Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock ( ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Main Menu

United States of America v Guam Waterworks

Court:
District of Guam
Subject Matter:
Environmental/Land Use
Procedural Posture:
Objections to Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendations
Last Updated:
  • USA v. Guam Waterworks (Part 1)
    USA v. Guam Waterworks (Part 1)
    U.S.A. v. Guam Waterworks Authority (Part 1) Case 1:02-cv-00035, 10/7/2011, 9:00 AM (ChST. U.S. Courthouse, Hagatna, GU. Chief Judge Frances Tydingco-Gatewood presiding.

    U.S.A. v. Guam Waterworks Authority (Part 1) Case 1:02-cv-00035, 10/7/2011, 9:00 AM (ChST. U.S. Courthouse, Hagatna, GU....

  • USA v. Guam Waterworks (Part 2)
    USA v. Guam Waterworks (Part 2)
    U.S.A. v. Guam Waterworks Authority (Part 2) Case 1:02-cv-00035, 10/7/2011, 9:59 AM (ChST. U.S. Courthouse, Hagatna, GU. Chief Judge Frances Tydingco-Gatewood presiding.

    U.S.A. v. Guam Waterworks Authority (Part 2) Case 1:02-cv-00035, 10/7/2011, 9:59 AM (ChST. U.S. Courthouse, Hagatna, GU....

Case Summary: 02-cv-00035

On December 20, 2002, plaintiff United States of America, on behalf of the United States Environmental Protection Agency, filed a complaint against defendants Guam Water Authority and the Government of Guam. The complaint alleged violations of the Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act and sought injunctive relief and the appointment of a receiver to address the numerous and repeated discharges of untreated and inadequately treated water as well as serious deficiencies in public water systems.

In June 2003, without any finding or admission of liability against or by defendants, the parties entered into a Stipulated Order for Preliminary Relief, which was subsequently modified twice. Although the initial planning measures in the order were completed, defendants had not completed several required projects.

After an unsuccessful attempt by the partied to draft a proposed plan for completion, the parties were ordered to meet with a Magistrate Judge to set workable deadlines for the remaining projects. On July 7, 2011, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report & Recommendation to the Chief Judge regarding deadlines. The parties filed objections and responses to the Report & Recommendation. The court heard oral argument on October 7, 2011. On November 10, 2011, the court issued its Order Adopting the Report & Recommendation and Adopting the United States' Recommendations.

Case Highlights

  • Complaint filed 12/20/2002 [Doc # 1]
  • Report and Recommendation filed 7/7/2011 [Docket # 154]
  • Objections filed 7/21/2011 [Doc # 155]
  • Response to objections filed 8/16/2011 [Doc # 158]
  • Replies filed 8/23/2011 [Doc ## 161, 162
  • Hearing on 10/7/2011
  • Order Adopting Report and Recommendations and United States' Recommendations filed 11/10/2011 [Doc # 177]

 

Case-related documents, including those referenced above, are available via the Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) service. For more information, visit Pacer.gov.