City of Milwaukee v. Illinois and Michigan, No. 79-408

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtREHNQUIST
Citation101 S.Ct. 1784,68 L.Ed.2d 114,451 U.S. 304
PartiesCITY OF MILWAUKEE et al., Petitioners, v. States of ILLINOIS AND MICHIGAN
Docket NumberNo. 79-408

451 U.S. 304
101 S.Ct. 1784
68 L.Ed.2d 114
CITY OF MILWAUKEE et al., Petitioners,

v.

States of ILLINOIS AND MICHIGAN.

No. 79-408.
Argued Dec. 2, 1980.
Decided April 28, 1981.

Syllabus

In original proceedings brought by respondent State of Illinois, alleging that petitioners—the city of Milwaukee, its Sewerage Commission, and Milwaukee County's Metropolitan Sewerage Commission—and other Wisconsin cities were polluting Lake Michigan because of overflows of untreated sewage from their sewer systems and discharges of inadequately treated sewage from their treatment plants, this Court recognized the existence of a federal "common law" which could give rise to a claim for abatement of a nuisance caused by interstate water pollution, but declined to exercise original jurisdiction because of the availability of a lower court action. Illinois v. Milwaukee, 406 U.S. 91, 92 S.Ct. 1385, 31 L.Ed.2d 712. Accordingly, Illinois filed suit (and respondent State of Michigan intervened) in Federal District Court seeking abatement, under federal common law, of the public nuisance petitioners were allegedly creating by their discharges. Five months later, Congress passed the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Act) Amendments of 1972, which established a new system of regulation making it illegal to discharge pollutants into the Nation's waters except pursuant to a permit that incorporated as conditions regulations of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) establishing specific effluent limitations. Permits are issued either by the EPA or a qualifying state agency, and petitioners operated their sewer systems under permits issued by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR). While the federal-court action was pending, DNR brought an action in a Wisconsin state court to compel compliance with the permits' requirements, and the state court entered a judgment requiring discharges from the treatment plans to meet effluent limitations in the permits and establishing a timetable for additional construction to control sewage overflows. Thereafter, the District Court found that the existence of a federal common-law nuisance had been proved and entered a judgment specifying effluent limitations for treated sewage and a construction timetable to eliminate overflows that went considerably beyond the terms of petitioners' permits and the state court's enforcement order. The Court of Appeals, ruling that the 1972 Amendments of the Act had not preempted the federal common law of nuisance, upheld the District Court's order as to elimination of overflows, but reversed insofar as the District

Page 305

Court's effluent limitations on treated sewage were more stringent than those in the petitioners' permits and applicable EPA regulations.

Held:

1. Federal common law in an area of national concern is resorted to in the absence of an applicable Act of Congress and because the Court is compelled to consider federal questions which cannot be answered from federal statutes alone. As recognized in Illinois v. Milwaukee, supra, at 107, 92 S.Ct., at 1394, when Congress addresses a question previously governed by a decision rested on federal common law the need for such an unusual exercise of lawmaking by federal courts disappears. Unlike the determination of whether federal law pre-empts state law, which requires evidence of a clear and manifest congressional purpose to preempt state law, the determination of whether federal statutory or federal common law governs starts with the assumption that it is for Congress, not federal courts, to articulate appropriate standards to be applied as a matter of federal law. Pp. 312-317.

2. No federal common-law remedy was available to respondents in this case. Pp. 317-332.

(a) At least so far as concerns respondents' claims, Congress, which viewed the 1972 Amendments of the Act as a "total restructuring" and "complete rewriting" of the existing water pollution legislation considered in Illinois v. Milwaukee, has not left the formulation of appropriate federal standards to the courts through application of often vague and indeterminate nuisance concepts and maxims of equity jurisprudence, but rather has occupied the field through the establishment of a comprehensive regulatory program supervised by an expert administrative agency. Pp. 317-319.

(b) As contemplated by Congress, the problem of effluent limitations for discharges from petitioners' treatment plants has been thoroughly addressed through the administrative scheme established by Congress, and thus there is no basis for a federal court, by reference to federal common law, to impose more stringent limitations. Similarly, the overflows of untreated sewage from petitioners' sewer system have been addressed by the regulatory regime established by the Act, through DNR's imposing conditions suited to further the Act's goals and bringing an enforcement action specifically addressed to the overflow problem. Nor does the absence of overflow effluent limitations in the permits and the state-court enforcement order render federal common law available, since the relevant question is not what concentration of various pollutants will be permitted, but what degree of control will be required in preventing overflows and ensuring that the sewage undergoes treatment. Decision is to be made by the appropriate

Page 306

agency on a case-by-case basis, through the permit procedure, as was done here. Pp. 319-324.

(c) When Illinois v. Milwaukee was decided, Illinois did not have any forum in which to protect its interests unless federal common law were created. However, in the 1972 Amendments, Congress provided ample opportunity for a State affected by decisions of a neighboring State's permit-granting agency to seek redress. Respondents did not avail themselves of the statutory procedures. Pp. 325-326.

(d) Section 510 of the Act, which provides that nothing in the Act shall preclude States from adopting and enforcing limitations on the discharge of pollutants more stringent than those adopted under the Act, does not indicate congressional intent to preserve the federal common-law remedy recognized in Illinois v. Milwaukee. Nothing in § 510 suggests that the States may call upon federal courts to employ federal common law to establish more stringent standards applicable to out-of-state discharges. Nor does a subdivision in the citizen-suit provision of the Act—§ 505(e), which provides that nothing "in this section" shall limit any other remedies which might exist—indicate congressional intent to preserve the federal common-law remedy. It does not mean that the Act as a whole does not supplant formerly available federal common-law actions but means only that the particular section authorizing citizen suits does not do so. Pp. 327-329.

(e) The legislative history of the 1972 Amendments with regard to certain discussions as to provisions relating to the effect of the amendments on pending lawsuits is not relevant. The discussions focused on suits brought under federal statutes, not federal common law; related to suits brought by or against the Federal Government; and did not suggest any intent concerning the continued validity of federal common law. Pp. 329-332.

7th Cir., 599 F.2d 151, vacated and remanded.

Elwin J. Zarwell, Milwaukee, Wis., for petitioners.

Joseph V. Karaganis, Chicago, Ill., for respondents.

Page 307

Andrew J. Levander, Washington, D. C., for the U. S., as amicus curiae, pro hac vice, by special leave of Court.

Justice REHNQUIST delivered the opinion of the Court.

When this litigation was first before us we recognized the existence of a federal "common law" which could give rise to a claim for abatement of a nuisance caused by interstate water pollution. Illinois v. Milwaukee, 406 U.S. 91, 92 S.Ct. 1385, 31 L.Ed.2d 712 (1972). Subsequent to our decision, Congress enacted the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972. We granted cer-

Page 308

tiorari to consider the effect of this legislation on the previously recognized cause of action. 445 U.S. 926, 100 S.Ct. 1310, 63 L.Ed.2d 758.

I

Petitioners, the city of Milwaukee, the Sewerage Commission of the city of Milwaukee, and the Metropolitan Sewerage Commission of the County of Milwaukee, are municipal corporations organized under the laws of Wisconsin. Together they construct, operate, and maintain sewer facilities serving Milwaukee County, an area of some 420 square miles with a population of over one million people.1 The facilities consist of a series of sewer systems and two sewage treatment plants located on the shores of Lake Michigan 25 and 39 miles from the Illinois border, respectively. The sewer systems are of both the "separated" and "combined" variety. A separated sewer system carries only sewage for treatment; a combined sewer system gathers both sewage and storm water runoff and transports them in the same conduits for treatment. On occasion, particularly after a spell of wet weather, overflows occur in the system which result in the discharge of sewage

Page 309

directly into Lake Michigan or tributaries leading into Lake Michigan.2 The overflows occur at discrete discharge points throughout the system.

Respondent Illinois complains that these discharges, as well as the inadequate treatment of sewage at the two treatment plants, constitute a threat to the health of its citizens. Pathogens, disease-causing viruses and bacteria, are allegedly discharged into the lake with the overflows and inadequately treated sewage and then transported by lake currents to Illinois waters. Illinois also alleges that nutrients in the sewage accelerate the eutrophication, or aging, of the lake.3 Respondent Michigan intervened on this issue only.

Illinois' claim was first brought to this Court when Illinois sought leave to file a complaint under our original jurisdiction. Illinois v. Milwaukee, supra. We declined to exercise original...

To continue reading

Request your trial
438 practice notes
  • Coronet Ins. Co. v. Seyfarth, No. 86 C 1935.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 7th Circuit. United States District Court (Northern District of Illinois)
    • July 16, 1987
    ...2069, 45 L.Ed.2d 12 (1975); People of State of Illinois v. City of Milwaukee, 599 F.2d 151, 165 (7th Cir.1979), vacated on other grounds, 451 U.S. 304, 101 S.Ct. 1784, 68 L.Ed.2d 114 (1981). As Coronet itself has couched its alleged "irreparable injury" in terms of the diminished value of i......
  • New Mexico ex rel. N.M. Env’t Dep't v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency, No. 16–CV–465 MCA/LF
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. District of New Mexico
    • February 12, 2018
    ...v. Illinois, 200 U.S. 496, 26 S.Ct. 268, 50 L.Ed. 572 (1906) ) until 1981 (when the Court decided Milwaukee v. Illinois (Milwaukee II) , 451 U.S. 304, 101 S.Ct. 1784, 68 L.Ed.2d 114 (1981) ), federal common law, rather than state law, governed issues of water pollution. Ouellette , 479 U.S.......
  • Doe v. U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement, 19-cv-8892 (AJN)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • September 28, 2020
    ...superseded by the Federal Act unless that was the clear and manifest purpose of Congress. ’ " City of Milwaukee v. Illinois & Michigan , 451 U.S. 304, 316, 101 S.Ct. 1784, 68 L.Ed.2d 114 (1981) (emphasis added) (citation omitted). "If Congress intends to alter the usual constitutional balan......
  • Sw. Org. Project v. U.S. Dep't of Air Force, No. CIV 20-0098 JB/JFR
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. District of New Mexico
    • March 15, 2021
    ...an area of law that federal common law formerly occupied, the Court's role in lawmaking is limited. See City of Milwaukee v. Illinois, 451 U.S. 304, 314 (1981). "It is for Congress, not federal courts, to articulate the appropriate standards to be applied as a matter of federal law." City o......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
427 cases
  • Coronet Ins. Co. v. Seyfarth, No. 86 C 1935.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 7th Circuit. United States District Court (Northern District of Illinois)
    • July 16, 1987
    ...2069, 45 L.Ed.2d 12 (1975); People of State of Illinois v. City of Milwaukee, 599 F.2d 151, 165 (7th Cir.1979), vacated on other grounds, 451 U.S. 304, 101 S.Ct. 1784, 68 L.Ed.2d 114 (1981). As Coronet itself has couched its alleged "irreparable injury" in terms of the diminished ......
  • People of State of Ill. v. Outboard Marine Corp., Inc., Nos. 79-1341
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • April 19, 1982
    ...3152, 69 L.Ed.2d 1000 (1981) (mem.), vacating and remanding our judgment for further consideration in the light of Milwaukee v. Illinois, 451 U.S. 304, 101 S.Ct. 1784, 68 L.Ed.2d 114 (1981) (Milwaukee II Milwaukee II held that the 1972 Amendments to the FWPCA, Pub.L.No.92-500, 86 Stat. 816,......
  • Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo, ROMERO-BARCELO
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • April 27, 1982
    ...schedule of compliance designed to cure the identified violation of the Act." Brief for Petitioners 17. See Milwaukee v. Illinois, 451 U.S. 304, 320-322, 101 S.Ct. 1784, 1794-1795, 68 L.Ed.2d 114 (1981). Here, again, the statutory scheme contemplates equitable consideration. Both the C......
  • De La Cuesta v. Fidelity Fed. Sav & Loan Assn.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • July 2, 1981
    ...than by agencies or tribunals insulated from democratic pressures. (Cf. City of Milwaukee v. Illinois, (April 28, 1981) -- U.S. --, --, 101 S.Ct. 1784, 1792, 68 L.Ed.2d 114; Katherine Gibbs Sch. (Inc.) v. F. T. C., supra.)) But despite the lack of express congressional design, federal law b......
  • 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