Clean Water Act Violation Prosecutions
Overview: Clean Water Act Violations and Enforcement
The Clean Water Act (CWA) regulates the discharge of pollutants into U.S. waters and sets quality standards. Key provisions criminalize:
Discharging pollutants without a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit (33 U.S.C. §1311).
Knowingly violating permit conditions.
Falsifying monitoring or discharge records.
Negligently or knowingly causing harmful discharges affecting protected waters.
Enforcement includes civil penalties, administrative orders, and criminal prosecutions for knowing or negligent violations.
1. United States v. Duke Energy Corporation (2015)
Facts
Duke Energy was prosecuted for knowingly discharging coal ash wastewater containing heavy metals into the Dan River in North Carolina without proper permits, violating the CWA. The company delayed reporting the spill and falsified discharge records.
Charges / Legal Basis
Knowing discharge of pollutants without a permit (CWA §301).
Falsification of records to conceal violations.
Obstruction of justice for delaying reporting.
Legal Issues & Evidence
Whether Duke intentionally or negligently caused unpermitted discharges.
Internal emails and sampling data showing awareness of pollution.
Evidence of efforts to cover up spill severity.
Outcome
Duke pled guilty to criminal misdemeanor violations of the CWA.
Paid over $102 million in penalties and restitution.
Undertook extensive remediation and environmental compliance upgrades.
Significance
One of the largest CWA enforcement actions against a utility company.
Demonstrated that large corporations can face severe criminal penalties for environmental misconduct.
Highlighted importance of timely spill reporting.
2. United States v. Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) (2016)
Facts
PG&E was prosecuted for repeated violations of its wastewater discharge permits from a natural gas compressor station in California. The company discharged pollutants in excess of permit limits and falsified records submitted to regulators.
Charges / Legal Basis
Knowing and negligent violations of NPDES permit conditions.
False statements and records (18 U.S.C. §1001).
Legal Issues & Evidence
Evidence included monitoring data showing exceeded pollutant levels.
Internal reports acknowledging permit violations.
Misrepresentations to regulators to avoid enforcement.
Outcome
PG&E pled guilty to misdemeanor CWA violations.
Paid $3 million in fines and agreed to strengthen compliance programs.
Significance
Emphasized that permit violations combined with falsification of records can trigger criminal liability.
Showed regulators’ willingness to prosecute utility companies for environmental violations.
3. United States v. ExxonMobil Corporation (2013)
Facts
ExxonMobil was prosecuted following a massive oil spill from its Pegasus pipeline in Arkansas, which polluted waterways and wetlands. Investigations showed failure to maintain the pipeline properly and delayed reporting of the spill.
Charges / Legal Basis
Negligent discharge of oil into navigable waters.
Violations of CWA spill reporting requirements.
Legal Issues & Evidence
Whether ExxonMobil acted negligently in pipeline maintenance.
Whether delays in reporting worsened environmental harm.
Engineering assessments and internal maintenance records.
Outcome
ExxonMobil pled guilty to criminal misdemeanor violations of the CWA.
Paid $5 million in fines and restitution.
Undertook environmental restoration.
Significance
Highlighted responsibilities for pipeline operators under the CWA.
Reinforced the duty to promptly report discharges.
4. United States v. City of Tacoma (2017)
Facts
The City of Tacoma, Washington, was prosecuted for repeated sanitary sewer overflows into local waterways. The city failed to properly maintain infrastructure, resulting in multiple unpermitted discharges of raw sewage.
Charges / Legal Basis
Knowing and negligent violations of the CWA for unpermitted discharges.
Failure to comply with NPDES permit conditions.
Legal Issues & Evidence
Records of sewage overflow events and infrastructure inspection reports.
Evidence of insufficient maintenance budgets and ignored repair needs.
Outcome
City agreed to a plea and paid fines exceeding $1 million.
Entered into a court-supervised compliance and infrastructure improvement plan.
Significance
Demonstrated municipal liability under the CWA for sewage overflows.
Emphasized proactive infrastructure maintenance as critical for compliance.
5. United States v. Marathon Petroleum Corporation (2020)
Facts
Marathon Petroleum was prosecuted for illegally discharging untreated stormwater runoff containing hazardous pollutants into nearby rivers from its refinery in Texas. The company violated permit conditions and failed to implement adequate stormwater controls.
Charges / Legal Basis
Discharge of pollutants without a permit or in violation of permit limits.
Negligent violation of the CWA.
Legal Issues & Evidence
Monitoring data showed elevated pollutant levels during storm events.
Site inspections revealed inadequate containment and treatment.
Internal communications acknowledged awareness but failed to act.
Outcome
Marathon pled guilty to misdemeanor CWA violations.
Paid $4.5 million in fines and agreed to enhance stormwater management.
Significance
Demonstrated that non-point source stormwater pollution can be subject to criminal prosecution under the CWA.
Reinforced requirements for refineries and industrial sites to manage runoff.
6. United States v. Smithfield Foods, Inc. (2018)
Facts
Smithfield Foods, a large pork producer, was prosecuted for discharging untreated wastewater from its hog farming operations into local streams, exceeding permitted limits and failing to comply with pollution control measures.
Charges / Legal Basis
Knowing discharge of pollutants in violation of NPDES permits.
Falsification of monitoring data.
Legal Issues & Evidence
Evidence included self-reported permit violations, agency inspections, and whistleblower statements.
Corporate policies that inadequately addressed environmental compliance.
Outcome
Smithfield entered a plea agreement, paying significant fines and agreeing to improve wastewater treatment.
Implemented stricter environmental controls and compliance training.
Significance
Illustrated that agricultural producers are subject to CWA enforcement.
Showed the importance of honest reporting and monitoring.
Summary: Key Legal Themes and Lessons
Permitting is essential: Operating without a valid NPDES permit or violating permit terms leads to serious liability.
Intent matters: Knowing violations, falsification, and concealment lead to criminal charges; negligent violations may also result in prosecution.
Prompt reporting: Failure to report spills or discharges promptly exacerbates liability.
Broad applicability: The CWA applies to corporations, municipalities, utilities, and agricultural producers.
Remediation and compliance: Courts often require environmental restoration and mandated compliance plans alongside penalties.
RELATED Blog
0 comments