County of Maui v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund

Last updated

County of Maui v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued November 6, 2019
Decided April 23, 2020
Full case nameCounty of Maui, Hawaii v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund, et al.
Docket no. 18-260
Citations590 U.S. ___ ( more )
140 S. Ct. 1462; 206 L. Ed. 2d 640
Argument Oral argument
Case history
PriorHaw. Wildlife Fund v. County of Maui, No. 1:12-cv-00198, 24 F. Supp. 3d 980 (D. Haw. 2014); affirmed, 881 F.3d 754 (9th Cir. 2018); rehearing en banc denied, 886 F.3d 737 (9th Cir. 2018); cert. granted, 139 S.Ct. 1164 (2019).
Holding
The statutory provisions at issue require a permit when there is a direct discharge from a point source into navigable waters or when there is the functional equivalent of a direct discharge.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Clarence Thomas  · Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer  · Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor  · Elena Kagan
Neil Gorsuch  · Brett Kavanaugh
Case opinions
MajorityBreyer, joined by Roberts, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan, Kavanaugh
ConcurrenceKavanaugh
DissentThomas, joined by Gorsuch
DissentAlito
Laws applied
Clean Water Act

County of Maui v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund, No. 18-260, 590 U.S. ___ (2020), was a United States Supreme Court case involving pollution discharges under the Clean Water Act (CWA). The case asked whether the Clean Water Act requires a permit when pollutants that originate from a non-point source can be traced to reach navigable waters through mechanisms such as groundwater transport. In a 6–3 decision, the Court ruled that such non-point discharges require a permit when they are the "functional equivalent of a direct discharge", a new test defined by the ruling. The decision vacated the ruling of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and remanded the case with instructions to apply the new standard to the lower courts with cooperation of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Contents

Background

The Clean Water Act (CWA), enacted in 1972 as the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, [1] regulates water pollution into "waters of the United States." [2] One of its provisions involves the regulation of pollutants from point sources (such as the drainage from an industrial plant) into surface waters. Operators of any point source are required to obtain a permit through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) that limits what pollutants may be emitted by the point source, necessary treatment steps to take to limit those pollutants, and other considerations. [3]

It is unclear whether the Act covers discharges into waters of the U.S. through groundwater. A plain reading of the statute indicates that it does, "The term "discharge of a pollutant" and the term "discharge of pollutants" each means (A) any addition of any pollutant to navigable waters from any point source, (B) any addition of any pollutant to the waters of the contiguous zone or the ocean from any point source other than a vessel or other floating craft." [4] Whether the CWA covers fairly traceable discharges through groundwater into navigable waters of the U.S. was the fundamental question of the Maui v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund appeal before the United States Supreme Court.

The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) directly regulates discharges into groundwater aquifers, such as through injection wells, and additional regulations set by each state. The EPA still regulates the type of wastewater that can be injected through the Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program, but broadly, the UIC Program allows much higher levels of pollutants to be injected compared to the NPDES, due to the natural filtration action that occurs in groundwater aquifers. Of particular interest to the case are Class V UIC wells—wells used to dispose of non-hazardous water waste into underground aquifers. Typically these will include stormwater drainage or agricultural runoff. The EPA estimates there are 650,000 such Class V wells in place across the United States. [5]

Map of the northwestern shore of the island of Maui, highlighting the location of the Lahaina Wastewater Reclamation Facility and its proximity to the shoreline Lahaina WWTP map.jpg
Map of the northwestern shore of the island of Maui, highlighting the location of the Lahaina Wastewater Reclamation Facility and its proximity to the shoreline

In the present case, the Lahaina Wastewater Reclamation Facility in Maui County, Hawaii treats wastewater from homes and businesses. The facility is authorized by the EPA and the Hawaii Department of Health under the SDWA to inject the reclaimed water into four Class V wells on the island, with an average total effluent of 3–5 million US gallons (11–19 million L) per day. [6] Because of the geologic nature of Hawaii, it was estimated that more than 90% of this water eventually enters the surrounding ocean through seepage. During the planning and subsequent reviews of the facility, both the EPA and the state had determined that there was no need for the facility to apply for a NPDES permit, since it was not a point source under the CWA. However, work done by University of Hawaii at Manoa proved that approximately 60% of the injections of wastewater from the Lahaina facility were reaching nearby ocean waters via groundwater using tracer dye studies to track the destination of the wastewater, and piezometer studies observed heightened levels of nutrients at the site. [7] [8]

Trial court

In 2012, several environmental activist groups, including the Hawaii Wildlife Fund, the Surfrider Foundation, the Sierra Club-Maui Group, and the West Maui Preservation Association, represented by Earthjustice, sued the county for lacking appropriate NPDES permits, arguing that their injection wells were truly point sources since past EPA studies using dye tracers had shown it possible to trace the discharge from individual wells into the ocean. [9] Reclaimed water, which can possess higher levels of bacteria and other microorganisms, that seeped into the ocean led to the spread of algal blooms near Maui's shores and could impact the health of coral reefs, aquatic and mammalian life, and humans that live near the shore, according to the environmental groups. [10] The County disputed this with support of the EPA, stating that the wells were not a direct point source defined from the CWA. [9] The suit was filed after the environmental groups plead with the county on civil grounds to seek an NPDES permit in the years prior. [11]

In 2014 the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii found for the plaintiffs, agreeing that the facility needed NPDES permits for the injection wells and for the facility itself. [12]

Appeal

The county appealed to the Ninth Circuit, which also ruled in favor of the plaintiffs in 2018. [13] The Ninth Circuit's decision drew on Rapanos v. United States (2006), in which the plurality decision authored by Justice Antonin Scalia suggested that permits would be required even for point source pollutants that "do not emit 'directly into' covered waters, but pass 'through conveyances' in between." [14] The court claimed that the plain language of the CWA supported the requirement that the discharge from the wastewater plant be subject to permit, held that the Clean Water Act required a permit when pollutants were "fairly traceable" to the original point source. This was a novel test for the CWA, rejecting two standards proposed by the County and the EPA. In the specific case of the Maui wastewater plant, the Ninth Circuit ruled that the pollutants from the wells to the ocean that resulted in pollution concentrations above de minimis levels was "fairly traceable" and thus would need a permit under the CWA. [15] The Ninth Circuit concluded that "at bottom, this case is about preventing the county from doing indirectly that which it cannot do directly". [10] The court declined to hear the case en banc. [16] [10]

During the early parts of the case, the EPA, under President Barack Obama's administration still had upheld the initial statements that there were no need for permits for these types of wells, but had been working with environmentalists to devise new standards. With the election of Donald Trump in 2016, the EPA took a stronger stance against the environmentalist position, and in April 2019, after the trial court and appellate court decisions, issued a new guidance document asserting that the CWA does not cover such discharges. This document is not binding on the Supreme Court. [17] [18]

Regardless of the outcome of the case, the County agreed to pay a US$100,000 fee to the groups should they prevail in the challenge, and are working on developing more projects in Maui to use more of the reclaimed water produced by the plant for beneficial uses as to minimize any seeping to the ocean. [19] [10]

Supreme Court

The County filed its petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court, arguing that the test proposed by the Ninth Circuit for defining a point source discharge conflicted with the Supreme Court's prior ruling in South Florida Water Management District v. Miccosukee Tribe (2004) [20] and upheld in several subsequent cases. The County also raised concerns that this test would affect a significant portion of the other 650,000 Class V wells in operation, requiring these wells to also obtain NPDES permits. The County also referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Michigan v. EPA (2015), which stated the EPA failed to consider the costs necessary in what it considered a "necessary and appropriate" rule-making change to enforcement of the Clear Air Act that affected the nation's power plants. [21] The County believed that the new point source test from the Ninth Circuit would be a similar economic burden. The Supreme Court approved the petition in February 2019. [22]

Oral arguments before the Supreme Court were held November 6, 2019. The Justices debated with the legal representatives on the impact of a ruling in either direction. A ruling that favored the county of Maui could potentially allow wastewater dischargers to simply modify how their wastewater is discharged with minimal cost to avoid EPA's regulations, while a ruling favoring the Wildlife Fund could leave many smaller property owners, including home owners, at fault for unintentional leaks of wastewater from their properties. [23]

Decision

The Court issued its 6–3 decision on April 23, 2020, which vacated the Ninth Circuit's decision and remanded the case to the lower court. [24] [25]

Majority opinion and concurrence

Justice Stephen Breyer wrote the majority opinion, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Brett Kavanaugh. In his opinion, Breyer wrote that the "fairly traceable" test that the Ninth Circuit had adopted would give the EPA greater authority on pollutant regulation than Congress had given at the time, as the Ninth Circuit's test could apply to a source of pollution that may have occurred a century before and hundreds of miles away due to the slow motion of groundwater. However, the decision also outright rejected the County of Maui's argument that the discharge in the present case did not need a permit, as the language of the CWA as intended by Congress would cover the types of discharge. [26]

In the decision, Breyer asserted that a permit for discharge would be required for point sources, or for non-point sources, for "the functional equivalent of a direct discharge", which had been demonstrated in the present case. Breyer wrote as an example "Where a pipe ends a few feet from navigable waters and the pipe emits pollutants that travel those few feet through groundwater (or over the beach), the permitting requirement clearly applies. If the pipe ends 50 miles from navigable waters and the pipe emits pollutants that travel with groundwater, mix with much other material, and end up in navigable waters only many years later, the permitting requirements likely do not apply." [27] Breyer's opinion included two major factors to be considered in evaluating whether non-point source discharge was functionally equivalent to direct discharge: the distance that the pollutant must travel from the point of discharge to the federal waterway, and the time that it would take. Other factors that can impact this included the ground material that the pollutant traveled through, how the pollutant changed or interacted with other chemicals within the ground, and how much of the pollutant made it to the waterway. [26]

In his concurring opinion, Kavanaugh stressed that the majority opinion was consistent with Rapanos. [28]

Dissenting opinions

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a dissent joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch. Thomas took the stance that the CWA was more restrictive and only required a permit from a true direct discharge source, and would have reversed the Ninth Circuit's decision in favor of the County of Maui. Justice Samuel Alito also wrote a dissent, more critical of the majority opinion setting a new standard for determining the need for a permit, but would have also reversed the Ninth's decision. [18] [29]

Impact

Breyer instructed the Ninth on remand to consider the "functional equivalent" test, in guidance with the EPA, to re-evaluate the discharge from the Lahaina Wastewater Reclamation Facility and for similar cases going forward, barring a change in the CWA statute from Congress. This would thus determine if the original case brought by the Hawaii Wildlife Fund could then proceed. [18] The decision is also expected to lead the EPA to develop specific rules related to the "functional equivalent" test to be set in place after public review. [26] Additionally, several pending cases filed by environmentalists against wastewater plants and oil processing companies related to their water discharge are expected to be re-evaluated in light of the majority decision. [26]

The decision was generally seen as a favorable outcome for environmentalists, though the test proposed by Breyer was narrower than what environmentalists had proposed. The decision also rejected the attempt by the Trump administration to remove any type of permit requirements on these sites, as well as rejecting the EPA's attempts to bypass parts of the CWA statute. [8] [26] [30] Other industry sectors such as the chemical and energy sectors feared that this will require a review of their waste discharge, which had previously determined the need for permitting under bright-line rule, with new, vague guidelines set by the Supreme Court. [26]

In July 2021, following the Supreme Court decision, the Hawaii District Court determined that the Lahaina plant's groundwater injection of sewage was the "functional equivalent of a direct discharge" and required the plant to obtain an NPDES permit. [31] [32]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Stormwater</span> Water that originates during precipitation events and snow/ice melt

Stormwater, also written storm water, is water that originates from precipitation (storm), including heavy rain and meltwater from hail and snow. Stormwater can soak into the soil (infiltrate) and become groundwater, be stored on depressed land surface in ponds and puddles, evaporate back into the atmosphere, or contribute to surface runoff. Most runoff is conveyed directly as surface water to nearby streams, rivers or other large water bodies without treatment.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Clean Water Act</span> 1972 U.S. federal law regulating water pollution

The Clean Water Act (CWA) is the primary federal law in the United States governing water pollution. Its objective is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation's waters; recognizing the responsibilities of the states in addressing pollution and providing assistance to states to do so, including funding for publicly owned treatment works for the improvement of wastewater treatment; and maintaining the integrity of wetlands.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Concentrated animal feeding operation</span> Type of American intensive animal farming

In animal husbandry, a concentrated animal feeding operation, as defined by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), is an intensive animal feeding operation (AFO) in which over 1,000 animal units are confined for over 45 days a year. An animal unit is the equivalent of 1,000 pounds of "live" animal weight. A thousand animal units equates to 700 dairy cows, 1,000 meat cows, 2,500 pigs weighing more than 55 pounds (25 kg), 10,000 pigs weighing under 55 pounds, 10,000 sheep, 55,000 turkeys, 125,000 chickens, or 82,000 egg laying hens or pullets.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Effluent</span> Liquid waste or sewage discharged into a river or the sea

Effluent is wastewater from sewers or industrial outfalls that flows directly into surface waters, either untreated or after being treated at a facility. The term has slightly different meanings in certain contexts, and may contain various pollutants depending on the source.

Effluent Guidelines are U.S. national standards for wastewater discharges to surface waters and publicly owned treatment works (POTW). The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issues Effluent Guideline regulations for categories of industrial sources of water pollution under Title III of the Clean Water Act (CWA). The standards are technology-based, i.e. they are based on the performance of treatment and control technologies. Effluent Guidelines are not based on risk or impacts of pollutants upon receiving waters.

A total maximum daily load (TMDL) is a regulatory term in the U.S. Clean Water Act, describing a plan for restoring impaired waters that identifies the maximum amount of a pollutant that a body of water can receive while still meeting water quality standards.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Best management practice for water pollution</span> Term used in the United States and Canada to describe a type of water pollution control

Best management practices (BMPs) is a term used in the United States and Canada to describe a type of water pollution control. Historically the term has referred to auxiliary pollution controls in the fields of industrial wastewater control and municipal sewage control, while in stormwater management and wetland management, BMPs may refer to a principal control or treatment technique as well.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ballast water regulation in the United States</span>

Ballast water discharge typically contains a variety of biological materials, including plants, animals, viruses, and bacteria. These materials often include non-native, nuisance, exotic species that can cause extensive ecological and economic damage to aquatic ecosystems. Ballast water discharges are believed to be the leading source of invasive species in U.S. marine waters, thus posing public health and environmental risks, as well as significant economic cost to industries such as water and power utilities, commercial and recreational fisheries, agriculture, and tourism. Studies suggest that the economic cost just from introduction of pest mollusks to U.S. aquatic ecosystems is more than $6 billion per year.

An injection well is a device that places fluid deep underground into porous rock formations, such as sandstone or limestone, or into or below the shallow soil layer. The fluid may be water, wastewater, brine, or water mixed with industrial chemical waste.

To protect the environment from the adverse effects of pollution, many nations worldwide have enacted legislation to regulate various types of pollution as well as to mitigate the adverse effects of pollution. At the local level, regulation usually is supervised by environmental agencies or the broader public health system. Different jurisdictions often have different levels regulation and policy choices about pollution. Historically, polluters will lobby governments in less economically developed areas or countries to maintain lax regulation in order to protect industrialisation at the cost of human and environmental health.

A Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) is a United States regulatory term for a periodic water pollution report prepared by industries, municipalities and other facilities discharging to surface waters. The facilities collect wastewater samples, conduct chemical and/or biological tests of the samples, and submit reports to a state agency or the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). All point source dischargers to ”Waters of the U.S.” must obtain a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the appropriate agency, and many permittees are required to file DMRs.

Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County (SWANCC) v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 531 U.S. 159 (2001), was a decision by the US Supreme Court that interpreted a provision of the Clean Water Act. Section 404 of the Act requires permits for the discharge of dredged or fill materials into "navigable waters," which is defined by the Act as "waters of the United States." That provision was the basis for the federal wetlands-permitting program.

An effluent limitation is a United States Clean Water Act standard of performance reflecting a specified level of discharge reduction achievable by the best available technology or related standards for various sources of water pollution. These sources include all industries, businesses, municipal sewage treatment plants and storm sewer systems, and other facilities that discharge to surface waters. Effluent limitations are implemented in discharge permits issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and state agencies, through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Nutrient pollution</span> Contamination of water by excessive inputs of nutrients

Nutrient pollution, a form of water pollution, refers to contamination by excessive inputs of nutrients. It is a primary cause of eutrophication of surface waters, in which excess nutrients, usually nitrogen or phosphorus, stimulate algal growth. Sources of nutrient pollution include surface runoff from farm fields and pastures, discharges from septic tanks and feedlots, and emissions from combustion. Raw sewage is a large contributor to cultural eutrophication since sewage is high in nutrients. Releasing raw sewage into a large water body is referred to as sewage dumping, and still occurs all over the world. Excess reactive nitrogen compounds in the environment are associated with many large-scale environmental concerns. These include eutrophication of surface waters, harmful algal blooms, hypoxia, acid rain, nitrogen saturation in forests, and climate change.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Water quality law</span>

Water quality laws govern the protection of water resources for human health and the environment. Water quality laws are legal standards or requirements governing water quality, that is, the concentrations of water pollutants in some regulated volume of water. Such standards are generally expressed as levels of a specific water pollutants that are deemed acceptable in the water volume, and are generally designed relative to the water's intended use - whether for human consumption, industrial or domestic use, recreation, or as aquatic habitat. Additionally, these laws provide regulations on the alteration of the chemical, physical, radiological, and biological characteristics of water resources. Regulatory efforts may include identifying and categorizing water pollutants, dictating acceptable pollutant concentrations in water resources, and limiting pollutant discharges from effluent sources. Regulatory areas include sewage treatment and disposal, industrial and agricultural waste water management, and control of surface runoff from construction sites and urban environments. Water quality laws provides the foundation for regulations in water standards, monitoring, required inspections and permits, and enforcement. These laws may be modified to meet current needs and priorities.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Water pollution in the United States</span> Overview of water pollution in the United States of America

Water pollution in the United States is a growing problem that became critical in the 19th century with the development of mechanized agriculture, mining, and industry, although laws and regulations introduced in the late 20th century have improved water quality in many water bodies. Extensive industrialization and rapid urban growth exacerbated water pollution as a lack of regulation allowed for discharges of sewage, toxic chemicals, nutrients and other pollutants into surface water.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States regulation of point source water pollution</span> Overview of the regulation of point source water pollution in the United States of America

Point source water pollution comes from discrete conveyances and alters the chemical, biological, and physical characteristics of water. In the United States, it is largely regulated by the Clean Water Act (CWA). Among other things, the Act requires dischargers to obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit to legally discharge pollutants into a water body. However, point source pollution remains an issue in some water bodies, due to some limitations of the Act. Consequently, other regulatory approaches have emerged, such as water quality trading and voluntary community-level efforts.

Los Angeles County Flood Control District v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 568 U.S. 78 (2013), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Natural Resources Defense Council and Santa Monica Baykeeper challenged the Los Angeles County Flood Control District (District) for violating the terms of its National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit as shown in water quality measurements from monitoring stations within the Los Angeles and San Gabriel Rivers. The Supreme Court, by a unanimous 9-0 vote, reversed and remanded the Ninth Circuit's ruling on the grounds that the flow of water from an improved portion of a navigable waterway into an unimproved portion of the same waterway does not qualify as a "discharge of a pollutant" under the Clean Water Act.

Water in Arkansas is an important issue encompassing the conservation, protection, management, distribution and use of the water resource in the state. Arkansas contains a mixture of groundwater and surface water, with a variety of state and federal agencies responsible for the regulation of the water resource. In accordance with agency rules, state, and federal law, the state's water treatment facilities utilize engineering, chemistry, science and technology to treat raw water from the environment to potable water standards and distribute it through water mains to homes, farms, business and industrial customers. Following use, wastewater is collected in collection and conveyance systems, decentralized sewer systems or septic tanks and treated in accordance with regulations at publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) before being discharged to the environment.

Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency, 598 U.S. ___ (2023), also known as Sackett II, was a United States Supreme Court case related to the scope of the Clean Water Act.

References

  1. ↑ United States. Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972. Pub. L.   92–500. October 18, 1972.
  2. ↑ Clean Water Act (CWA) sec. 301(a), 33 U.S.C.   § 1311.
  3. ↑ CWA sec. 402, 33 U.S.C.   § 1342.
  4. ↑ CWA sec. 502, 33 U.S.C.   § 1362.
  5. ↑ "Basic Information About Class V Injection Wells". Underground Injection Control. EPA. September 6, 2016.
  6. ↑ "Statement of Basis for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, Class V Underground Injection Control Permit # HI50710003, Maui County, Department of Environmental Management" (PDF). San Francisco, CA: EPA. November 2015. Retrieved February 21, 2019.
  7. ↑ Craig R. Glenn; Robert B. Whittier; Meghan L. Dailer; Henrieta Dulaiova; Aly I. El-Kadi; Joseph Fackrell; Jacque L. Kelly; Christine A. Waters (June 2013). Lahaina Groundwater Tracer Study – Lahaina, Maui, Hawaii - Final (PDF) (Report). University of Hawaii at Manoa . Retrieved April 25, 2020.
  8. 1 2 Cornwell, Warren (April 23, 2020). "'Hydrologists should be happy.' Big Supreme Court ruling bolsters groundwater science". Science . Retrieved April 23, 2020.
  9. 1 2 Osher, Wendy (June 8, 2016). "EPA Weighs in on Lahaina Injection Wells in West Maui". Maui Now. Retrieved February 21, 2019.
  10. 1 2 3 4 Perry, Brian (March 31, 2018). "9th Circuit rejects county's request to reconsider ruling". Maui News . Retrieved February 21, 2019.
  11. ↑ "Community Groups to Sue Maui County for Discharging Polluted Wastewater". Earthjustice. June 29, 2011. Retrieved February 21, 2019.
  12. ↑ Haw. Wildlife Fund v. Cnty. of Maui, 24F. Supp. 3d980 ( D. Haw. 2014).
  13. ↑ Haw. Wildlife Fund v. Cnty. of Maui, 881F.3d754 ( 9th Cir. 2018).
  14. ↑ Chandler, Lowell (2018). "Hawaiʻi Wildlife Fund v. County of Maui". Public Land and Resources Law Review (8). Retrieved April 26, 2020.
  15. ↑ Savage, David (February 19, 2019). "Supreme Court to decide if Clean Water Act limits Hawaii's underground wastewater dumping". Los Angeles Times . Retrieved February 19, 2019.
  16. ↑ Haw. Wildlife Fund v. Cnty. of Maui, 886F.3d737 (9th Cir.2018).
  17. ↑ "Releases from a Point Source to Groundwater". National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). April 23, 2019.
  18. 1 2 3 de Vogue, Ariana (April 23, 2020). "Supreme Court says Clean Water Act applies to some groundwater pollution". CNN . Retrieved April 23, 2020.
  19. ↑ Stohr, Greg (February 19, 2019). "Supreme Court Will Consider Limiting Scope of Clean Water Act". Bloomberg News . Retrieved February 19, 2019.
  20. ↑ South Fla. Water Mgmt. Dist. v. Miccosukee Tribe , 541 U.S. 95 (2004).
  21. ↑ Michigan v. EPA ,No. 14-46 , 576 U.S. ___(2015).
  22. ↑ Hurley, Laurence (February 19, 2019). "U.S. top court takes case that could limit water pollution law". Reuters. Archived from the original on February 19, 2019. Retrieved February 21, 2019– via CNBC.
  23. ↑ Hurley, Lawrence (November 6, 2019). "U.S. Supreme Court justices seek compromise in Hawaii water pollution case". Reuters . Retrieved November 8, 2019.
  24. ↑ Cnty. of Maui v. Haw. Wildlife Fund, No. 18-260 , 590 U.S. ___(2020).
  25. ↑ Stohr, Greg (April 23, 2020). "Supreme Court Gives Environmentalists Partial Win on Water Law". Bloomberg News . Retrieved April 23, 2020.
  26. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Gilmer, Ellen M.; Saiyid, Amena H. (April 23, 2020). "SCOTUS Clean Water Act Test 'Devastating' for Industry". Bloomberg Law . Retrieved April 26, 2020.
  27. ↑ Wolf, Richard (April 23, 2020). "Supreme Court gives environmentalists narrow win in water pollution case". USA Today . Retrieved April 25, 2020.
  28. ↑ Jacobs, Jeremy P.; King, Pamela (April 24, 2020). "Kavanaugh takes cues from Scalia in groundwater ruling". Environment & Energy Publishing . Retrieved April 25, 2020.
  29. ↑ Barnes, Robert (April 23, 2020). "Supreme Court rejects Trump administration's view on key aspect of Clean Water Act". The Washington Post . Retrieved April 23, 2020.
  30. ↑ Liptak, Adam (April 23, 2020). "Clean Water Act Covers Groundwater Discharges, Supreme Court Rules". The New York Times.
  31. ↑ Hawaiʻi Wildlife Fund et al. v. County of Maui. Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motions for Summary Judgment; Order Denying Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii. July 15, 2021. Civ. No. 12-00198.
  32. ↑ "Judge Says Maui County Must Get Clean Water Act Permit for Effluent". Hawaii Public Radio. Associated Press. July 17, 2021.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.