The Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act of 1899¹ is one of the oldest federal statutes providing for control of water pollution and obstructions in navigable waters. Although not a sophisticated statute in comparison to statutes enacted in the last decade, it became, at least through federal enforcement, a successful deterrent to water pollution through liberal court interpretations, its informer reward provision, and the availability of injunctive relief.² However, a series of court decisions have severely limited the utility of the Act in abating pollution and in controlling obstructions to navigation through private enforcement.

The provision that authorizes informers to receive one-half of fines collected from criminal violators,³ raised the possibility that citizens are authorized to enforce the water pollution provisions of the Act as "private attorneys general." Although rewards are still granted to informers after federal prosecution, no such qui tam action has been prosecuted successfully in any court. With private criminal enforcement of the Act thus limited, the question remained whether private parties injured by violations may seek civil remedies under the Act. Some early court opinions merely assumed that private plaintiffs had a cause of action, but in recent years a split has developed among the circuit courts as to whether a private right of action is implicit in the Act. The Supreme Court laid this conflict to rest in California v. Sierra Club.⁴ In an action to enjoin construction of portions of the California Water Project until permits were issued by the Army Corps of Engineers, the Court held that there is no private right of action to enforce §10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act pertaining to obstructions to navigation.