North and South Rivers Watershed Association v. Town of Scituate
United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
949 F.2d 552, 22 ELR 20437 (1991)

- Written by Solveig Singleton, JD
Facts
In 1987, the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) issued an order to the Town of Scituate (defendant). The order required Scituate to bar new connections to its sewers, to build new wastewater treatment facilities, and to upgrade existing treatment facilities under the DEP’s review. The DEP’s order was authorized by the Massachusetts Clean Waters Act, the provisions of which were similar to those of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA). At the time the order was issued, the DEP did not seek civil penalties against Scituate but reserved the right to do so in the future. Scituate worked with an engineering firm to develop plans to upgrade its treatment facilities and submitted a draft in July 1990. In 1989, the North and South Rivers Watershed Association, Inc. (NSRW) (plaintiff), a citizen group, sued Scituate in federal district court, seeking civil penalties and injunctive relief. The NSRW’s claims were based on the same issues addressed by the DEP’s order. The district court granted summary judgment for Scituate, holding that the Clean Water Act (CWA) barred the NSRW’s suit. The NSRW argued that the CWA would bar a citizen’s suit for monetary penalties only if the state had already brought a suit for penalties. The NSRW also argued that the DEP had not diligently enforced the environmental laws, as required by the CWA’s bar to citizen suits. Finally, the NSRW argued that the CWA’s bar on citizen suits did not extend to the NSRW’s request for injunctive relief.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Hill, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 899,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,000 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

