County Of Maui, Hawaii v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund

140 S. Ct. 1462 (2020)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Congress’ purpose as reflected in the language of the Clean Water Act is to “‘restore and maintain the . . . integrity of the Nation’s waters,’” The Clean Water Act forbids the “addition” of any pollutant from a “point source” to “navigable waters” without the appropriate permit from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). D operates a wastewater reclamation facility. The facility collects sewage from the surrounding area, partially treats it and pumps the treated water through four wells hundreds of feet underground. This affluent, amounting to about 4 million gallons each day, then travels a further half mile or so, through groundwater, to the ocean. Ps brought this citizens’ Clean Water Act lawsuit against D claiming that D was “discharging” a “pollutant” to “navigable waters,” namely, the Pacific Ocean, without the permit required by the Clean Water Act. Ps brought this citizens’ Clean Water Act lawsuit against D claiming that D was “discharging” a “pollutant” to “navigable waters,” namely, the Pacific Ocean, without the permit required by the Clean Water Act. The District Court found that a considerable amount of effluent from the wells ended up in the ocean (navigable water). It held that because the “path to the ocean is clearly ascertainable,” the discharge from D’s wells into the nearby groundwater was “functionally one into navigable water.” It granted summary judgment in favor of Ps. The Ninth Circuit affirmed and wrote that a permit is required when “the pollutants are fairly traceable from the point source to a navigable water such that the discharge is the functional equivalent of a discharge into the navigable water.” The court left undecided the task of determining when, if ever, the connection between a point source and navigable water is too tenuous to support liability. D appealed.