Ramos-Carrasquillo v. Environmental Protection Agency
3:19-cv-02131
D.P.R.Jul 30, 2025Background
- Plaintiffs Noel Reyes‑Muñoz and Olga Ramos‑Carrasquillo own a rental property adjacent to manholes and Lake Cidra; they allege repeated sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs) from PRASA infrastructure in 2019 contaminated the lake and diminished the property's value.
- PRASA is subject to a 2015 Consent Decree with EPA that required a Spill Response and Cleanup Plan (SRCP) and prioritized capital improvements; hurricanes in 2017 disrupted PRASA’s infrastructure and prompted force‑majeure discussions and later modifications to the decree.
- Plaintiffs filed a CWA citizen suit (33 U.S.C. §1365) and related Puerto Rico nuisance/riparian claims; PRASA moved in limine to dismiss for lack of standing and moved for summary judgment arguing the CWA citizen suit is barred by the diligent‑prosecution doctrine in §1365(b)(1).
- The parties presented competing factual statements about reported SSOs, PRASA's compliance with SRCP reporting and root‑cause investigations, and timing of remedial projects (many of which post‑date the complaint). Plaintiffs offered sampling showing coliform contamination.
- The court held a hearing, considered supplemental filings, and concluded that plaintiffs established Article III standing based on alleged property‑value diminution, and that PRASA failed to meet its summary‑judgment burden to show EPA’s/PRASA’s diligent prosecution barred the citizen suit. The court denied PRASA’s standing dismissal and its summary‑judgment motion; state‑law damage claims were preserved.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing — injury in fact (property‑value diminution) | Reyes: ownership and proximity to SSOs + appraiser and deposition evidence show diminished value | PRASA: diminution is speculative, plaintiffs are non‑resident landlords, other market factors explain value changes | Held: Injury is concrete and particularized; deposition and appraisal evidence suffice at summary‑judgment stage — standing established |
| Causation (traceability to PRASA) | Reyes: SSOs from PRASA manholes flowed into Lake Cidra and are fairly traceable to PRASA conduct | PRASA: many factors affect value; plaintiffs may not even be connected to PRASA sewer service; causation speculative | Held: Factual record allows a reasonable inference that SSOs from PRASA contributed to harm; causation adequately pleaded at this stage |
| Redressability (relief will lessen harm) | Reyes: injunctive relief and civil penalties under CWA (and enforcement under Consent Decree) would deter future violations and lessen value loss | PRASA: remedies may not restore full value; EPA/consent‑decree process already addresses issues and civil penalties would duplicate agency action | Held: Plaintiffs need only show a remedy may lessen injury; redressability satisfied |
| Diligent‑prosecution bar under §1365(b)(1) | Reyes: EPA/PRASA were not diligently prosecuting as of filing; many SRCP obligations (reporting, post‑event investigations, root‑cause analysis) were unmet | PRASA: entry/modification of Consent Decree, prioritization and later CIP projects (generators, pipeline replacement) and EPA oversight demonstrate diligence; ongoing violations do not defeat diligence | Held: Denied PRASA summary judgment — PRASA failed to show comparable pre‑filing corrective actions (many projects post‑date complaint), reporting/procedural lapses raise genuine disputes; diligent‑prosecution bar not established |
| State‑law damages (nuisance, riparian rights) | Reyes: damages pursued under Puerto Rico law; CWA saving clause preserves state remedies | PRASA: CWA citizen suit does not authorize personal damages; state claims may be preempted or duplicative | Held: Court preserved state law claims and supplemental jurisdiction; CWA does not bar plaintiffs’ state remedies |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (Article III standing requirements: injury in fact, causation, redressability)
- Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Servs., 528 U.S. 167 (2000) (environmental plaintiff may show standing via proximity and diminution of property value)
- Middlesex County Sewerage Auth. v. Nat'l Sea Clammers Ass'n, 453 U.S. 1 (1981) (CWA citizen suits and scope of statutory enforcement rights)
- Gwaltney of Smithfield v. Chesapeake Bay Foundation, 484 U.S. 49 (1987) (citizen suits supplement but do not supplant governmental enforcement)
- North & South Rivers Watershed Ass'n v. Scituate, 949 F.2d 552 (1st Cir. 1991) (diligent‑prosecution analysis where government compliance efforts were detailed and ongoing)
- Cebollero‑Bertrán v. Puerto Rico Aqueduct & Sewer Auth., 4 F.4th 63 (1st Cir. 2021) (First Circuit framing of the diligent‑prosecution bar and need to probe post‑decree remedial steps)
- Housatonic River Initiative v. EPA, 75 F.4th 248 (1st Cir. 2023) (recognizing diminution in market value as a cognizable injury)
- Int'l Paper Co. v. Ouellette, 479 U.S. 481 (1987) (CWA preemption of federal common law but saving clause preserves state law remedies)
- Spokeo, Inc. v. Robbins, 578 U.S. 330 (2016) (concreteness and particularization requirements for injury)