Initially brought in 2017, this case represents a long-running fight over illegal pollution being discharged in violation of Clean Water Act permit conditions into the West Sitcum waterway from a 12-acre wharf operated by SSA Terminals in the heart of the Port of Tacoma. On June 30, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the Port and SSA appeal, locking in another win for clean water in Puget Sound.
Overview
Puget Soundkeeper (PSK) first brought this case in 2017 to bring illegal stormwater discharges from a marine cargo terminal in the Port of Tacoma back into compliance with the Clean Water Act (CWA) and the facility’s Industrial Stormwater General Permit (ISGP) issued by the State Department of Ecology. Since its establishment in 1984, PSK has worked to protect and enhance the waters of Puget Sound for the health and restoration of aquatic ecosystems and the communities that depend on them – including, where and when needed, through strategic litigation and environmental enforcement.
Stormwater is the top source of new toxic pollution to Puget Sound and can only be discharged by polluters like SSA Terminals and the Port of Tacoma with a valid CWA permit. When PSK filed suit, this facility was discharging levels of copper that exceeded the permit benchmark in every single quarter but one. Dating back all the way to 2005, the facility exceeded the copper benchmark over 64% of the time and exceeded the zinc benchmark more than 55% of the time. PSK was determined to correct this pollution problem.
The permittees, however, have been working since the case was filed to evade liability for some of the pollution governed by their permits; namely, the pollution generated on the over-water wharf structure. In 2024, the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Puget Soundkeeper, holding the Port and SSA responsible for polluted runoff from the wharf. In September of 2024, Port of Tacoma Commissioners alongside global shipping giant SSA Terminals (owned by Carrix), appealed that ruling to the United States Supreme Court.
What are stormwater permits and why can Puget Soundkeeper sue polluters in federal court to enforce the Clean Water Act?
Puget Soundkeeper enforces the Clean Water Act through lawsuits against the most egregious violators. Our goal is to bring polluters into compliance with the law. Congress included in the CWA the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), which prohibits pollution discharges unless they are authorized by a permit issued by the federal government (or a state with federal government oversight). During permit development, PSK works to make sure those permits are based on the best information available about how to protect our shared waters. The relevant NPDES permit in this case, and many of PSK’s other cases, is the Industrial Stormwater General Permit (“ISGP”). This permit is an umbrella permit, regulating stormwater discharges from many industries across the State under the same requirements.
Under the CWA’s citizen suit provision (section 505 of the Act), Congress empowers groups like Puget Soundkeeper and any individual with “standing” to enforce those CWA NPDES permits (such as the ISGP) and protect water quality. Such cases must follow strict process rules and are brought in federal – not state – court. In these enforcement cases, the CWA also provides for recovery of attorneys’ fees. However, beyond certain costs of the litigation itself, PSK does not, and cannot by law, financially benefit from these settlements.
Congress made clear that communities and individuals who bring CWA enforcement actions are not to be treated as nuisances or troublemakers, but rather as welcomed participants in the vindication of environmental interests. Fearing that federal or state administrative enforcement might falter or stall, the CWA’s public interest citizen suit provision reflected a deliberate choice by Congress to widen people’s access to the courts as a supplemental and effective assurance the CWA would be implemented and enforced.
What’s the history of the case Puget Soundkeeper v. Port of Tacoma et al., and what violations have been alleged?
The Port of Tacoma has overseen discharges from its tenants into the West Sitcum Waterway containing elevated levels of copper and zinc for more than a decade, with pollution violations occurring across multiple Port tenants, including SSA.
Puget Soundkeeper initiated a lawsuit against prior Port of Tacoma tenant, APM Terminals in January 2017. APM vacated its site and cancelled its permit in October 2017, at which point, the Port took over permit coverage at the facility. Puget Soundkeeper therefore added the Port to its legal action, as the pollution issues were still ongoing after APM’s departure. In addition, PSK argued that the Port, as landlord, has control over its facility and was therefore liable for pollution violations occurring during APM’s tenancy. Eventually, PSK also added the new tenant and operator of the facility, SSA Terminals to the case. SSA Terminals has since taken over permit coverage.
Prior to its departure, APM’s polluted discharges triggered what is called a “Level 3 Corrective Action.” This occurs when pollutant levels exceed permit “benchmarks” for three or more quarters in a calendar year. The permit then requires the polluter to install stormwater treatment as a “corrective action.” Here, APM abandoned the facility without installing treatment. The Port and SSA subsequently did install a treatment system, but not until June 2019. Unfortunately, that system is inadequate and stormwater discharges continued to exceed benchmarks for copper and zinc in 2020, 2021, 2022, and 2024.
The Ports and SSA have also been leading a separate suite of challenges to undermine the underlying permits themselves and have active appeals of both the 2020 and 2025 Industrial Stormwater General Permits. Puget Soundkeeper is also a party to these appeals and has been working hard to maintain the integrity of the permits.
Who are the permittees, who represents them, and how do they pay for lawsuits like this?
The entities collectively responsible for the violations of the State of Washington Industrial Stormwater General Permit (Permit #305772) at this facility are the Port of Tacoma and SSA Terminals. SSA Terminals is owned by SSA Marine, which is in turn owned by Carrix – a global entity that describes itself as “one of the world’s largest privately held marine terminal and rail yard operators.”
The Port of Tacoma is part of a formal “alliance” with the Port of Seattle, as the two ports work collectively as the Northwest Seaport Alliance. All decisions by the Ports – from whether to take this case to the U.S. Supreme Court to decisions on stormwater management investments, permit appeals, and settlement negotiations – are overseen by the elected Port Commissioners of both the Port of Tacoma and Port of Seattle for matters that need to be decided by or funded by their Alliance. To date, and to the extent discernible through publicly available information, the two Ports and their Alliance have spent at least $2 million in public funds on legal challenges related to this case and appeals of the underlying permits.
The Port of Tacoma is represented by Foster Garvey, and was formerly represented by Tupper, Mack, Wells. SSA is represented by Gordon, Thomas, Honeywell. However, for purposes of appealing to the United States Supreme Court, the Ports hired Latham Watkins. The Ports’ and SSA’s U.S. Supreme Court attorney at Latham Watkins, Gregory Garre, was former President George W. Bush’s Solicitor General.
Have any violations been addressed yet in this case?
Puget Soundkeeper settled with former operator APM Terminals in 2018. APM paid a payment in lieu of penalty of $368,000, which went to the Rose Foundations for Communities and the Environment to be used on environmentally beneficial projects that benefit the water quality of Commencement Bay. The Rose Foundation then issues grants to applicants for such projects. For instance, in this case, the funds went to Washington Environmental Council, Communities for a Healthy Bay, EarthCorps, Enumclaw Plateau Community Association, Friends of Pierce County, Harbor Wildwatch, and Tahoma Bird Alliance among others. Because APM was no longer the operator or tenant of the facility, APM could not agree to any on-site cleanup or improvements.
Puget Soundkeeper has yet to be able to hold the Port and SSA accountable for their violations, due to adverse decisions at the District Court level which were overturned on appeal. After the Ninth Circuit’s and Supreme Court’s decisions, PSK can now finally pursue its claims against these defendants in the District Court.
What did the federal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals say about this case?
Puget Soundkeeper appealed a relatively large number of issues within several of the District Court’s opinions and successfully overturned nearly all of them. The Port and SSA cross appealed a couple of adverse decisions from the District Court and lost all their cross-appeal issues.
The Ninth Circuit issued two separate opinions. The first opinion was specific to the wharf issues, finding in PSK’s favor, that the previous iterations of the ISGPs (2010 and 2015) “apply to the entirety of transportation facilities that conduct listed industrial activity, and because the Terminal is such a facility, the Port needed to implement appropriate stormwater controls across the footprint of the Terminal . . . .” In other words, the conditions of the permit apply to the wharf. The Ninth Circuit remanded the question of how the 2020 permit applies to the District Court.
Since that decision, the permit has been reissued again, as the 2025 version. As part of their appeal, the Port and SSA argued that even if the permits cover the wharf, Puget Soundkeeper cannot enforce that condition of the permit because it’s “greater in scope” than the federal Clean Water Act. The Ninth Circuit rejected this argument and followed established Ninth Circuit precedent stating that citizen groups such as Puget Soundkeeper can enforce all conditions of NPDES permits. It is this latter portion of the Ninth Circuit’s holding which the Port and SSA have appealed to the United States Supreme Court.
The second opinion resolved all of the other issues on appeal, finding: (1) affirming the District Court’s decision to deny the Port’s attempt to dismiss itself from the case; (2) reversing the District Court’s dismissal of Soundkeeper’s claims that SSA was violating water quality standards and failing to implement all known, available, and reasonable methods of prevention control and treatment, as required by the Permit; and (3) reversing the District Court’s decision awarding attorneys’ fees to SSA, which would have forced Puget Soundkeeper to pay SSA over $80,000.
What did the Ports and SSA Terminals ask of the U.S. Supreme Court?
The Port and SSA have asked the Supreme Court (Docket 24-350) to resolve the question of whether citizens can enforce conditions of NPDES permits which they contend are “greater in scope” than the federal Clean Water Act, or at least more protective than minimum federal requirements for industrial stormwater.
On June 30, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court decided not to hear this case.
