479 U.S. 481 (1987), 86-1233, International Paper Co. v. Ouellette

Docket NºNo. 86-1233
Citation479 U.S. 481, 107 S.Ct. 805, 93 L.Ed.2d 883, 55 U.S.L.W. 4138
Party NameInternational Paper Co. v. Ouellette
Case DateJanuary 21, 1987
CourtUnited States Supreme Court

Page 481

479 U.S. 481 (1987)

107 S.Ct. 805, 93 L.Ed.2d 883, 55 U.S.L.W. 4138

International Paper Co.

v.

Ouellette

No. 86-1233

United States Supreme Court

Jan. 21, 1987

Argued November 4, 1986

CERTIORARI TO THE UDNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR

THE SECOND CIRCUIT

Syllabus

The Clean Water Act (Act) prohibits the discharge of effluents into navigable waters unless the point source has obtained a permit from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The Act also allows the State in which the point source is located (the "source State") to impose more stringent discharge limitations than the federal ones, and even to administer its own permit program if certain requirements are met. In contrast, "affected" States that are subject to pollution originating in source States have only the right to notice and to comment before the issuance of a federal or source State permit. The Act also contains a "saving clause" consisting of § 510, which provides that

nothing in this chapter shall . . . be construed as impairing . . . any right . . . of the States with respect to the waters (including boundary waters) of such States,

and § 505(e), which states that

[n]othing in this section shall restrict any right which any person . . . may have under any statute or common law to seek enforcement of any effluent standard or limitation or to seek any other relief. . . .

Petitioner operates a paper mill on the New York side of Lake Champlain and, in the course of its business, discharged effluents into the lake through a diffusion pipe that ended shortly before the New York-Vermont border that divided the lake. Respondents, property owners on the Vermont shore, filed a class action against petitioner in Vermont state court under the Vermont common law of nuisance. The action was later removed to Federal District Court. Petitioner moved for summary judgment and judgment on the pleadings on the ground that the Act preempted respondents' state-1aw suit, but the District Court denied the motion, holding that the Act's saving clause preserves actions to redress interstate water pollution under the law of the State in which the injury occurred. The Court of Appeals affirmed.

Held:

1. The Act preempts the common law of an affected State to the extent that that law seeks to impose liability on a point source in another State. Pp. 487-497.

(a) Since the Act applies to all point sources and virtually all bodies of water, sets forth detailed procedures for obtaining a permit, and provides an elaborate set of remedies for its violation, it is sufficiently comprehensive

Page 482

to raise a presumption that Congress intended to preempt all state 1aw suits except those specifically preserved by the Act's terms. Pp. 491-492.

(b) The Act's saving clause cannot be read broadly to preserve the right to bring suit under the law of an affected State. Section 505(e) merely protects state law suits from preemption by the Act's citizen suit provisions, and does not purport to preclude preemption by other provisions. Furthermore, § 510 can be read to preserve a State's authority only with respect to effluent discharges within that State. Pp. 492-493.

(c) The application of an affected State's nuisance law to a point source in another State would constitute a serious interference with the implementation of the Act. It would effectively override the EPA's permit requirements and the policy choices made by source States in adopting their own standards, and would engender confusion by subjecting point sources to a variety of often vague and indeterminate common law rules established by different States along the interstate waterways. Pp. 494-497.

2. The District Court correctly denied petitioner's motion for summary judgment and judgment on the pleadings. Pp. 497-500.

(a) The Court's preemption holding does not leave respondents without a remedy. Since the Act precludes only those suits that require effluent control standards incompatible with those established [107 S.Ct. 807] by the Act's procedures, and since the Act's saving clause specifically preserves other state actions, aggrieved parties can bring a nuisance claim under the law of the source State, here, New York. Pp. 497-500.

(b) The Act preempts laws, not courts, and nothing in its provisions prevents a court sitting in an affected State from hearing a common law nuisance suit, provided that jurisdiction otherwise is proper. A district court sitting in diversity is competent to apply the law of a foreign State, and, therefore, Vermont was a proper forum in this case. P. 500.

776 F.2d 55, affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

POWELL, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which REHNQUIST, C.J., and WHITE, O'CONNOR, and SCALIA, JJ., joined. BRENNAN, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which MARSHALL and BLACKMUN, JJ., joined, post, p. 500. STEVENS, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which BLACKMUN, J., joined, post, p. 508.

Page 483

POWELL, J., lead opinion

JUSTICE POWELL delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case involves the preemptive scope of the Clean Water Act, 86 Stat. 816, as amended, 33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq. (CWA or Act).1 The question presented is whether the Act preempts a common law nuisance suit filed in a Vermont court under Vermont law, when the source of the alleged injury is located in New York.

I

Lake Champlain forms part of the border between the States of New York and Vermont. Petitioner International

Page 484

Paper Company (IPC) operates a pulp and paper mill on the New York side of the lake. In the course of its business, IPC discharges a variety of effluents into the lake through a diffusion pipe. The pipe runs from the mill through the water toward Vermont, ending a short distance before the state boundary line that divides the lake.

Respondents are a group of property owners who reside or lease land on the Vermont shore. In 1978, the owners filed a class action suit against IPC, claiming, inter alia, that the discharge of effluents constituted a "continuing nuisance" under Vermont common law. Respondents alleged that the pollutants made the water "foul, unhealthy, smelly, and . . . unfit for recreational use," thereby diminishing the value of their property. App. 29. The owners asked for $20 million in compensatory damages, $100 million in punitive damages, and injunctive relief that would require IPC to restructure part of its water treatment system.2 The action was filed in State Superior Court, and then later removed to Federal District Court for the District of Vermont.

IPC moved for summary judgment and judgment on the pleadings, claiming that the CWA preempted respondents' state law suit. With the parties' consent, the District Judge deferred a ruling on the motion pending the decision by the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in a similar case involving Illinois and the city of Milwaukee. In that dispute, Illinois filed a nuisance action against the city under Illinois statutory and common law, seeking to abate the alleged pollution of Lake Michigan. Illinois v. Milwaukee, 731 F.2d 403 (1984) (Milwaukee III), cert. denied,, 469 U.S. 1196 (1985).3 The Court of Appeals ultimately remanded the case

Page 485

for dismissal of Illinois' claim, finding that the CWA precluded the application of one State's law against a pollution source located in a different State. The decision was based in part on the court's conclusion that the application of different state laws to a single "point source"4 would interfere with the carefully devised regulatory system established by the CWA. 731 F.2d at 414. The court also concluded that the only suits that were not preempted were those alleging violations of the laws of the polluting, or "source," State. Id. at 413-414.

IPC argued that the holding in Milwaukee III was dispositive in this case. The Vermont District Court disagreed, and denied the motion to dismiss. 602 F.Supp. 264 (1985). The court acknowledged that federal law normally governs interstate water pollution. It found, however, that two sections of the CWA explicitly preserve state law rights of action. First, § 510 of the Act provides:

Except as expressly provided . . . , nothing in this chapter shall . . . be construed as impairing or in any manner affecting any right or jurisdiction of the States with respect to the waters (including boundary waters) of such States.

33 U.S.C. § 1370. In addition, § 505(e) states:

Nothing in this section shall restrict any right which any person (or class of persons) may have under any statute or common law to seek enforcement of any effluent standard or limitation or to seek any other relief. . . .

33 U.S.C. § 1365(e).

The District Court held that these two provisions (together, "the saving clause") made it clear that federal law did not preempt entirely the rights of States to control pollution.

Page 486

Therefore, the question presented, said the court, was which types of state suits Congress intended to preserve. It considered three possibilities:5 first, the saving clause could be construed to preserve state law only as it applied to waters not covered by the CWA. But since the Act applies to virtually all surface water in the country,6 the District Court rejected this possibility. Second, the saving clause might preserve state nuisance law only as it applies to discharges occurring within the source State; under this view, a claim could be filed against IPC under New York common law, but not under Vermont law. This was the position adopted by the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Milwaukee III. The District Court nevertheless rejected this option, finding that "there is simply nothing in the Act which suggests that Congress intended to impose such limitations on the use of state law." 602 F.Supp. at 269.

The District Court therefore adopted the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
65 practice notes
  • The Navigable Waters Protection Rule: Definition of “Waters of the United States”
    • United States
    • Army, Corps Of Engineers Department
    • Invalid date
    ...waters or interstate waters connected to navigable waters.'' 2015 Rule TSD at 211 n.16 (referencing International Paper v. Ouellette, 479 U.S. 481 (1987), and Arkansas v. Oklahoma, 503 U.S. 91 (1992)). Similar to the facts of City of Milwaukee, both of these cases addressed disputes that ar......
  • Definition of “Waters of the United States” Under the Clean Water Act
    • United States
    • Federal Register April 21, 2014
    • April 21, 2014
    ...under the classical understanding of that term.'' Riverside Bayview Homes, 474 U.S. at 133; see also International Paper Co. v. Ouellette, 479 U.S. 481, 486, n.6 The amendments of 1972 defined the term ``navigable waters'' to mean ``the waters of the United States, including the territorial......
  • Preemption and textualism.
    • United States
    • Michigan Law Review Vol. 112 Nbr. 1, October - October 2013
    • October 1, 2013
    ...or to any other matter included in a requirement applicable to the device under this chapter. 21 U.S.C. [section] 360k(a) (2000). (194.) The Court has taken a similarly purposive approach when the statutory text in question is not a preemption clause but a saving clause. See United States v. Lock......
  • Common Law and Federalism in the Age of the Regulatory State
    • United States
    • Iowa Law Review Nbr. 92-2, February 2007
    • February 1, 2007
    ...Ouellette and Middlesex County Sewerage Authority "complete the story of interstate nuisance law"). [114] Int'l Paper Co. v. Ouellette, 479 U.S. 481, 481-82 (1987). [115] Id. at 483-84. [116] Id. at 495. [117] [118] Id. at 497. [119] Ouellette, 479 U.S. at 490. [120] Id. at 492-93. [121] Id......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
16 firm's commentaries
  • Brief of Amicus Curiae: DRI - The Voice of the Defense Bar, In Support of Petitioners
    • United States
    • JD Supra United States
    • February 8, 2011
    ...In re Lead Paint Litigation, 924 A.2d 484 (N.J. 2007) .................................... 7, 8, 10, 11, 12 Int’l Paper Co. v. Ouellette, 479 U.S. 481 (1987) ......................................................... 30 Japan Whaling Ass’n v. Am. Cetacean Soc’y, 478 U.S. 221 (1986) ...............
  • The Presumption Against Preemption
    • United States
    • LexBlog United States
    • November 15, 2006
    ...implied preemption decisions. This is true of cases involving preemption of state tort suits. See International Paper Co. v. Ouellette, 479 U.S. 481 (1987) (no presumption raised to resist preemption of state nuisance law); Chicago & Northwest. Transportation Co. v. Kalo Brick & Tile Co., 4......
  • Despite Bell, State Law CO2 Liability Claims Are Doomed
    • United States
    • JD Supra United States
    • November 11, 2013
    ...the Third Circuit said "yes." Its primary authority was the U.S. Supreme Court's 1987 decision in International Paper Co. v. Ouellette, 479 U.S. 481 (1987), a Clean Water Act case where Vermont plaintiffs asserted a (Vermont) common law nuisance suit in Vermont state court, where the pollut......
  • Recent Cases on Clean Air Act Preemption of Common Law Torts Upend Conventional Wisdom
    • United States
    • JD Supra United States
    • January 29, 2015
    ...4542764, at *1 (U.S. Dec. 1, 2014). American Electric Power Co. v. Connecticut, 131 S. Ct. 2526 (2011). 734 F.3d 188, 198 (3d Cir. 2013) 479 U.S. 481 Id. at 500. Id. at 497. 734 F.3d at 195. 848 N.W.2d at 69. Id. at 75. See id. at 70. 131 S. Ct. at 2537. 848 N.W.2d at 83. Id. at 82-3. See L......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
40 books & journal articles
  • Preemption and textualism.
    • United States
    • Michigan Law Review Vol. 112 Nbr. 1, October - October 2013
    • October 1, 2013
    ...or to any other matter included in a requirement applicable to the device under this chapter. 21 U.S.C. [section] 360k(a) (2000). (194.) The Court has taken a similarly purposive approach when the statutory text in question is not a preemption clause but a saving clause. See United States v. Lock......
  • Common Law and Federalism in the Age of the Regulatory State
    • United States
    • Iowa Law Review Nbr. 92-2, February 2007
    • February 1, 2007
    ...Ouellette and Middlesex County Sewerage Authority "complete the story of interstate nuisance law"). [114] Int'l Paper Co. v. Ouellette, 479 U.S. 481, 481-82 (1987). [115] Id. at 483-84. [116] Id. at 495. [117] [118] Id. at 497. [119] Ouellette, 479 U.S. at 490. [120] Id. at 492-93. [121] Id......
  • Borders and discharges: regulation of tribal activities under the Clean Water Act in states with NPDES program authority.
    • United States
    • UCLA Journal of Environmental Law & Policy Vol. 16 Nbr. 1, June 1998
    • June 22, 1998
    ...[sections] 1362(14) (1994). (14.) CWA [sections] 502(7), 33 U.S.C [sections] 1362(7) (1994). (15.) International Paper Co. v. Ouellette, 479 U.S. 481, 486 n.6 (1987) (citing United States v. Riverside Bayview Homes, 474 U.S. 121 (1985) and 33 U.S.C. [sections] 1362(7)). (16.) CWA [sections]......
  • Diagonal Public Enforcement.
    • United States
    • Stanford Law Review Vol. 70 Nbr. 4, April 2018
    • April 1, 2018
    ...for finding preemption of state common law was higher than that for finding preemption of federal common law. See id. at 316. (112.) See 479 U.S. 481,497-99 (1987). (113.) Id. The Court found this approach consistent with the Clean Water Act and principles of interstate federalism. See id. ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
6 provisions
  • Definition of “Waters of the United States” Under the Clean Water Act
    • United States
    • Federal Register April 21, 2014
    • April 21, 2014
    ...under the classical understanding of that term.'' Riverside Bayview Homes, 474 U.S. at 133; see also International Paper Co. v. Ouellette, 479 U.S. 481, 486, n.6 The amendments of 1972 defined the term ``navigable waters'' to mean ``the waters of the United States, including the territorial......
  • The Navigable Waters Protection Rule: Definition of “Waters of the United States”
    • United States
    • Army, Corps Of Engineers Department
    • Invalid date
    ...waters or interstate waters connected to navigable waters.'' 2015 Rule TSD at 211 n.16 (referencing International Paper v. Ouellette, 479 U.S. 481 (1987), and Arkansas v. Oklahoma, 503 U.S. 91 (1992)). Similar to the facts of City of Milwaukee, both of these cases addressed disputes that ar......
  • Revised Definition of “Waters of the United States”
    • United States
    • Army, Corps Of Engineers Department,Defense Department
    • Invalid date
    ...the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters,' 33 U.S.C. [section] 1251(a)''); Int'l Paper Co. v. Ouellette, 479 U.S. 481, 492-93 (1987) (``Congress intended the 1972 Act amendments to `establish an encompassing program of water pollution regulation.' . . . The Ac......
  • Food Labeling; Gluten-Free Labeling of Fermented or Hydrolyzed Foods
    • United States
    • Federal Register November 18, 2015
    • November 18, 2015
    ...also preempted if it interferes with the methods by which a Federal law is designed to reach its goals. (See Int'l Paper Co. v. Ouellette, 479 U.S. 481, 494 (1987); Michigan Canners & Freezers Ass'n v. Page 72005 Marketing & Bargaining Bd., 467 U.S. 461, 477-478 (1984).) Additionall......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT