Page 1 – OPINION AND ORDER

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

EUGENE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Case No. 6:16-cv-00328-AA

OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff,

vs.

WILLIAM CASE; BILL CASE

FARMS, INC.; CASE FAMILY,

LLC.

Defendants.

AIKEN, District Judge:

Before the Court is the United States’ unopposed motion to enter its consent 

decree with defendants William Case, Bill Case Farms, Inc., and Case Family, LLC. 

Doc. 102.

Judicial review of a consent decree is limited. Officers for Justice v. Civil Serv. 

Comm’n, 688 F.2d 615, 625 (9th Cir. 1977). “Because of the unique aspects of 

settlements, a district court should enter a proposed consent judgment if the court 

Case 6:16-cv-00328-AA Document 103 Filed 05/30/20 Page 1 of 3
Page 2 – OPINION AND ORDER

decides that it is fair, reasonable and equitable and does not violate the law or public 

policy.” Sierra Club, Inc. v. Elec. Controls Design, Inc., 909 F.2d 1350, 1355 (9th Cir. 

1990). When, as here, the United States is a party to the consent decree, the Court 

“should pay deference to the judgment of the government agency which has 

negotiated and submitted the proposed judgment.” SEC v. Randolph, 736 F.2d 525, 

529 (9th Cir. 1984). Although it may explain its reasons for withholding approval of 

a proposed consent decree, the court lacks the authority to modify the parties’ 

proposal and therefore must either accept or reject the proposal as submitted. See 

Officers for Justice, 688 F.2d at 630.

Having carefully considered the consent decree, the Court finds it fair, 

reasonable, and consistent with the purposes of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 

1251 et seq. The parties reached this settlement after years of litigation. The United 

States represents that settlement followed good faith, arms-length negotiations 

conducted by experienced counsel aware of the strengths and weaknesses of their 

respective cases. Mot. (doc. 102) at 5. Further, a United States Magistrate Judge 

facilitated much of the negotiations. The proposed consent decree would ensure that 

Clean Water Act violators bear the cost of the harm for which they are responsible 

and would subject defendants to the kinds of remedies that courts are authorized to

order in Clean Water Act cases. See 33 U.S.C. § 1319(b) & (d). The proposed consent 

decree’s on-site remediation, preservation, and compensatory mitigation 

requirements would address adverse environmental impacts caused by defendants’ 

unauthorized conduct, and the civil penalties that the proposed consent decree would 

Case 6:16-cv-00328-AA Document 103 Filed 05/30/20 Page 2 of 3
Page 3 – OPINION AND ORDER

impose are proportionate to the violations for which the Court held defendants 

liable. Finally, the proposed consent decree would achieve significant goals of the 

Clean Water Act by, among other things, obligating defendants to remediate the 

damage caused by their unauthorized conduct, providing off-site compensatory 

mitigation aimed at increasing habitat for endangered juvenile salmonids and high 

water refuge for other species, and permanently protecting over 50 acres of aquatic 

areas and adjacent riparian land. See 33 U.S.C. § 1251(a) (providing that the Clean 

Water Act’s objective is “to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological 

integrity of the Nation’s waters).

The unopposed motion to enter the consent decree (doc. 102) is GRANTED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated this _____ day of May 2020. 

__________________________ 

Ann Aiken

United States District Judge

30th

/s/Ann Aiken

Case 6:16-cv-00328-AA Document 103 Filed 05/30/20 Page 3 of 3