The United States of America et al v. The City of Greenville, Mississippi

Filing 7

ORDER granting 5 Motion for Partial Consent Decree. Signed by District Judge Debra M. Brown on 4/4/16. (jtm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
GREENVILLE DIVISION
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA;
and THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
V.

PLAINTIFFS

NO. 4:16-CV-00018-DMB-DAS

THE CITY OF GREENVILLE,
MISSISSIPPI

DEFENDANT

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR PARTIAL CONSENT DECREE
This Clean Water Act action is before the Court on the parties’ March 18, 2016,
“Unopposed Joint Motion to Enter Partial Consent Decree.” Doc. #5. In their motion, the
parties represent that they have settled some of the claims in this action and that the settlement is
embodied in a consent decree. Id. at 1–2. The parties further represent that the proposed consent
decree was submitted for public comment, that the comment period has closed, and that no
comments were received. Id. at 2.
On a motion for entry of a consent decree, a court must first “ascertain whether the
settlement is ‘fair, adequate and reasonable’ and is not the product of ‘fraud, collusion, or the
like.’” United States v. City of New Orleans, 35 F.Supp.3d 788, 793 (E.D. La. 2013) (quoting
United States v. City of Miami, 664 F.2d 435, 441 (5th Cir. 1981) (Rubin, J., concurring)). If the
agreement satisfies this initial inquiry, the Court “must also consider the nature of the litigation
and the purposes to be served by the decree. If the suit seeks to enforce a statute, the decree must
be consistent with the public objectives sought to be attained by Congress.” Id. (quoting City of
Miami, 664 F.2d at 441 (Rubin, J., concurring)).
The Court has reviewed the proposed consent decree and has determined that it is fair,
adequate, reasonable, and is not the product of fraud or collusion. Likewise, the proposed

consent decree, which requires Defendant to take numerous steps to comply with the discharge
requirements of the Clean Water Act, is clearly consistent with the public objectives sought to be
attained by Congress in passing the Clean Water Act. See Informed Citizens United, Inc. v. USX
Corp., 36 F.Supp.2d 375, 378 (S.D. Tex. 1999) (“The fundamental purpose of the Clean Water
Act is to prohibit the discharge of pollutants without a permit.”). Accordingly, the parties’ joint
motion for entry of the partial consent decree [5] is GRANTED. The proposed consent decree
will be entered as an order of the Court.
SO ORDERED, this 4th day of April, 2016.

/s/ Debra M. Brown
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2