
- Gwaltney of Smithfield, Ltd. v. Chesapeake Bay Found., 484 U.S. 49 (1987) (preclusion of citizen suits under Clean Water Act)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (summary judgment standard)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (burden shifting on summary judgment)
- United States v. Allegheny Ludlum Corp., 366 F.3d 164 (3d Cir. 2004) (strict liability standard under Clean Water Act)
- United States v. Mun. Auth. of Union Twp., 150 F.3d 259 (3d Cir. 1998) (civil penalty factors and calculation)