Term: 2019
Docket: 18-260
County Of Maui, Hawaii v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund
- Pro
18-260 COUNTY OF MAUI, HI V. HAWAII WILDLIFE FUND DECISION BELOW: 886 F.3d 737 GRANTED LIMITED TO QUESTION 1 PRESENTED BY THE PETITION. CERT. GRANTED 2/19/2019 QUESTION PRESENTED: In the Clean Water Act (CWA), Congress differentiated between point source and nonpoint source pollution in controlling pollution of navigable waters. The CWA regulates point source pollution through permits, while nonpoint source pollution is controlled through federal oversight of state management programs and other non-CWA programs. This Court and several courts of appeals have read the CWA's line dividing point source and nonpoint source pollution to turn on whether pollutants are delivered to navigable waters by a point source. Parting with those cases, the Ninth Circuit concluded that point source pollution also includes pollutants that reach navigable waters by nonpoint sources so long as the pollutants can be "traced" in more than "de minimis" amounts to a point source. This holding expands CWA permitting to millions of sources previously regulated as nonpoint source pollution. The questions presented are: 1. Whether the CWA requires a permit when pollutants originate from a point source but are conveyed to navigable waters by a nonpoint source, such as groundwater. 2. Whether the County of Maui had fair notice that a CWA permit was required for its underground injection control wells that operated without such a permit for nearly 40 years. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 15-17447
The U.S. Supreme Court case County of Maui, Hawaii v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund (2019) centered around the interpretation of the Clean Water Act and its application to pollution that indirectly reaches navigable waters through groundwater. The County of Maui had been discharging treated wastewater into wells, from which it then seeped into the Pacific Ocean via groundwater. Environmental groups led by the Hawaii Wildlife Fund sued, arguing this constituted a violation of the Clean Water Act because it was effectively a discharge into navigable waters without a permit. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of environmental groups stating that indirect discharges are covered under federal law if they are functionally equivalent to direct discharges - meaning they reach surface water in amounts or concentrations comparable to direct releases.
In the dissenting opinion for County of Maui, Hawaii v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund, Justice Alito argued that the majority's interpretation of the Clean Water Act (CWA) was too broad and lacked clarity. He contended that under this interpretation, many ordinary activities such as homeowners applying fertilizer to their lawns could potentially fall under federal regulation if they indirectly result in pollutants reaching navigable waters. This would create a significant burden on both individuals and businesses who may unknowingly violate these regulations due to lack of clear guidelines about what constitutes an indirect discharge into navigable waters. Furthermore, he expressed concern over how courts will determine when a permit is required since it depends on factors like time and distance which are not clearly defined by the CWA or Environmental Protection Agency’s rules.
