Summary of a Recent
Judicial Development in
Clean Water Act

Plaintiffs Lack Standing to Sue Municipality for Speculative Injuries
Resulting from Stormwater Runoff

Walt McCarter
National AgLaw Center Research Associate

Summary of Decision

In Thompson v. Horsham Township, 576 F. Supp. 2d 681, 2008 WL 3539942 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 11, 2008), the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania dismissed the plaintiffs' complaint against a municipality for lack of standing, because the plaintiffs' claimed injuries were speculative and the case was not ripe for adjudication.

Background

Landowners brought an action against Horsham Township alleging that the Township failed to comply with certain federal legal requirements concerning stormwater management and that a proposed development would cause flooding on their property. Id. at *1. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Id.

Arguments

The Township argued that the plaintiffs lacked standing because the suit was premature and they had suffered no actual injury. Id.

Plaintiffs argued that the Township violated the Clean Water Act, the Pennsylvania Clean Streams Law, and the terms of its National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit, and that they did not have to meet the exacting standing requirements cited by the defendant because they sought to address a procedural injury that threatened the use and enjoyment of their land. Id. at *4.

Analysis and Holdings

The court explained that to establish procedural standing, a plaintiff must show that: 1) the defendant violated certain procedural rules; 2) those rules protect the plaintiff's concrete interests; and 3) it is reasonably probable that the challenged action will threaten those concrete interests. Id. at *6. The court reasoned that the plaintiffs had not alleged that the defendant violated procedural rules; rather, they sought to have the defendant apply a particular legal standard in ruling on certain development plans, which was a substantive matter, and therefore they were not eligible for the less stringent requirements of procedural standing. Id. at *7. The court found that the plaintiffs were required to show that they had suffered an "injury in fact," an invasion of a legally protected interest that is both "concrete and particularized" and "actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical." Id. at *8. The court concluded that the plaintiffs' alleged future injury was too speculative, and the injuries they claimed to have already suffered were not fairly traceable to the defendant's actions. Id. at *8-9. Furthermore, the court noted that "[i]n land use cases, a property owner's claim is not ripe until state authorities have the opportunity to reach a final, definitive position as to how they will apply a particular regulation to a piece of land." Id. at *10. The court held that because the Township had not given even preliminary approval to the disputed development plans, the issue was not ripe for adjudication. Id. at *9-10. The court dismissed the plaintiffs' other allegations of reporting violations, explaining that "[w]holly past violations are insufficient to purse a citizen's suit under the Clean Water Act, and the plaintiffs have not alleged any further or ongoing violations." Id. at *11.

The case was decided on August 11, 2008.