San Francisco Baykeeper v. VALLEJO SANITATION AND FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT

MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff San Francisco Baykeeper (“Bay-keeper”) brings suit against Vallejo Sanitation and Flood Control District (the “District”), asserting violations of the Clean Water Act (“CWA”), 33 U.S.C. §§ 1251-1387 . Relying on certain language in the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Steel Company v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83 , 118 S.Ct. 1003 , 140 L.Ed.2d 210 (1998), the District contends that Baykeeper lacks standing to assert a claim for civil penalties.

Redressability — “a likelihood that the requested relief, will redress the alleged inju ry ’ — is one of the three constitutional requirements for standing, in addition to injury in fact and causation. Id. at 1017. The District interprets Steel Company to hold that civil penalties paid to the federal government can never redress the injury of a citizen-plaintiff for Article III purposes, because the penalties are not paid to the plaintiff.

The District reads Steel Company too broadly. Steel Company held only that a claim for civil penalties paid to the federal government could not support Article III standing for a citizen-plaintiff alleging wholly past injuries; its holding…