South River Watershed Alliance, Inc. v. DeKalb County, Georgia
United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
69 F.4th 809 (2023)
- Written by Jamie Milne, JD
Facts
In 2010, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GDNR) sued DeKalb County, Georgia (DeKalb) (defendant) for violating the Clean Water Act (CWA) by discharging untreated sewage into the South River and Chattahoochee watersheds. The district court approved a consent decree agreed to by the parties. The decree required DeKalb to use best efforts to achieve the goal of full compliance with the CWA. Additionally, DeKalb agreed to (1) pay a $453,000 fine, (2) spend at least $600,000 on remedial measures aiding certain impacted areas, and (3) remediate its system to prevent future discharges. DeKalb preemptively agreed to fixed penalties for any noncompliance with the decree’s terms and deadlines. The EPA and GDNR monitored DeKalb’s compliance and collected penalties as appropriate. In 2019, South River Watershed Alliance, Inc. (SRWA) (plaintiff) sued DeKalb, seeking monetary damages for DeKalb’s CWA violations and injunctions requiring DeKalb to stop violating its discharge permits. DeKalb moved to dismiss, arguing that 33 U.S.C. § 1365(b)(1)(B) barred the SRWA’s enforcement action when the EPA was already diligently prosecuting an enforcement action via the consent decree. SRWA argued that the bar did not apply because the consent decree did not require full compliance with the CWA. The district court dismissed SRWA’s suit. SRWA appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Branch, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 905,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,100 briefs, keyed to 995 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.

