33 U.S.C. § 466g–1 — Controversies involving construction or application of interstate compacts and pollution of waters

(a) Jurisdiction of actions by States: U.S. district courts have original jurisdiction — meaning they can be the first court to hear the case — over any dispute that meets four conditions: (1) it involves interpreting or applying an interstate compact that (A) relates, in whole or part, to pollution of an interstate river system, and (B) the compact says the signing states agree they can be sued in a district court over that compact; (2) it involves pollution of that river system in violation of the compact; (3) at least one of the states that signed the compact is a plaintiff; and (4) it falls within the judicial power the Constitution gives federal courts. This jurisdiction exists alongside — not instead of — jurisdiction the Supreme Court or any other court already has over such matters. (b) Amount in controversy; residence, situs or citizenship; nature, character, or legal status of parties: District courts have this jurisdiction with no minimum dollar amount required, and without regard to where any party lives or is based, or the nature or legal status of any party — except the signatory state or states named as plaintiffs. However, this section does not let a state sue its own citizens in these courts. (c) Suits between States signatory to interstate compact: This jurisdiction includes, but isn't limited to, lawsuits between states that signed the same interstate compact. But it does not let a state sue another state that didn't sign that compact. (d) Venue: The case can be filed wherever the law normally allows. In addition, it may be filed in any judicial district where the pollution actually happened, or any part of it happened, no matter where any of the parties live or are based.