4622
463CITIZEN SUITS AND DEFENSES AGAINST THEM<strong>ALI</strong>/ABA Course of StudyEnvironmental Law Course of StudyWashington, DCFebruary, 2011James R. May 1Professor of LawH. Albert Young Fellow in Constitutional LawWidener UniversityI. IntroductionWhat follows is a recap of major developments involving environmental citizen suit decisions undera variety of federal statutes in 2010.<strong>Citizen</strong> suits are a common attribute in the enforcement of federal environmental laws, historicallycomprising almost one-half of all civil enforcement actions. While statistical information is elusive for moststatutes, since 2003, under the Clean Water Act citizens have sent about 2,000 notices of intent to sue, filed325 complaints, <strong>and</strong> entered about 140 consent decrees, including 312, 52 <strong>and</strong> 2, respectively, in 2010. 2Environmental citizen suits share common attributes. First, except in rare circumstances, environmentalcitizen suitors must send a notice of intent to sue to appropriate persons at least 60 days before commencingan action. 3 The prototypical provision, section 505(b) of the CWA, provides: “No action may be commenced. . . prior to sixty days after the plaintiff has given notice of the alleged violation (i) to the Administrator, (ii) tothe State in which the alleged violation occurs, <strong>and</strong> (iii) to any alleged violator of the st<strong>and</strong>ard, limitation, ororder.” 4<strong>Citizen</strong> suit notice requirements are considerably more dem<strong>and</strong>ing than notice pleading under theFederal Rules of Civil Procedure. 5 <strong>Citizen</strong>s must give notice in the manner prescribed by EPA. EPA rulesgenerally require notices of intent to sue to identify the specific st<strong>and</strong>ards <strong>and</strong> limitations the recipient of thenotice is alleged to be violating, the person responsible, the location of the alleged violation, the date or datesof such violation, <strong>and</strong> the full name <strong>and</strong> address of the person giving the notice. 6 Though it is questionablewhether advance notice is “jurisdictional,” there it must be perfected before commencing a citizen suit. 71Jim May is a Professor of Law <strong>and</strong> the H. Albert Young Fellow in Constitutional Law at Widener UniversitySchool of Law. This paper builds upon (but does its best not the repeat) prior <strong>ALI</strong>-ABA updates prepared by theauthor. More expansive versions of what’s here appeared in James R. May, Now More Than Ever: Trends inEnvironmental <strong>Citizen</strong> <strong>Suits</strong> at 30, 10 Widener L. Rev. 1 (2003), Now More Than Ever: Recent Trends inEnvironmental <strong>Citizen</strong> <strong>Suits</strong>, in Environmental <strong>Citizen</strong> <strong>Suits</strong> at Thirtysomething: A Celebration <strong>and</strong> Summit, 33 Envtl.L. Rep. 10,704 (2003), <strong>and</strong> The Availability of State Environmental <strong>Citizen</strong> <strong>Suits</strong>, 18 Nat. Resources & Env’t 53 (2004).2. EPA Office of General Counsel, Water Law Office Notices of <strong>Citizen</strong> Suit documents, Dec. 2010 (on file withauthor). Statistical information for citizen suits under other statutes since 2003 is not readily available.3. See, e.g., 33 U.S.C. § 1365(b)(1)(A) (2000) (CWA); 42 U.S.C. § 7604(b)(1)(A) (2000) (CAA); 16 U.S.C. §1540(g)(2)(A)(i) (ESA); 42 U.S.C. § 6972(b)(1)(A) (RCRA) (ninety days for violating certain solid waste requirements); 42U.S.C. § 9659(d)(1) (2000) (CERCLA); 42 U.S.C. § 300j-8(b) (2000) (SDWA); 42 U.S.C. § 11046(d) (2000) (EPCRA).But see 16 U.S.C. § 1540(g)(2)(C) (2000) (ESA) (notice not required if action “posing a significant risk to the well-beingof any species”). See also 42 U.S.C. § 6972(a)(1)(B) (2000) (RCRA) (notice, but not delay, required for illegal disposal ofstatutory hazardous wastes amounting to “imminent <strong>and</strong> substantial endangerment”).4. 33 U.S.C. § 1365(b) (2000).5. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (general civil “notice” pleading). See, e.g., Nat’l Parks Conservation Ass’n v. Tenn. ValleyAuth., 175 F. Supp. 2d 1071, 1077 (E.D. Tenn. 2001); Torres Maysonet v. Drillex, S.E., 229 F. Supp. 2d 105, 107-08(D.P.R. 2002).6. See 40 C.F.R. §54.3(b) (2002) (CAA); id. § 135.3(a) (CWA). Some statutes, like the ESA, lack a notice rulecounterpart.7. Hallstrom v. Tillamook County, 493 U.S. 20, 33 (1989). Professor Coplan concludes that notice is notjurisdictional, <strong>and</strong> describes why it matters to citizen suitors. Karl S. Coplan, Is <strong>Citizen</strong> Suit Notice Jurisdictional <strong>and</strong>Why Does it Matter?, 10 Widener L. Rev. 49 (2003) (noting that the “jurisdictional” nature of notice “implicates the1