Clean Water Act Criminal Enforcement Cases
Clean Water Act Criminal Enforcement Cases
Case 1: United States v. Pacific States Steel Corporation (2003)
Facts:
Pacific States Steel Corporation was charged after it was found discharging wastewater containing heavy metals and pollutants into nearby waterways without proper treatment or permits. The company also falsified discharge monitoring reports submitted to regulators.
Charges:
Criminal violations of the Clean Water Act for illegal discharge.
Falsification of monitoring reports.
Outcome:
The company pled guilty.
Paid a substantial fine ($1.5 million).
The plant was ordered to improve its treatment processes and comply strictly with discharge permits.
Legal Significance:
Reinforced the importance of accurate reporting under the CWA.
Demonstrated that corporate entities could be held criminally liable for negligent discharge.
Case 2: United States v. George W. Loving Company (2008)
Facts:
This construction company illegally discharged sediment and pollutants into a river during road-building activities without proper erosion controls and permits.
Charges:
Criminal negligence under the Clean Water Act for unlawful discharge.
Violations related to failure to obtain a permit.
Outcome:
The company and site manager pled guilty.
Received fines and were ordered to implement comprehensive pollution control measures.
Legal Significance:
Highlighted responsibility of contractors for on-site pollution control.
Established precedent that negligent discharges during construction activities can result in criminal liability.
Case 3: United States v. Smithfield Foods, Inc. (2017)
Facts:
Smithfield Foods, a major pork producer, was charged with knowingly discharging untreated or inadequately treated hog waste into waterways, violating permit requirements.
Charges:
Criminal Clean Water Act violations for unlawful discharge.
Falsification of environmental compliance reports.
Outcome:
Smithfield pled guilty to felony charges.
Paid a $12 million criminal penalty.
Agreed to rigorous environmental compliance and monitoring plans.
Legal Significance:
One of the largest criminal penalties under the CWA.
Emphasized corporate accountability in agricultural pollution control.
Case 4: United States v. ExxonMobil Corporation (2009)
Facts:
ExxonMobil was prosecuted for discharging oily waste and other pollutants from one of its oil refineries into a nearby river without proper permits and for falsifying compliance reports.
Charges:
Criminal violations of the Clean Water Act.
Making false statements in required environmental reports.
Outcome:
ExxonMobil agreed to pay over $5 million in fines and penalties.
Implemented upgrades to pollution control technology.
Corporate officers faced individual sanctions.
Legal Significance:
Demonstrated that even large multinational corporations could be criminally prosecuted under the CWA.
Focused on both environmental harm and fraudulent reporting.
Case 5: United States v. KCK Trucking, LLC (2015)
Facts:
The company was involved in illegally dumping truck wash water containing pollutants into municipal storm drains, which flowed untreated into local waterways.
Charges:
Criminal Clean Water Act violations for unauthorized discharge.
Failure to comply with permit requirements.
Outcome:
The company pled guilty and was fined $300,000.
Ordered to undertake community service related to environmental education.
Legal Significance:
Highlighted the risks of smaller companies and local businesses under the CWA.
Demonstrated that criminal enforcement applies beyond large industrial actors.
Case 6: United States v. City of Jackson, Mississippi (2012)
Facts:
The city’s wastewater treatment plant repeatedly discharged untreated sewage and pollutants into the Pearl River, violating its permit limits.
Charges:
Criminal negligent discharge under the Clean Water Act.
Failure to maintain adequate wastewater treatment.
Outcome:
The city pled guilty.
Paid significant fines ($1.3 million).
Required to upgrade treatment facilities and enhance monitoring.
Legal Significance:
Showed that municipal entities are subject to CWA criminal enforcement.
Encouraged investment in infrastructure to protect water quality.
Case 7: United States v. Redco Corporation (1999)
Facts:
Redco illegally discharged petroleum products and hazardous waste into a protected wetland area without a permit.
Charges:
Criminal violations of the Clean Water Act.
Illegal discharge of hazardous substances.
Outcome:
The company was fined heavily.
Executives faced individual criminal charges.
Court mandated wetland restoration.
Legal Significance:
Highlighted the seriousness of polluting protected environmental areas.
Affirmed personal liability for corporate executives.
Summary Table
| Case | Violation Type | Outcome | Legal Significance |
|---|---|---|---|
| U.S. v. Pacific States Steel | Illegal discharge, falsification | Guilty plea, $1.5M fine, upgrades | Corporate accountability for pollution |
| U.S. v. George W. Loving Co. | Negligent discharge, no permits | Guilty plea, fines, pollution controls | Contractor liability for construction pollution |
| U.S. v. Smithfield Foods | Illegal discharge, false reports | Guilty plea, $12M fine, compliance plan | Major agricultural pollution enforcement |
| U.S. v. ExxonMobil | Illegal discharge, false reports | $5M+ fines, tech upgrades | Prosecution of large corporations |
| U.S. v. KCK Trucking | Unauthorized dumping | Guilty plea, $300K fine, community service | Enforcement on small businesses |
| U.S. v. City of Jackson | Untreated sewage discharge | Guilty plea, $1.3M fine, upgrades | Municipal liability under CWA |
| U.S. v. Redco Corp. | Hazardous waste discharge | Heavy fines, exec charges, restoration | Enforcement in protected wetlands |
Key Legal Points in CWA Criminal Enforcement
Criminal liability applies to knowingly or negligently discharging pollutants without permits or violating permit terms.
Falsifying monitoring reports is a common aggravating factor.
Both corporate entities and individuals (including executives) can be prosecuted.
Enforcement targets a wide range of actors: large corporations, small businesses, contractors, and municipalities.
Sentences include fines, imprisonment, mandatory remediation, and compliance plans.
Prosecutors often rely on environmental monitoring data, witness testimony, and undercover investigations.
RELATED Blog
0 comments