Twin Harbors Waterkeeper v. Weyerhaeuser Company

CourtDistrict Court, W.D. Washington
DecidedAugust 19, 2024
Docket3:23-cv-05864
StatusUnknown

This text of Twin Harbors Waterkeeper v. Weyerhaeuser Company (Twin Harbors Waterkeeper v. Weyerhaeuser Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Twin Harbors Waterkeeper v. Weyerhaeuser Company, (W.D. Wash. 2024).

Opinion

1 HONORABLE BENJAMIN H. SETTLE

8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 9 AT TACOMA

10 TWIN HARBORS WATERKEEPER, Case No. 3:23-cv-05864-BHS 11 12 Plaintiff, CONSENT DECREE v. 13 WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY; and 14 WEYERHAEUSER NR COMPANY, 15 Defendants. 16 17 I. STIPULATIONS. 18 Defendants Weyerhaeuser Company and Weyerhaeuser NR Company (collectively, 19 “Weyerhaeuser”) own and operate the lumber mill and related facilities at or near 51 Ellis Street, 20 Raymond, Washington 98577 (the “Facility”), which is depicted in the figure attached hereto as 21 Exhibit 1. 22 Weyerhaeuser discharges stormwater associated with industrial activity from the Facility 23 to the Willapa River under a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit issued by 24 the Washington Department of Ecology under permit number WAR000370 (“Stormwater 25 Permit”). 26 Weyerhaeuser discharges process wastewater from the Facility, following pre-treatment 27 at the Facility, to the Willapa Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant under a discharge permit 1 issued by Ecology under permit number ST0006167 (“Wastewater Permit”). 2 Plaintiff Twin Harbors Waterkeeper (“Waterkeeper”) issued a notice of intent to sue 3 letter to Weyerhaeuser dated July 6, 2023 (the “Notice Letter”) and filed a complaint on 4 September 21, 2023 (the “Complaint”) under section 505 of the Clean Water Act (“CWA”), 33 5 U.S.C. § 1365. The Notice Letter and Complaint allege that Weyerhaeuser is in violation of 6 certain terms and conditions of the Wastewater Permit and the Stormwater Permit (collectively, 7 the “Permits”) and that Weyerhaeuser is in violation of section 301(a) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 8 1311(a), for discharging pollutants to the Willapa River in a manner that is not authorized by an 9 NPDES permit or other CWA authorization. Weyerhaeuser contends that Waterkeeper’s claims 10 are without merit, denies Waterkeeper’s allegations of ongoing violations, denies liability for all 11 claims alleged by Waterkeeper in the Notice Letter and Complaint, and denies that Waterkeeper 12 is entitled to any relief whatsoever. 13 Weyerhaeuser represents that it is currently undertaking a Facility-wide upgrade referred 14 to as the Continuous Dry Kiln Project (“CDK Project”) that will replace eight existing batch 15 kilns used in the lumber drying process with a new more efficient kiln system. Weyerhaeuser 16 represents that the CDK Project will include upgrades to other portions of the Facility, including 17 the wastewater and stormwater systems. Weyerhaeuser anticipates that the CDK Project will be 18 substantially completed by June 30, 2025 at the earliest. 19 Solely for the purposes of this Consent Decree, Weyerhaeuser and Waterkeeper 20 (collectively, the “Parties”) stipulate that the Court has jurisdiction over the Parties and the 21 subject matter of this action under section 505(a) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1365(a). 22 The Parties agree that settlement of this matter is in the best interest of the Parties and the 23 public and that entry of this Consent Decree without additional litigation is the most appropriate 24 means of resolving this action. The Parties agree that this Consent Decree is fair, reasonable, 25 equitable, does not violate the law or public policy, comes within the scope of the pleadings, and 26 furthers the broad objectives upon which Waterkeeper based the Complaint. See Sierra Club, 27 1 Inc. v. Elec. Controls Design, Inc., 909 F.2d 1350, 1355 (9th Cir. 1990). 2 The Parties stipulate to the entry of this Consent Decree without trial, adjudication, or 3 admission of any issues of fact or law regarding the claims and allegations set forth in 4 Waterkeeper’s Notice Letter and Complaint. By entering into this Consent Decree, 5 Weyerhaeuser does not admit and expressly denies liability for all of Waterkeeper’s claims 6 alleged in the Notice Letter and Complaint. 7 The signatories for the Parties certify that they are authorized by the party they represent 8 to enter into these Stipulations and Consent Decree. 9

10 TWIN HARBORS WATERKEEPER KAMPMEIER & KNUTSEN, PLLC

11 By: _____________________________ By: _____________________________ 12 Lee First Brian A. Knutsen, WSBA No. 38806 13 Waterkeeper Attorney for Waterkeeper

14 WEYERHAEUSER K&L GATES LLP 15

16 By: _____________________________ By: _____________________________ 17 Kristy T. Harlan Endre Szalay, WSBA No. 53898 General Counsel and Corporate Secretary Attorney for Weyerhaeuser 18 19 II. ORDER AND DECREE. 20 THIS MATTER came before the Court upon the foregoing Stipulations of the Parties and 21 joint motion for entry of Consent Decree. Having considered the Stipulations and the terms and 22 conditions set forth below, the Court hereby ORDERS, ADJUDGES, and DECREES as follows: 23 1. This Court has jurisdiction over the Parties and the subject matter of this action 24 pursuant to section 505(a) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1365(a). 25 2. This Consent Decree shall inure to the benefit of, and be binding upon, the Parties 26 and their successors, assigns, officials, agents, representatives, officers, directors, and employees. 27 1 Changes in the organizational form or status of a party shall have no effect on the binding nature 2 of this Consent Decree or its applicability. 3 3. This Consent Decree and any injunctive relief ordered within applies solely to 4 Weyerhaeuser’s operation and oversight of the Facility, which is subject to the Permits. 5 4. This Consent Decree is a full and complete settlement and release of all claims 6 alleged against Weyerhaeuser in Waterkeeper’s Notice Letter and Complaint and of all other 7 claims, known or unknown, existing as of the Effective Date related to alleged violations of the 8 Permits and/or related to alleged violations of section 301(a) of the CWA for unpermitted 9 discharges from the Facility. These claims are released and dismissed with prejudice. 10 Enforcement of this Consent Decree is Waterkeeper’s exclusive remedy for any violation of its 11 terms. During the term of the Consent Decree, Waterkeeper will not initiate any lawsuits or 12 potential lawsuits against Weyerhaeuser alleging violations of the Stormwater Permit and/or the 13 Wastewater Permit. 14 5. This Consent Decree is a settlement of disputed facts and law. It is not an 15 admission or adjudication regarding any allegations by Waterkeeper in this case or of any fact or 16 conclusion of law related to those allegations, nor evidence of any wrongdoing or misconduct on 17 the part of Weyerhaeuser. 18 6. Weyerhaeuser agrees to the following terms and conditions in full and complete 19 satisfaction of all the claims covered by this Consent Decree: 20 A. Weyerhaeuser shall fully comply with the terms and conditions of the 21 Permits, or any successor permit authorizing discharges of wastewater and/or stormwater 22 associated with industrial activity from the Facility. Nothing in this sub-paragraph affects 23 Weyerhaeuser’s ability to request that Ecology terminate or modify the Stormwater Permit or the 24 Wastewater Permit as permitted under the terms and conditions of the Permits or as otherwise 25 authorized by law, or to appeal the Permits or any successor permits. 26 27 1 B.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Twin Harbors Waterkeeper v. Weyerhaeuser Company, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/twin-harbors-waterkeeper-v-weyerhaeuser-company-wawd-2024.