Page 1 - scotus20200423cleanwateract

(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2019 1

Syllabus

NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is
being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.

The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been

prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Syllabus
COUNTY OF MAUI, HAWAII v. HAWAII WILDLIFE
FUND ET AL.

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE NINTH CIRCUIT
No. 18–260. Argued November 6, 2019—Decided April 23, 2020
The Clean Water Act forbids “any addition” of any pollutant from “any
point source” to “navigable waters” without an appropriate permit
from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). §§ 301(a), 502(12),
86 Stat. 844, 886. The Act defines “pollutant” broadly, §502(6); defines
a “point source” as “ ‘any discernible, confined and discrete conveyance
. . . from which pollutants are or may be discharged,’ ” including, e.g.,
any “ ‘container,’ ” “ ‘pipe, ditch, channel, tunnel, conduit,’ ” or “ ‘well,’ ”

§502(14); and defines the term “discharge of a pollutant” as “ ‘any ad-

dition of any pollutant to navigable waters [including navigable
streams, rivers, the ocean, or coastal waters] from any point source,’ ”
§502(12). It then uses those terms in making “unlawful” “ ‘the dis-
charge of any pollutant by any person’ ” without an appropriate permit.
§301.
Petitioner County of Maui’s wastewater reclamation facility collects
sewage from the surrounding area, partially treats it, and each day
pumps around 4 million gallons of treated water into the ground
through four wells. This effluent then travels about a half mile,
through groundwater, to the Pacific Ocean. Respondent environmen-
tal groups brought a citizens’ Clean Water Act suit, alleging that Maui
was “discharg[ing]” a “pollutant” to “navigable waters” without the re-
quired permit. The District Court found that the discharge from
Maui’s wells into the nearby groundwater was “functionally one into
navigable water,” 24 F. Supp. 3d 980, 998, and granted summary judg-
ment to the environmental groups. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, stat-
ing that a permit is required when “pollutants are fairly traceable from
the point source to a navigable water.” 886 F. 3d 737, 749.
Held: The statutory provisions at issue require a permit when there is a