Disir
Platinum Member
- Sep 30, 2011
- 28,003
- 9,608
- 910
The Supreme Court ruled on Thursday the Clean Water Act applies to pollution that flows through groundwater into a major body of water rather than directly from a precise source, like a pipe or well, delivering a victory to environmentalists in a potentially landmark case.
In a 6-3 decision, the court sent the case, County of Maui v. Hawai’i Wildlife Fund, back to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.
Writing for the majority, Justice Stephen Breyer said the CWA, the country’s bedrock water law, requires a permit for pollution sources that amount to the “functional equivalent of a direct discharge.” Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan, Brett Kavanaugh and Sonia Sotomayor joined Breyer in the decision, although Kavanaugh wrote a separate opinion.
www.rollcall.com
What’s in the Test?
The case centers on a dispute over whether Maui County needed federal permits for injecting wastewater underground, where it migrates to the Pacific Ocean. The county and the Trump administration said the pollution’s indirect path to the ocean put it beyond the scope of the Clean Water Act’s permitting program.
The high court rejected those arguments, but stopped short of affirming the “fairly traceable” test the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit used when it sided with the Hawai’i Wildlife Fund and other groups against Maui County.
Instead, the lower court will have to consider whether Maui’s actions amount to a Clean Water Act violation under the Supreme Court-blessed functional equivalent test.
Justice Stephen Breyer, who authored the opinion, laid out two key factors for “most cases, but not necessarily every case” in determining whether indirect pollution needs permits: the distance pollution must travel to reach a federal waterway, and the time it takes to get there.
news.bloomberglaw.com
Here is the opinion:
Well, this promises to be popcorn eating fun for years.
In a 6-3 decision, the court sent the case, County of Maui v. Hawai’i Wildlife Fund, back to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.
Writing for the majority, Justice Stephen Breyer said the CWA, the country’s bedrock water law, requires a permit for pollution sources that amount to the “functional equivalent of a direct discharge.” Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan, Brett Kavanaugh and Sonia Sotomayor joined Breyer in the decision, although Kavanaugh wrote a separate opinion.
High court backs environmentalists in clean water case - Roll Call
In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court sent the case, County of Maui v. Hawai’i Wildlife Fund, back to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.
What’s in the Test?
The case centers on a dispute over whether Maui County needed federal permits for injecting wastewater underground, where it migrates to the Pacific Ocean. The county and the Trump administration said the pollution’s indirect path to the ocean put it beyond the scope of the Clean Water Act’s permitting program.
The high court rejected those arguments, but stopped short of affirming the “fairly traceable” test the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit used when it sided with the Hawai’i Wildlife Fund and other groups against Maui County.
Instead, the lower court will have to consider whether Maui’s actions amount to a Clean Water Act violation under the Supreme Court-blessed functional equivalent test.
Justice Stephen Breyer, who authored the opinion, laid out two key factors for “most cases, but not necessarily every case” in determining whether indirect pollution needs permits: the distance pollution must travel to reach a federal waterway, and the time it takes to get there.
SCOTUS Clean Water Act Test ‘Devastating’ for Industry (3)
Clean Water Act attorneys have a new permitting guidepost after the Supreme Court on Thursday struck a middle ground in a landmark case on federal water protections.
Here is the opinion:
Well, this promises to be popcorn eating fun for years.
