Home |
Climate Change Project |
Table of Contents |
Courses | Search |
| [1] | UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT August Term,
2003 |
| [2] | Docket No. 02-9484 |
| [3] | 351 F.3d 602, 2003.C02.0001391 <http://www.versuslaw.com>, 57
ERC 1545 |
| [4] | December 09, 2003 |
| [5] | NO SPRAY COALITION, INC., NATIONAL COALITION AGAINST THE MISUSE OF
PESTICIDES, INC., DISABLED IN ACTION, INC., SAVE ORGANIC STANDARDS NEW
YORK, VALERIE SHEPPARD, MITCHELL J. COHEN, ROBERT LEDERMAN, EVA YAA
ASANTEWAA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANTS, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, MICHAEL BLOOMBERG, THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, THOMAS FRIEDEN, THE OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, JOHN THOMAS ODERMATT, DEFENDANT-APPELLEES, AQUATIC PESTICIDE COALITION, AMERICAN MOSQUITO CONTROL ASSOCIATION, MOVANTS. |
| [6] | SYLLABUS BY THE COURT |
| [7] | Plaintiffs appeal from the grant of summary judgment by the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Martin, J.)
dismissing their claims under the Clean Water Act. The district court
ruled that the citizen-suit provision of the Clean Water Act does not
apply to uses of pesticide that comply with the requirements of the
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. |
| [8] | Vacated and remanded. |
| [9] | Karl S. Coplan (Joel R. Kupferman and Christine N. Simmons, on the
brief), Pace Environmental Litigation Clinic, White Plains, N.Y., for
Appellant. |
| [10] | Inga Van Eysden (Susan E. Amron and Mark P. McIntyre, on the brief),
Office of the Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, New York, N.Y.,
for Appellees. |
| [11] | Before: Leval and Sack, Circuit Judges, and Korman, District Judge.
*fn1 |
| [12] | The opinion of the court was delivered by: Leval, Circuit
Judge |
| [13] | Argued: Sept. 17, 2003 |
| [14] | Plaintiffs, a coalition of environmental groups and individuals,
brought a citizen suit under the Clean Water Act ("CWA"), 33 U.S.C. § 1251
et seq., to enjoin the City of New York from spraying insecticide in a
manner causing the pollution of navigable waters without a permit. The
Clean Water Act forbids discharge of a pollutant into the navigable waters
of the United States without a permit issued under the terms of the Act.
The Act authorizes "any citizen" to sue to enforce its provisions. The
district court (Martin, J.) granted defendants' motion for summary
judgment. The court ruled that New York's use of the insecticides
substantially complied with the requirements of a different but related
act, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act ("FIFRA"), 7
U.S.C. § 136 et seq. In contrast to CWA, FIFRA does not provide for
citizen enforcement suits. The district court reasoned that Congress
intended FIFRA as the primary scheme governing pesticide use, and that,
where a particular use challenged as a violation of CWA substantially
complied with FIFRA, FIFRA's refusal to allow enforcement by citizen suit
should prevail over CWA's allowance of such suits. Because we conclude
that Congress intended the CWA's citizen suit provision to operate
regardless whether the claimed violation of CWA also violated FIFRA, we
vacate the opinion of the district court and remand for further
proceedings. |
| [15] | BACKGROUND |
| [16] | In August of 1999, several residents of Queens contracted a strain of
viral encephalitis known as West Nile virus, which is transmitted by
mosquitoes. In response New York City deployed trucks and helicopters to
spray pesticides designed to kill adult mosquitoes. West Nile virus
appeared in the City in each subsequent summer, and the City's spraying
program continued. The City has used three pesticides in the spraying
program: malathion (sold under the trade name Fyfanon), resmethrin
(Scourge), and sumithrin (Anvil). All three are regulated under FIFRA. It
is undisputed that New York did not seek or obtain the type of permit CWA
requires as a prerequisite to the discharge of a pollutant into a
navigable waterway. |
| [17] | On July 20, 2000, plaintiffs filed a complaint in the Southern
District of New York, claiming that New York's spraying program involved
discharge of a pollutant into a navigable waterway and was being done
without a permit in violation of CWA. The complaint also alleged violation
of various other statutes. The complaint sought an injunction to terminate
the spraying, plus other remedies. In a first opinion and order issued
September 25, 2000, the district court denied the plaintiffs' request for
a preliminary injunction and dismissed various claims. These rulings
either were not appealed or were affirmed by this court. See No Spray
Coalition, Inc. v. City of New York, 252 F.3d 148 (2d Cir.
2001). |
| [18] | The district court permitted discovery to proceed on the CWA claims
founded on allegations of direct application of pesticides to protected
waters. Plaintiffs produced evidence that on occasion the defendant's
pesticides had been sprayed over lakes, streams, ponds, or marshes. In the
ruling forming the basis of this appeal, the district court then dismissed
the plaintiffs' remaining CWA claims by summary judgment, based on its
conclusion that the CWA does not entitle plaintiffs to enforce its
provisions by citizen suit in these circumstances. (Order of November 26,
2002.) The court found that the spraying which plaintiffs claimed as
violations of CWA either did not violate of FIFRA, or at most constituted
mere "technical violations" of FIFRA. Interpreting the relationship
between the two statutes, the court reasoned that in such circumstances
FIFRA's non-allowance of enforcement by citizen suit would take precedence
over CWA's allowance of enforcement by citizen suit. |
| [19] | We disagree with the district court's reasoning. In our view, its
ruling impermissibly modified CWA. CWA expressly permits enforcement by
citizen suit. The district court's interpretation disallows enforcement of
CWA through a citizen suit unless the alleged violation of CWA also
violates FIFRA in a substantial manner. We find no basis for this
interpretation in the statutes. CWA authorizes "any citizen" to bring suit
to enforce its requirements, regardless whether the alleged violation of
CWA also constitutes a substantial violation of FIFRA. We accordingly
vacate the judgment and remand the case for further proceedings on
plaintiffs' CWA claims. |
| [20] | DISCUSSION |
| [21] | The Clean Water Act is a regulatory statute designed "to restore and
maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's
waters." 33 U.S.C. § 1251(a). The statute prohibits "discharge" of "any
pollutant" into "navigable waters" without a permit issued by the United
States Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") under the National
Pollution Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") or under a federally
approved state permit system ("SPDES"). *fn2 See 33 U.S.C. §§ 1311(a), 1342. The term "navigable
waters" has been construed broadly to include non-navigable tributaries of
navigable waterways, including small streams. See, e.g., United States v.
TGR Corp., 171 F.3d 762, 765 (2d Cir. 1999). In issuing permits, EPA and
state governments either may establish national or statewide caps for
cumulative discharge of specific pollutants from all regulated sources, or
may proceed on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the ecological
conditions of particular waterways. As noted, the provision of CWA that is
critical for this suit authorizes any citizen to sue to enforce its
provisions. *fn3 |
| [22] | FIFRA is a regulatory statute governing the marketing and use of
pesticides, fungicides, rodenticides, and other designated classes of
chemicals. The statute requires that all such chemicals sold in the United
States be registered with EPA, which accepts registration only upon a
finding that the poison "when used in accordance with widespread and
commonly recognized practice . . . will not generally cause unreasonably
adverse effects on the environment." 7 U.S.C. § 136a(c)(5)(D). *fn4 The EPA issues a "label" for each registered chemical,
indicating the manner in which it may be used. A FIFRA label thus
encapsulates the terms on which a chemical is registered, and its
requirements become part of FIFRA's regulatory scheme. FIFRA makes it
unlawful "to use any registered pesticide in a manner inconsistent with
its labeling." 7 U.S.C. § 136j(a)(2)(G). Unlike CWA, FIFRA does not
provide for citizen enforcement suits. See No Spray Coalition, Inc., 252
F.3d at 150. Such enforcement actions may be brought only by specified
agencies of federal and state governments. |
| [23] | Observing the legislative history and structure of FIFRA and the CWA,
the district court reasoned: |
| [24] | The fact that these two regulatory schemes were before Congress at the
same time establishes beyond doubt that when Congress made a deliberate
decision not to provide a private right of [enforcement] action under
FIFRA, it did not intend to permit private parties to circumvent that
decision through an action under the Clean Water Act. |
| [25] | No Spray Coalition, Inc. v. City of New York, 2002 WL 31682387, at *2
(S.D.N.Y. Nov. 26, 2002). In the court's view, allowing citizen
enforcement suits under CWA to bar acts that do not violate FIFRA in any
substantial manner would "do violence to the intent of Congress not to
provide a private right of action for FIFRA violations." Id. |
| [26] | The court accordingly ruled that a citizen enforcement suit under the
Clean Water Act based on the use of chemicals regulated by FIFRA could
proceed only if the pesticide application claimed to violate CWA also
constituted a substantial violation of FIFRA. Applying this standard, the
court found that plaintiffs' allegations "establishe[d] no more than minor
technical violations of [FIFRA], which, if actionable at all, are only
actionable if the action is commenced by the Attorney General or the EPA."
Id. at *3. |
| [27] | We respectfully disagree with the district court's interpretation of
the statutes. In our view, with regard to the availability of a citizen
enforcement suit, each statute stands on its own, and means what it says.
Congress expressly provided in CWA that its provisions might be enforced
through a citizen enforcement suit. In passing FIFRA, Congress made no
such provision. Accordingly, a citizen suit may not be maintained to
enforce obligations created by FIFRA. On the other hand, a citizen suit
seeking to enforce obligations created by CWA is expressly
authorized. |
| [28] | The district court cautioned that canons of statutory construction
discourage "reading . . . in" remedies to a statute that omits them. No
Spray Coalition, Inc. v. City of New York, 2000 WL 1401458, at *3
(S.D.N.Y. Sept. 25, 2000). That proposition, however, does not support the
district court's conclusions. The question in this case is not whether to
read into FIFRA a remedy Congress omitted from it. The question is rather
whether to eliminate from CWA a remedy which it expressly provides, merely
because another related statute does not similarly provide such a remedy.
We can see no reason to do so. |
| [29] | For these reasons, we hold that the plaintiffs' "citizen suit" brought
to compel compliance with CWA's terms was authorized by the statute. We
reject the district court's view that CWA's provision for citizen suit
becomes inoperative where the alleged violation of CWA lies in the use of
pesticides covered by FIFRA in a manner that is not a substantial
violation of FIFRA. We therefore vacate the judgment and remand for
further proceedings. |
| [30] | Defendants contend we should affirm the grant of summary judgment on a
somewhat different ground. They argue that where an alleged violation of
CWA consists of a use of pesticides governed by FIFRA, use of those
pesticides in the manner approved by the EPA under FIFRA (or deviating
therefrom to only an insignificant degree) should be deemed conclusively
not to violate CWA. The district court appeared at first to be undertaking
to address that question. In the end, however, the district court did not
answer it. *fn5 While expressing doubt as to whether the City's
actions violated the CWA, the court nonetheless noted that the City's
actions might be actionable under CWA "if the action [were] commenced by
the Attorney General or the EPA." No Spray Coalition, Inc., 2002 WL
31682387 at *3. The court's position was essentially that plaintiffs' suit
must be dismissed not because defendants' conduct did not violate CWA, but
rather because the violation of CWA, if there was one, may be challenged
only by a government entity authorized to bring an action to enforce
FIFRA, and not by a citizen. |
| [31] | Defendants asks us to affirm on the ground that spraying in
substantial compliance with FIFRA must be deemed also to comply with CWA.
We will not venture to answer that complex question in the first instance.
We remand to the district court. CONCLUSION |
| [32] | The judgment of the district court is VACATED and the case
REMANDED. |
|
| |
| Opinion Footnotes | |
|
| |
| [33] | *fn1 The Honorable Edward R. Korman, Chief Judge of the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by
designation. |
| [34] | *fn2 The statute encompasses other exceptions to its
blanket prohibition on water pollution. The requirement of a NPDES or
SPDES permit is, however, the sole topic of this litigation. |
| [35] | *fn3 33 U.S.C. § 1365(a) provides, [A]ny citizen may
commence a civil action on his own behalf-- (1) against any person . . .
who is alleged to be in violation of (A) an effluent standard or
limitation under this chapter or (B) an order issued by the Administrator
or a State with respect to such a standard or limitation, or (2) against
the Administrator where there is alleged a failure of the Administrator to
perform any act or duty under this chapter which is not discretionary with
the Administrator. |
| [36] | *fn4 The statute defines "unreasonable adverse effects on
the environment" to mean "any unreasonable risk to man or the environment,
taking into account the economic, social, and environmental costs and
benefits of the use of any pesticide." 7 U.S.C. § 136(bb). |
| [37] | *fn5 The court introduced its opinion of Nov. 26, 2002, by
saying that its prior opinion "[left] for another day the question of
whether the spraying of insecticides directly over [New York City's bodies
of water] would violate the Clean Water Act," and then added,"That day has
arrived." No Spray Coalition, Inc., 2002 WL 31682387 at *2. Instead of
ruling on that question, however, the court dismissed because the alleged
violation of CWA could not be asserted by citizen
action. |
The Climate Change and Public Health Law Site
The Best on the WWW Since 1995!
Copyright as to non-public domain materials
See DR-KATE.COM for home hurricane and disaster preparation
See WWW.EPR-ART.COM for photography of southern Louisiana and Hurricane Katrina
Professor Edward P. Richards, III, JD, MPH - Webmaster
Provide Website Feedback - https://www.lsu.edu/feedback
Privacy Statement - https://www.lsu.edu/privacy
Accessibility Statement - https://www.lsu.edu/accessibility