United States v. Cargill, Inc.

The Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC) issued a wastewater discharge permit to Cargill, Inc. (defendant) under the Clean Water Act (CWA). The public complained about an odor associated with Cargill’s wastewater treatment system. In renewing Cargill’s permit, the DNREC included a requirement that Cargill build new treatment facilities. The odor problem grew worse, and the new facilities sometimes discharged pollutants in violation of the permit. The DNREC sued Cargill in state court. The first suit (the air suit) concerned the odor problem. The second suit (the water suit) concerned the discharge problem. The suits raised different legal issues, but the solutions to the odor and discharge problems were related. Cargill and the DNREC negotiated a settlement resulting in a comprehensive plan to address the odor and discharge problems. The DNREC agreed to settle the water suit for a $5,000 penalty if Cargill conducted a study of the odor and discharge problems and built facilities according to a schedule recommended by the study. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) filed an action in federal court to obtain an injunction requiring Cargill to comply with the discharge limits in its permit and calling for fines of $10,000 per day for each violation. The DNREC and Cargill objected to the EPA’s suit because it could result in an order inconsistent with the installation of pollution-control equipment called for in the settlement of the state suits. The EPA sent a letter to the DNREC stating that it would not seek a remedy inconsistent with Cargill’s installation of the recommended facilities but objecting to the proposed $5,000 penalty and to the settlement’s failure to require Cargill’s compliance with discharge limits. Cargill argued that the federal court should dismiss the EPA’s suit under the doctrine of abstention or alternatively stay the EPA’s suit.