UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _______________________

No. 21-2060 _______________________

SHARK RIVER CLEANUP COALITION, Appellant

v. TOWNSHIP OF WALL; ESTATE OF FRED MCDOWELL, JR. _______________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey District Court No. 3-17-cv-08049 District Judge: Honorable Brian R. Martinotti __________________________

Argued June 16, 2022 Before: HARDIMAN, SMITH, and FISHER, Circuit Judges

(Filed: August 24, 2022) John P. Brennan, Jr. [ARGUED] Suite 1 227 East Bergen Place Red Bank, NJ 07701 Counsel for Appellant M. James Maley, Jr. Erin E. Simone [ARGUED] MALEY GIVENS 1150 Haddon Avenue Suite 210 Collingswood, NJ 08108 Counsel for Appellee Township of Wall John J. Novak [ARGUED] 3 Franklin Avenue Toms River, NJ 08753 Counsel for Appellee Estate of Fred McDowell, Jr.

__________________________

OPINION OF THE COURT __________________________ SMITH, Circuit Judge.

The Clean Water Act empowers citizens to sue for violations of the Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1365(a)(1), subject to one key condition. Before going to federal court, a citizen-suit plaintiff must “give[] notice of the alleged violation” to the 2 “alleged violator,” and also to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and to the state in which the alleged violation occurs. 33 U.S.C. § 1365(b)(1)(A). Once the plaintiff has provided the required notice, it must wait sixty days before suing. Id.; Hallstrom v. Tillamook Cnty., 493 U.S. 20, 23 n.1, 26 (1989) (in holding that the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act’s notice requirement “is a mandatory, not optional, condition precedent for suit,” referencing its Clean Water Act analogue at 33 U.S.C. § 1365(b)).

The sixty-day period following notice “gives the alleged violator ‘an opportunity to bring itself into complete compliance with the Act and thus . . . render unnecessary a citizen suit.’” Pub. Int. Rsch. Grp. of N.J., Inc. v. Hercules, Inc., 50 F.3d 1239, 1246 (3d Cir. 1995) (quoting Hallstrom, 493 U.S. at 29). But if the alleged violation continues notwithstanding the notice, the statutory regime authorizes a “citizen suit [as] the vehicle to achieve compliance.” Id.

The parties to the citizen suit before us do not dispute whether Plaintiff Shark River Cleanup Coalition, a non-profit citizen’s group, delivered a notice letter alleging a Clean Water Act violation. Rather, they contest whether the contents of the Cleanup Coalition’s Notice satisfy the more granular

3 requirements set forth by EPA regulation. 1 Under the applicable regulation,

Notice regarding an alleged violation of an effluent standard or limitation or of an order with respect thereto, shall include sufficient information to permit the recipient to identify the specific standard, limitation, or order alleged to have been violated, the activity alleged to constitute a violation, the person or persons responsible for the alleged violation, the location of the alleged violation, the date or dates of such violation, and the full name, address, and telephone number of the person giving notice. 40 C.F.R. § 135.3(a) (emphasis added).

In Hercules, we read the plain text of the regulation 2 as requiring notices to provide “enough information to enable the recipient”—here, Defendants Township of Wall and the Estate of Fred McDowell, Jr.—to identify “the components of an alleged violation.” 50 F.3d at 1248 (“We read the regulation to require just what it says[.]”). Thus, a