August 12, 2020

Volume X, Number 225

August 11, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

August 10, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

Department of Justice Issues New Guidance Limiting Federal Clean Water Act Civil Enforcement Overfiling of State Actions

On July 27, 2020, U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) Assistant Attorney General (AAG) Jeffrey Bossert Clark issued a memorandum setting forth limitations to federal civil enforcement discretion concerning certain Clean Water Act (CWA) matters involving prior state proceedings (CWA Memo).

Specifically, the CWA Memo makes clear that DOJ disfavors federal civil enforcement if an action has already been initiated or concluded by a state and any federal action that might otherwise be considered would arise from the same operative facts. While the guidance does not alter the statutory enforcement authority of the federal government, it provides clear direction on the use of DOJ CWA enforcement discretion in potential state overfiling situations.

This development offers the regulated community greater reassurance that federal overfiling will continue to be rare. The CWA Memo does not address the separate issue of federal oversight of permitting actions delegated under the CWA or other major federal statutes. Such oversight is expected to remain robust.

The CWA Memo is consistent with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)’s 2019 guidance, Enhancing Effective Partnerships Between the EPA and the States in Civil Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Work. In tandem, these DOJ and EPA pronouncements underscore the current Administration’s policy of providing significant deference to states authorized to implement the CWA’s programs under its cooperative federalism framework.

The CWA Memo’s Directive

The CWA Memo cites federalism principles to support DOJ’s new policy, noting that Congress expressly precluded federal CWA civil enforcement actions subsequent to state administrative action in a few specific circumstances. Although Congress did not provide a similar express bar on federal enforcement action in other circumstances, DOJ has concluded that Congress intended the federal government to take an expansive view of the range of circumstances in which the federal government generally should not over-file.

For example, the CWA Memo highlights how, in CWA subsection 309(g)(6), Congress dictated that the federal government cannot bring a civil enforcement action after a state has initiated administrative proceedings similar to federal administrative proceedings. DOJ notes that this CWA provision is silent as to state judicial proceedings, and advances the position that the federal government should refrain from overfiling in the absence of an outcome in a state court case that the federal government views as clearly erroneous under the CWA. CWA Memo, pp. 5-6 (“Strangely, however, nothing in the CWA affords similar preclusive effect to state judicial enforcement actions, even though such civil judicial enforcement actions will inherently include more robust processes to protect the rights of defendants than the § 309(g)-referenced state administrative proceedings.”).

As a result, DOJ’s policy is to avoid federal “piling on” top of state enforcement actions. This is consistent with other policy statements from DOJ made in the Justice Manual and the “Petite Policy” (named after Petite v. United States, 361 U.S. 529 (1960)), both of which discuss the exercise of discretion when bringing subsequent federal enforcement actions.

Under the CWA Memo, DOJ will use a set of criteria to evaluate whether it should bring federal civil CWA actions subsequent to state enforcement. Specifically, if a state has already begun or concluded a civil enforcement action for penalties under analogous state law for the same conduct, no federal civil judicial enforcement is permitted without pre-approval from the AAG.

Pre-approval to proceed with federal enforcement action may be granted based on any of six specific factors, as well as a catch-all:

  1. The outcome of the prior state enforcement action would amount to an unfair windfall to the would-be defendant;
  2. The State is not diligently prosecuting an initiated civil enforcement action;
  3. The State makes a written request for the federal government to pursue separate action, citing a basis for the request, that, in light of all circumstances, DOJ concludes would not amount to unfair “piling on”;
  4. The State has been unable to collect its penalty and makes a written request for federal assistance;
  5. A federal action is necessary to protect an important federal interest that the state action will not adequately address;
  6. The federal action would seek only appropriate injunctive relief to fill a discernible gap in the prior state relief; or
  7. There are other exceptional circumstances justifying federal involvement.

Finally, in the event a state brought a civil action but the penalties sought were denied by a state court, the AAG will disfavor granting pre-approval of a related federal civil enforcement action, although exceptions may be allowed. The CWA Memo also clarifies that the detailed factors are not intended to be used mechanically, but that each case needs to be considered on its own merits.

Implications of the Directive

The CWA Memo appears to confirm the long-standing practice of the federal government to pursue overfiling in only a limited set of enforcement circumstances. State and federal agencies often partner to bring a case as co-plaintiffs, and in some cases the CWA requires state involvement in an enforcement action. E.g., 33 U.S.C. § 1319(e) (states must be joined as parties in any civil enforcement action against a municipality). In practice, states have been and will remain in the lead for most enforcement actions taken under delegated programs like the CWA’s NPDES (National Pollution Discharge Elimination System) permit regime.

To the extent there has been the type of duplicative enforcement described in the CWA Memo, DOJ’s written pronouncement is welcome news. We anticipate DOJ will issue additional policy materials on the scope of federal regulatory and enforcement discretion. For example, the CWA Memo indicates DOJ plans to issue a policy statement regarding reliance on legislative history to expand or justify enhanced interpretations of federal environmental laws. Overall, the CWA Memo appears to be part of a series of policy pronouncements by the Trump Administration to reinforce its emphasis on the principle of cooperative federalism in federal environmental laws.

© 2020 Beveridge & Diamond PC National Law Review, Volume X, Number 214

TRENDING LEGAL ANALYSIS


About this Author

Karen M. Hansen Water Regulation Attorney Beveridge & Diamond Austin, TX
Principal

Karen Hanson’s practice focuses on the Clean Water Act and state programs for regulating and permitting water discharges and water supply/use, and on environmental, health, and safety audit review and implementation. 

She has extensive experience assisting industrial and municipal clients in preparing strategies for and pursuing water permits for ongoing operations, expansions and new operations, including permit challenges. Karen also represents clients that must defend CWA and state water law enforcement actions, including claims pursued by governmental as well as third party...

512-391-8005
Andrew C. Silton Environmental Litigation Attorney Beveridge & Diamond Washington, DC
Principal

Andrew C. Silton guides clients through complex regulatory issues and high stakes litigation arising under the nation's clean water laws.

His practice focuses primarily on issues arising under the nation’s water quality laws and spans regulatory counseling, enforcement defense, and litigation. He is currently the Deputy Chair of the firm’s Water Practice Group and represents clients from both the private and public sectors in matters arising under the Clean Water Act and state law. Drew advises clients in a variety of sectors, ranging from waste and stormwater utilities to companies in the renewable energy, information technology, oil and gas, and transportation sectors.

Drew also plays an active role in the firm's pesticide data compensation practice. He has brought multiple arbitrations to obtain compensation from competitors who have relied on clients' pesticide data to obtain registrations. Drew has also represented members of the pesticide industry in high profile administrative law litigation impacting the regulation and registration of pesticide products.

Andrew’s experience includes:

  • Counseling data center operators on a variety of obligations under the Clean Water Act relating to the discharge of wastewater and storage of petroleum products.
  • Assisting clients with the negotiation and renewal of NPDES permits.
  • Authoring amicus briefs in cases impacting the scope of the Clean Water Act and the regulation of pesticide products.
  • Scoping and executing comprehensive compliance audits.
  • Defending clients in cases of first impression brought under the Clean Water Act.
  • Defending clients in toxic tort litigation.
  • Challenging local ordinances on preemption grounds.
  • Defending clients in state and federal enforcement actions, including the negotiation of consent orders and consent decrees.

Prior to entering private practice, Drew gained experience working for the government and tackling emerging issues relating to adaptation to climate change. Immediately after graduating from Georgetown University Law Center, Drew served as a special law clerk at the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in Philadelphia, where he prepared cost recovery and enforcement actions under CERCLA and the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA).

202-789-6078
Allyn L. Stern Environmental Attorney Beveridge & Diamond Seattle, WA
Of Counsel

Allyn brings over 30 years of insider understanding of government operations.

Her experience as former Region 10 Counsel at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) informs her deep policy, regulatory, and enforcement knowledge. Allyn draws on her breadth and depth of expertise to help clients comply with an array of environmental statutes and regulations applicable to their businesses, including Clean Water Act (CWA) and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) permit approvals, risk management under the Clean Air Act 112(r), civil and criminal enforcement, Superfund cleanup...

206-620-3027
Kate A. Tipple Environmental Litigation Attorney Beveridge & Diamond San Francisco, CA
Associate

Kate Tipple combines legal experience with a science and environmental management background to creatively tailor effective litigation and compliance strategies.

While Kate’s experience with environmental law is broad, she has a strong background in water resources and environmental litigation. Her successful litigation experience involves civil and administrative enforcement proceedings, contaminated property matters, and appellate work.

In addition, Kate advises clients on a variety of regulatory compliance issues, including federal and state consumer product and chemical...

415-262-4015