District of Minnesota Dismisses Lawsuit Against Peat Mine Due to Lack of Standing

Originally published in the November 2025 issue of Bench & Bar of Minnesota Environmental Law Update, Minnesota State Bar Association.

A District of Minnesota Court recently dismissed Citizens for a Clean Environment, LLC’s (CCE) lawsuit against a peat mine operator under the federal Clean Water Act’s citizen suit provision, 33 U.S.C. § 1365, finding CCE lacked the requisite Article III standing to assert its claims. See Citizens for a Clean Env't, LLC v. Aitkin Agri-Peat, Inc., No. 24-CV-02253 (ECW), 2025 WL 2597347 (D. Minn. Sept. 8, 2025).

Aitkin Agri-Peat, Inc. (AAPI) operates a peat mine located in Cromwell, Minnesota. As part of operations, the plant discharges wastewater into drainage ditches which flow into the Kettle River. The wastewater is discharged pursuant to AAPI’s 2022 National Pollution Discharge Elimination System/State Disposal System (NPDES) permit. CCE alleged that AAPI violated the terms of the NPDES permit and the Clean Water Act (CWA) because AAPI discharged water that allegedly had a pH level below the permitted range. Specifically, CCE sought a declaration that AAPI violated the CWA and an order requiring AAPI to hire a third party to determine the “root cause” of the alleged violations, to require AAPI to prepare and submit a plan to the EPA addressing the present and future alleged violations, to require AAPI to hire an independent party to review its best management practices plan and seek approval of that plan from the EPA, and injunctive relief to stop the alleged ongoing violations and prevent future violations.

CCE moved for partial summary judgment, while AAPI moved for a motion for judgment on the pleadings, alleging that CCE lacked the necessary Article III standing to bring its claims. The Court explained that in order to satisfy Article III standing requirements, CCE must first meet a three-part test and show: (1) it has suffered an injury in fact that is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; (2) that the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant; and (3), that it is likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.

CCE alleged a theory of associational standing to bring the suit on behalf of its members. The court applied another three-prong test for associational standing, established by the Supreme Court in Hunt v. Wash. State Apple Advertising Comm'n, 432 U.S. 333 (1977). The first prong requires that the association’s members would otherwise have standing to sue in their own right.

To attempt to demonstrate standing, CCE relied upon two affidavits submitted by one of its members. The member stated that he cares about the environment and the wellbeing of Minnesota, and that AAPI’s discharges affect his enjoyment of the area, including boating and driving on a highway that runs adjacent to the Kettle River.

AAPI responded that CCE and the member failed to articulate a cognizable injury in fact, and that the alleged injury is traceable to AAPI’s challenged conduct. The Court agreed. Specifically, it found that while the association’s representative may be a person who cares about Minnesota, its people and its environment, and may have a “special interest” in the Kettle River's water quality, CCE failed to show that the member was “directly affected” by AAPI’s discharges. The Court determined this flaw was fatal and dismissed the suit without prejudice.

AAPI also sought Rule 11 sanctions against CCE and CCE’s counsel for filing and pursuing the suit. The Court denied the request, reasoning that the crux of CCE’s claims and AAPI’s defenses — interpretation of the NPDES permit and application of the CWA — were “not so without merit that the Court can find their assertion constitutes abuse of the judicial process.”