Citizens' group has standing to sue under Clean Water Act

Law Reporter, Apr 2000

Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs. (TOC) Inc., 120 S. Ct. 693 (2000).

The U.S. Supreme Court held a citizens' group has standing to sue an alleged polluter under the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1365 etseq.

Here, a company obtained a permit allowing it to discharge a limited amount of pollutants into a river adjacent to its facility A citizens' environmental group sued the company, alleging it had repeatedly violated the permit limits. The trial court found for plaintiff and imposed civil penalties but declined to grant injunctive relief because defendant had substantially complied with its permit since the start of litigation. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated and remanded, finding plaintiffs claim moot because plaintiff had failed to appeal the denial of equitable relief and defendant had come into compliance with permit requirements after the lawsuit commenced.

Reversing, the U.S. Supreme Court said the Fourth Circuit had confused mootness and standing in its analysis. Consequently, the Court explained, it had an obligation to determine each of these issues separately. To establish standing, a plaintiff must show: (1) it has suffered injury in fact, (2) the injury is traceable to defendant's actions, and (3) it is likely that the injury will be redressed through a favorable outcome. The Court disagreed with defendant's arguments that plaintiff had failed to establish factors (1) and (3). First, the Court noted, injury in fact is not injury to the environment but rather injury to plaintiff. Here, plaintiff demonstrated this by showing its members were injured by defendant's actions because they use the affected area and are persons for whom the aesthetic and recreational values of the area were lessened by defendant's activity.

The Court also rejected defendant's argument that plaintiff's injuries cannot be redressed by civil penalties because they are paid to the government. Citing case law, the Court explained that all civil penalties have some deterrent effect. Moreover, Congress found that civil penalties in Clean Water Act cases do deter future violations of the act. Thus, the Court said, a sanction that effectively abates defendant's conduct and prevents its recurrence provides redress to a plaintiff who is injured or threatened with injury.

Finally, the Court noted that a case will become moot as a result of defendant's voluntary conduct if subsequent events make it absolutely clear that the allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur. Here, defendant substantially complied with the permit requirements after plaintiff filed suit, and subsequently closed the facility The Court found that while these actions may moot the case, their effect on the prospect of future violations is a disputed factual matter that must be determined on remand.

Plaintiffs Counsel Bruce J. Terris, Washington, D.C.