Supreme Court hands environmentalists a win in water pollution case

The Supreme Court on Thursday sided with environmentalists by giving a broad reading to the types of water-borne pollution covered by the Clean Water Act.

In a 6-3 decision, the justices held that a permit is required for either a direct discharge of pollutants into federally regulated rivers and oceans or its “functional equivalent.”

“Suppose, for example, that a sewage treatment plant discharges polluted water into the ground where it mixes with groundwater, which, in turn, flows into a navigable river, or perhaps the ocean,” Justice Stephen BreyerStephen BreyerSupreme Court declines to halt Trump border wall Supreme Court clears way for second federal execution Supreme Court lifts stay for second federal execution this week MORE wrote for the majority.

ADVERTISEMENT

“Must the plant’s owner seek an EPA permit before emitting the pollutant?” he continued, referring to the Environmental Protection Agency. “We conclude that [a permit is required] if the addition of the pollutants through groundwater is the functional equivalent of a direct discharge from the point source into navigable waters.”

At issue in the case was whether Maui County in Hawaii violated the Clean Water Act, the landmark 1972 environmental law, by injecting wastewater underground without a permit that then seeped into the Pacific Ocean.

In siding with environmental groups, Breyer was joined by his fellow liberal justices Ruth Bader GinsburgRuth Bader GinsburgMore Democrats than Republicans say Supreme Court key to 2020 vote Senate GOP divided over whether they'd fill Supreme Court vacancy  Ginsburg discharged from hospital after nonsurgical procedure MORE, Sonia SotomayorSonia SotomayorVoters should channel the Black Lives Matter energy at the polls Supreme Court's approval rating highest in over a decade: Gallup GOP asks Supreme Court to reinstate Arizona voting rules deemed racially biased MORE and Elena KaganElena KaganLeBron James' group to donate 0K to pay fines for ex-felons seeking to vote in Florida Supreme Court declines to reinstate vote of nearly 1 million Florida felons Supreme Court clears way for second federal execution MORE, as well as more conservative Justice Brett KavanaughBrett Michael KavanaughMcConnell has 17-point lead over Democratic challenger McGrath: poll Davis: My recommendation for vice president on Biden ticket Kavanaugh urged Supreme Court to avoid decisions on Trump finances, abortion: report MORE and Chief Justice John Roberts. 

The decision returns the case, County of Maui, Hawaii v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund, to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to apply the new “functional equivalent” test.

David Henkin, an attorney with Earthjustice who argued the case on behalf of environmental groups, celebrated the win.

ADVERTISEMENT

“This decision is a huge victory for clean water,” he said in a statement. “The Supreme Court has rejected the Trump administration’s effort to blow a big hole in the Clean Water Act’s protections for rivers, lakes, and oceans.” 

Justice Clarence ThomasClarence ThomasThe Hill's Morning Report - Presented by the Air Line Pilots Association - Biden VP possible next week; Meadows says relief talks 'miles apart' Hawley will only back Supreme Court picks who have said Roe v. Wade was 'wrongly decided' Should we judge judges by whether their decisions appeal to us? MORE wrote a dissent that was joined by Justice Neil GorsuchNeil GorsuchBiden needs to bring religious Americans into the Democratic fold McConnell has 17-point lead over Democratic challenger McGrath: poll Kavanaugh urged Supreme Court to avoid decisions on Trump finances, abortion: report MORE, and Justice Samuel AlitoSamuel AlitoConservatives blast Supreme Court ruling: Roberts 'abandoned his oath' Supreme Court again rejects church challenge to virus restriction Should we judge judges by whether their decisions appeal to us? MORE wrote a separate dissenting opinion that accused the majority of going beyond the text of the Clean Water Act.

"If the Court is going to devise its own legal rules, instead of interpreting those enacted by Congress, it might at least adopt rules that can be applied with a modicum of consistency,” Alito wrote. “Here, however, the Court makes up a rule that provides no clear guidance and invites arbitrary and inconsistent application.” 

Michael Kimberly, an attorney at McDermott Will & Emery who co-authored an amicus brief in support of the Maui County, criticized the majority opinion as setting an “amorphous” new environmental standard.

“Not only is the decision vague, but it leaves countless responsible landowners potentially liable for discharges from ‘point sources’ to ‘navigable waters’ that aren’t actually anything of the sort,” he said. 

ADVERTISEMENT

The case arose in the spring of 2012, when four Hawaii environmental groups sued Maui County to stop a municipal water treatment plant from pouring millions of gallons of wastewater each day into wells running hundreds of feet deep, where the treated sewage combined with groundwater.

A study showed some of the wastewater later surfaced at popular beach areas, and the environmental groups said pollutants contained in the discharge had interfered with nearby coral reef and triggered invasive algae to bloom. They argued the county was operating in this way without a federal permit, in violation of the Clean Water Act.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals eventually sided with the environmental groups, prompting an appeal to the Supreme Court.

Updated at 12:14 p.m.