Residual Pollution Is Not a Continuing Violation: Fifth Circuit Reaffirms “Hamker Rule” in Save the Cutoff v. Iron River

Introduction

On 7 August 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued its unpublished per curiam opinion in Save the Cutoff v. Iron River Ranch II, L.L.C. (No. 24-40717). The case tests the scope of jurisdiction for citizen suits under the Clean Water Act (CWA) when the alleged wrongdoing involves residual pollutants that remain in a waterbody after the original discharge activity has ceased. At its core, the dispute pits an environmental nonprofit, Save the Cutoff (“STC”), against two corporate defendants—Iron River Ranch II and IronHorse Unlimited—over unpermitted fill material placed in Cedar Creek, a tributary of the Trinity River in East Texas. The district court dismissed the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, and the Fifth Circuit has now affirmed, emphasizing that a continuing violation is required for CWA citizen-suit jurisdiction and that mere residual effects do not satisfy that requirement.

Summary of the Judgment

Jurisdictional Holding: The Act does not confer jurisdiction over wholly past violations; the plaintiff must plausibly allege continuous or intermittent violations at the time of filing. The court held STC failed to do so.
Main Authority Applied: Gwaltney v. Chesapeake Bay Foundation, 484 U.S. 49 (1987), Hamker v. Diamond Shamrock, 756 F.2d 392 (5th Cir. 1985), and Carr v. Alta Verde Industries, 931 F.2d 1055 (5th Cir. 1991).
Disposition: Judgment of dismissal AFFIRMED; denial of post-judgment motion to vacate and amend also AFFIRMED.
Key Precedential Contribution: The decision re-articulates and cements within the Fifth Circuit what practitioners are already calling the “Hamker Rule”: residual pollution transported by natural forces (rainfall, seepage) is not a discharge from a point source and therefore cannot supply the ongoing violation necessary for CWA citizen-suit standing.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Gwaltney of Smithfield, Ltd. v. Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Inc., 484 U.S. 49 (1987) – Supreme Court established that citizen suits lie only against parties alleged to be in violation of the Act at filing time; suits for wholly past violations are barred.
Hamker v. Diamond Shamrock Chemical Co., 756 F.2d 392 (5th Cir. 1985) – Fifth Circuit held that continuing seepage of previously spilled oil is a residual effect, not a continuing discharge from a point source. This decision became the backbone of the current ruling.
Carr v. Alta Verde Industries, Inc., 931 F.2d 1055 (5th Cir. 1991) – Clarified that an entity remains in violation until it either obtains a permit or no longer meets the definition of a point source; nonetheless reaffirmed that movement of pollutants solely by natural processes is insufficient.
Procedural authorities:
- Hall v. Louisiana, 884 F.3d 546 (5th Cir. 2018) – Standard of review for denial of post-judgment amendment.
- Benson v. St. Joseph Regional Health Ctr., 575 F.3d 542 (5th Cir. 2009) – Post-judgment amendment requires vacatur of the judgment first.
- Pryor v. U.S. Postal Service, 769 F.2d 281 (5th Cir. 1985) and Edward H. Bohlin Co. v. Banning Co., 6 F.3d 350 (5th Cir. 1993) – Rule 60(b) factors for vacatur.

Legal Reasoning

The panel followed a two-step analytical sequence:

Was there an ongoing violation?
STC alleged that the fill material remains present in the creek and that rainfall continues to move sediment downstream. Drawing on Hamker, the court deemed this scenario residual pollution. Because the point source (heavy machinery placing fill) had ceased operation, the ongoing movement was not attributable to a discernible, confined, and discrete conveyance—the statutory definition of a point source, 33 U.S.C. § 1362(14). Hence, no ongoing discharge existed.
Were “intermittent” violations plausibly alleged?
STC attempted to invoke Gwaltney’s allowance that continuous or intermittent violations suffice. However, the panel reasoned that intermittent implies an active point-source discharge that stops and starts, not an inert pile of fill being moved by rain. Reinforcing this view, the court referenced Justice Scalia’s concurrence (quoted in Carr) and found that the defendants here no longer meet the point-source definition.

Impact of the Decision

Citizen-Suit Viability: Environmental groups bringing CWA suits in the Fifth Circuit must meticulously allege and, if challenged, substantiate a current or reasonably expected future point-source discharge. Suits premised solely on residual pollution will face swift dismissal.
Permit Strategy for Defendants: Entities who once discharged without a permit but have ceased physical activity may, under this precedent, escape CWA liability in a citizen action, provided they are not presently discharging and no further point source exists. This incentivizes quick cessation and remediation rather than protracted engagement.
Regulatory Focus Shift: The ruling could shift enforcement burden back to U.S. EPA or state agencies for legacy contamination, because citizen plaintiffs cannot rely on the CWA’s jurisdictional hook for such cases in this circuit.
Potential Circuit Split: Other circuits (e.g., Ninth Circuit in S.F. Baykeeper v. Cargill Salt, 974 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 2020)) have been more receptive to “state of violation” theories. The Fifth Circuit’s rigid adherence to Hamker heightens the possibility of Supreme Court review if conflicting outcomes materialize.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Citizen Suit: A statutory mechanism allowing private individuals or organizations to sue alleged violators of environmental laws when regulators have not taken enforcement action.
Point Source: Any discernible, confined and discrete conveyance—such as a pipe, ditch, or bulldozer bucket—from which pollutants are discharged. Natural runoff not channeled through such conveyances is not a point source.
Wholly Past Violation: A violation that has completely ceased by the time the complaint is filed, leaving only residual pollution or historical damage.
Rule 12(b)(1) Motion: A request to dismiss a lawsuit for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The court may look beyond the pleadings to determine whether it has authority to hear the case.
Rule 60(b) Motion to Vacate: A post-judgment motion asking the court to set aside its final judgment due to mistake, inadvertence, surprise, excusable neglect, or other listed reasons. Extraordinary remedy; requires unusual or unique circumstances.

Conclusion

By reaffirming the “Hamker Rule,” the Fifth Circuit has drawn a crisp line between active discharges from point sources and passive, residual pollution carried by nature. Save the Cutoff v. Iron River therefore does not merely apply long-standing precedent; it crystallizes it, warning future litigants that the Clean Water Act’s citizen-suit jurisdiction ends where the point source ends. The decision compels environmental plaintiffs to plead current or imminent discharges with specificity, while offering industries a clearer—though narrower—safe harbor once operations cease. As legacy pollution issues and natural re-mobilization of contaminants continue to challenge water quality, the ruling’s practical significance will likely be felt well beyond the banks of Cedar Creek.