ponsible governmental agencies. Action can only be taken after the responsible governmental agency and the alleged violator have been notified.
The Clean Water Act, however, differs from the ESA and the Clean Air Amendments in who can file a citizen suit. The ESA and the Clean Air Amendments both state that "any person" may commence such an action, within the subsequent restrictions. The Clean Water Act, however, states that "any citizen" may commence such an action. It then defines a "citizen" as "a person or persons having an interest which is or may be adversely affected." This effectively restricts the commencement of such suits to those persons directly affected by the alleged violations.
The potentially sweeping effects of a provision which would allow anyone to file a citizen suit against an alleged violator have caused courts to limit this right to sue. Although not stated in the statutes, there are now limits on the classes of persons who can sue in such circumstances. The U.S. Supreme Court has said that plaintiffs in these cases must meet the minimum requirements imposed by the Cases and Controversies Clause of Article III, Section 2, of the Constitution. The majority of the Court said that a plaintiff must show a particularized and imminent injury "fairly ... trace[able]" to the alleged unlawful conduct and that the injury will likely be redressed by a favorable decision. Because of the doctrine if separation of powers, Congress cannot confer standing upon any plaintiff who cannot meet these requirements. However, Congress does have the power to confer standing on a wide range of citizens.
The basic question of standing is "[w]hether a party has a sufficient stake in an otherwise justiciable controversy to obtain judicial resolution of that controversy." This comes firstly from the Constitutional principle enunciated in the Cases and Controversies Clause. In Lujan, the Court said that this princi...