Summary of a Recent
Judicial Development in
Environmental Law

Aesthetic and Recreational Injuries Sufficient to Establish Standing
Pursuant to Clean Water Act's Citizen Suit Provision

Eric H. Foy
National AgLaw Center Research Associate

Summary of Decision

In American Canoe Association, Inc. v. City of Louisa Water and Sewer Commission, 389 F.3d 536 (6th Cir. 2004), the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed and remand the district court's decision, which dismissed the environmental groups' complaint and denied their motion for reconsideration. The groups brought action pursuant to the citizen-suit provision of the Clean Water Act (CWA) alleging that the city violated its National Pollution Elimination Discharge System (NPDES) permit by authorizing discharges of effluents into the Levisa Fork and by failing to enforce monitoring and reporting requirements. The instant court held that the Sierra Club had representational standing to sue on behalf of its members. Additionally, both the Sierra Club and the American Canoe Association had standing to sue on their own behalf.

Background

The American Canoe Association and the Sierra Club (collectively "plaintiffs") brought suit pursuant to the citizen-suit provision of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1365, against the city for allegedly violating its NPDES permit. Id. at 538. The plaintiffs filed suit after the city "authorized the discharge of a specified level of effluents into the Levisa Fork of the Big Sandy River and imposed monitoring and reporting requirements." Id. at 539. Both the Sierra Club and the American Canoe Association sued on behalf of their members and on their own behalf. Id. In response, the city successfully filed a motion to dismiss arguing that the plaintiffs lacked standing. Id. at 540. The district court reasoned that the plaintiffs lacked standing because none of either organization's members had standing. Id. The plaintiffs appealed. Id.

Arguments

The Sierra Club argued that it had both representational standing to sue on behalf of its members and standing to sue on its own behalf. Id. The American Canoe Association argued it had standing to sue on its own behalf but not on behalf of its members. Id.

Analysis and Holdings

To establish representational standing, the Sierra Club offered the affidavit of one of its members stating he would have canoed and fished on the Levisa Fork in the future, as he had in the past, but for the approved discharges. Id. at 540-41. Although the district court classified the member's averments as generalized grievances, the instant court held they were sufficient to establish an aesthetic injury. Id. at 541-42. The instant court also held that Sierra Club members suffered from informational injury because the lack of information from the city regarding the discharges deprived members of the ability to decide whether it was safe to recreate on the Levisa Fork. Id. at 542. According to the court, both the aesthetic injury and informational injury to Sierra Club members were traceable to the city's discharge authorization because the organization showed that the discharges caused or contributed to their members' injuries. Id. at 543. Finally, the court held that a favorable decision for Sierra Club members would redress their injuries. Id. For these reasons, the court held that the Sierra Club had representational standing to sue on behalf of its members. Id.

The district court did not address whether the plaintiffs had standing to sue on their own behalf; however, the instant court did address the plaintiffs' individual standing. Id. at 544. An association can have standing to sue on its own behalf regardless of whether its own members have standing to sue. Id. Both plaintiffs alleged informational injuries stemming from the city's monitoring and reporting violations. Id. They argued that the city's violations hampered their ability to research the discharges and report to their members. Id. The court held that the plaintiffs had demonstrated an informational injury under the CWA because their organizations' interests were negatively affected by the city's failure to fulfill its monitoring and reporting obligations. Id. at 544-46. The court then simply stated that the organizations met the other requirements of standing as well. Id. at 547.

For these reasons, the court reversed the judgment of the district court and remanded for further proceedings. Id.

The case was decided on November 1, 2004.