Natural Resources Defense Council v. Metropolitan Water Reclamation District
175 F. Supp. 3d 1041
N.D. Ill.2016Background
- Plaintiffs (NRDC, Sierra Club, Prairie Rivers Network) sued MWRD under the CWA citizen‑suit provision, alleging three MWRD water reclamation plants discharge phosphorus that causes algal/plant overgrowth and low dissolved oxygen (DO), violating Illinois water quality standards (WQS) incorporated into the plants’ NPDES permits via Special Condition 5.
- The 2002 NPDES permits lacked numeric phosphorus effluent limits though the District disclosed phosphorus loads in its applications; the 2013 permits later added numeric phosphorus limits with long compliance timelines and retained Special Condition 5.
- Special Condition 5 states effluent "shall not cause a violation of any applicable water quality standards" (Illinois narrative standards banning "unnatural" plant/algal growth and numeric DO minima).
- MWRD moved for summary judgment asserting (1) primary jurisdiction (defer to agency rulemaking/enforcement) and (2) the CWA permit‑shield (33 U.S.C. § 1342(k)) bars citizen suits where discharges were disclosed and permits issued. Plaintiffs moved for summary judgment on liability, relying on expert evidence tying phosphorus discharges to observed algal growth and DO violations.
- The court denied both summary judgment motions: it rejected primary jurisdiction and held the permit shield applies only if the permittee complies with all substantive permit terms (including Special Condition 5); but it found genuine fact disputes (notably causation and definition/application of the narrative “unnatural” standard) that precluded granting plaintiffs’ motion on the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court should defer under primary jurisdiction | Plaintiffs: court should adjudicate; citizen suits are a primary enforcement mechanism | MWRD: agency processes (WQS rulemaking/permit appeals) are better suited; court should stay | Court: primary jurisdiction defense fails; no identified administrative proceeding that would resolve whether Special Condition 5 incorporates WQS or adjudicate compliance — suit may proceed |
| Whether CWA permit‑shield bars suit | Plaintiffs: permit‑shield does not protect discharges that violate substantive permit terms (Special Condition 5) | MWRD: full disclosure of phosphorus + permit issuance bars citizen suit under Piney Run approach | Court: permit‑shield does not apply as a matter of law because Special Condition 5 is a substantive permit term; shield requires compliance with permit terms |
| Whether narrative "unnatural" WQS are enforceable as substantive permit terms | Plaintiffs: "unnatural" means growth from human sources; narrative standards are enforceable without numeric translation | MWRD: narrative standard is vague, unworkable, and not suitable to impose effluent limits | Court: narrative WQS can be substantive and enforceable; ordinary meaning supports a source‑based reading, but vagueness/definitional issues affect proof and remedy (creates factual questions) |
| Whether plaintiffs proved causation (that MWRD phosphorus caused WQS violations) | Plaintiffs: MWRD is the major phosphorus source; observed algal growth and DO violations correlate with elevated phosphorus and are attributable to MWRD effluent | MWRD: causation is disputed; other sources (agriculture, CSOs), engineered/altered hydrology, and biological/physical processes can explain conditions; experts conflict | Court: plaintiffs failed to show causation as a matter of law; experts’ dueling opinions create genuine issues for trial (no conclusive baseline for "natural" growth; cannot specify how much phosphorus causes "unnatural" growth or DO violations) |
Key Cases Cited
- Piney Run Preservation Ass'n v. Cnty. Comm'rs of Carroll Cnty., 268 F.3d 255 (4th Cir. 2001) (interpreting permit‑shield to incorporate discharges disclosed to permitting authority but emphasizing shield requires compliance with permit terms)
- PUD No. 1 of Jefferson Cnty. v. Wash. Dep't of Ecology, 511 U.S. 700 (1994) (states may enforce narrative water quality conditions without numeric criteria)
- NRDC v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, 725 F.3d 1194 (9th Cir. 2013) (discussing citizen suits to enforce NPDES permits and permit‑shield principles)
- Alaska Cmty. Action on Toxics v. Aurora Energy Servs., LLC, 765 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir. 2014) (permit‑shield protects those in compliance; noncompliance with express permit terms defeats shield)
- Nw. Envtl. Advocates v. City of Portland, 56 F.3d 979 (9th Cir. 1995) (state WQS incorporated into NPDES permits may be enforced in citizen suits)