Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Inc. v. Gwaltney of Smithfield, Ltd.

Since 1981, Gwaltney of Smithfield, Ltd. (Gwaltney) (defendant) had operated a facility subject to a discharge permit issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Clean Water Act (CWA). The permit limited Gwaltney’s effluent discharges of specified pollutants, including total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) and chlorine. In February 1984, Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Inc. (CBF) (plaintiff) notified relevant parties of its intent to sue Gwaltney for alleged violations of discharge limitations for various pollutants, including TKN and chlorine. As to chlorine, Gwaltney had not violated a limit since October 1982. As to TKN, Gwaltney experienced violations on an almost-monthly basis between 1981 and May 1984. In June 1984, CBF filed suit. In December 1984, the district court held a trial, during which two experts doubted whether Gwaltney would be able to comply with the permit’s TKN restrictions that winter. The court ultimately ordered penalties against Gwaltney for permit violations as to both TKN and chlorine. A challenge by Gwaltney to the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction was reviewed by the Supreme Court and eventually remanded to the district court for a finding as to whether CBF had proven that Gwaltney’s permit violations were ongoing. On remand, the district court found that Gwaltney’s violations were ongoing and imposed the same penalties as before. Gwaltney appealed, claiming there was insufficient evidence to support a finding of ongoing violations and/or the court erred in imposing penalties as to chlorine violations. Gwaltney further raised a related issue of mootness.