Background
The West Virginia Rivers Coalition sued The Chemours Company under the Clean Water Act, alleging that its Washington Works plant in Parkersburg was discharging hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid in excess of its permit limits. The district court granted a preliminary injunction, finding the Coalition had standing and that the plant’s violations caused irreparable harm. Chemours appealed, challenging both the standing determination and the finding of irreparable harm.
The court’s reasoning
The court first addressed standing, concluding that the Coalition satisfied Article III requirements through associational standing. A member, Charlise Robinson, had reasonably avoided boating in the Ohio River due to the plant’s violations, establishing injury in fact, traceability, and redressability. However, the court vacated the injunction because the district court made three errors in its irreparable harm analysis. First, the district court incorrectly considered harm to the public as part of the individual irreparable harm requirement. Second, it erroneously presumed irreparable harm from a continuing Clean Water Act violation, contrary to Supreme Court precedent. Third, the district court’s factual finding was clearly erroneous because the expert testimony only established an increased risk of harm, not a likelihood of harm, and the expert admitted she could not determine if Robinson would suffer harm given she did not drink or cook with the tap water.
But on the record below, a preliminary injunction is a step too far.
West Virginia Rivers Coalition, Inc. v. The Chemours Company FC, LLC, No. 25-1924 (4th Cir. June 3, 2026)
What it means going forward
The preliminary injunction blocking the plant from exceeding its permit limits is lifted, though the underlying citizen suit regarding permit violations may proceed.