Twin Harbors Waterkeeper v. Sierra Pacific Industries Inc

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: September 5, 2025
• Docket: 3:24-cv-06011
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3

4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 7 TWIN HARBORS WATERKEEPER, Case No. 3:24-cv-06011-TMC 8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION FOR 9 ENTRY OF CONSENT DECREE v. 10 SIERRA PACIFIC INDUSTRIES INC, 11 Defendant. 12 13

14 I. ORDER 15 Before the Court is the parties’ joint motion for entry of consent decree. Dkt. 10. All 16 parties to the lawsuit—Plaintiff Twin Harbors Waterkeeper and Defendant Sierra Pacific 17 Industries Inc.—join the request. 18 Twin Harbors Waterkeeper brought this lawsuit under the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 19 § 1251, et seq., alleging that Sierra Pacific violated “the terms and conditions of the National 20 Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (‘NPDES’) permit authorizing certain stormwater 21 discharges of pollutants from its facility in Aberdeen, Washington into navigable waters.” Dkt. 1 22 ¶ 1; see also id. ¶ 21 (“Defendant has violated the Permit by violating water quality standards, 23 violating AKART standards, failing to implement BMPs to control water quality, failing to 24 prepare and implement an adequate SWPPP, failing to collect quarterly samples, failing to 1 analyze quarterly samples, violating visual monitoring requirements, failing to record 2 information, failing to retain records, and failing to report Permit violations.”). Twin Harbors 3 Waterkeeper alleges these “discharges . . . contribute to the polluted conditions of the waters of

4 the state, including the water quality standards of the Chehalis River and Grays Harbor. . . . [and] 5 to the ecological impacts that result from the pollution of these waters and to Waterkeeper and its 6 members’ injuries resulting therefrom.” Id. ¶ 23. Twin Harbors Waterkeeper brought a single 7 cause of action for these and other alleged NPDES permit violations. See id. ¶¶ 29–34. 8 To resolve the litigation, Sierra Pacific has agreed to entry of the consent decree, under 9 which it will, among other requirements, “adhere to the requirements of the Clean Water Act at 10 the Facility and the terms and conditions of the Industrial Stormwater General Permit (‘ISGP’), 11 as well as any successor or modified permit authorizing discharges of stormwater associated with 12 industrial activity from the Facility.” Dkt. 10-1 ¶ 7(a). Sierra Pacific also agrees to pay $450,000

13 for use “solely for projects that benefit water quality within fifty miles of the Facility” with 14 $150,000 each made payable to the Quinault Indian Nation, the Confederated Tribes of the 15 Chehalis Reservation, and the Shoalwater Bay Indian Tribe. Id. ¶ 8. 16 “A district court should enter a proposed consent judgment if the court decides that it is 17 fair, reasonable and equitable and does not violate the law or public policy.” Sierra Club, Inc. v. 18 Elec. Controls Design, Inc., 909 F.2d 1350, 1355 (9th Cir. 1990). A consent decree must “spring 19 from and serve to resolve a dispute within the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction,” come “within 20 the general scope of the case made by the pleadings,” and “must further the objectives of the law 21 upon which the complaint was based.” Local No. 93, Int’l Ass’n of Firefighters, AFL-CIO v. City 22 of Cleveland, 478 U.S. 501, 525 (1986). The Court also considers whether the proposed consent

23 decree is in the public interest. See United States v. Oregon, 913 F.2d 576, 581 (9th Cir. 1990). 24 l The Court finds that the proposed consent decree meets these requirements. The consent 2 decree resolves the dispute that prompted this litigation (over which this Court has federal- 3 question jurisdiction) and it furthers the objectives of the Clean Water Act by seeking to ensure 4 || that Sierra Pacific complies with federal law. This objective also serves the public interest. 5 The Court therefore GRANTS the joint, unopposed motion (Dkt. 10) to enter the 6 || proposed consent decree (Dkt. 10-1). The consent decree will be entered concurrently with this 7 Order and will serve as a final judgment under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 54 and 58. 8 9 Dated this 5th day of September, 2025. 10 C A 11 TiffanyM. Cartwright United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24