Supreme Court's Muddled Clean Water Act Ruling Threatens Property Rights and the Trump Administration's Deregulation Efforts

Federal clean water regulations are a confusing mess for property owners. The Supreme Court just made things worse.


The U.S. Supreme Court has set the stage for continued conflict between environmentalists, polluters, and property owners with a muddled decision that attempts to establish the outer boundaries of the federal government's power under the Clean Water Act.

In a 6-3 ruling handed down on Thursday in Maui v Hawaii Wildlife Fund—which dealt with whether a county waste treatment facility needed an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) permit to legally emit treated sewage water into underground wells—the Court ruled that anyone discharging pollution into the ground is covered by the Clean Water Act if doing so was "functionally equivalent" to emitting pollutants into a lake, river, or other regulated body of water.

The decision, which could have major implications for the Trump administration's deregulation efforts, was cheered on by environmentalists.

"This decision is a huge victory for clean water," said David Henkin, an attorney with Earthjustice. "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."

Property rights advocates, meanwhile, are warning that the Court's ruling is a confused jumble that gives landowners no clear guidance on when they might need to seek federal permission to make use of their land.

"It's really a mess," says Glenn Roper, a lawyer with the Pacific Legal Foundation. "It's a recipe for lots and lots of follow-on litigation."

The 1972 Clean Water Act requires that entities discharging pollutants—which include toxic chemicals, as well as less odious substances like sand or gravel—into "navigable waters" must first get a permit from the EPA, or else risk fines and even jail time.

What exactly counts as a discharge into navigable water is complicated by the fact that pretty much any substance one puts into the ground will eventually filter into a larger body of water. At the same time, it's obvious that Congress didn't intend for the Clean Water Act to regulate literally every discharge of a pollutant. This has set the stage for decades of litigation and rule-making over the extent of the law.

In Maui, environmental groups, led by the Hawaiian Wildlife Fund, sued the Maui county government in 2012, arguing that because the water emitted by the plant eventually made its way through groundwater to the Pacific Ocean, it was in effect discharging pollutants into a navigable water, and therefore needed an EPA permit.

The county government, alongside the Trump administration, argued that because pollutants were entering the Pacific Ocean from groundwater, it was not the direct source of those pollutants, and therefore did not need to get a permit.

Johnathan Adler, writing at Volokh Conspiracy, notes that if the Clean Water Act does cover pollution conveyed to navigable waters through groundwater, it would impose permitting requirements on "6,000 underground injection wells and over 20,000 septic systems" in Hawaii alone.

A District Court sided with the environmental groups when determining that the discharge from the Maui plant into groundwater was "functionally one into navigable water." The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit went even further in a subsequent ruling, saying that a permit was required when pollutants are "fairly traceable" from a source to a navigable water.

In his opinion in Maui, Justice Steven Breyer rejected the ruling of the Ninth Circuit, which he said gave the EPA overly broad authority, and could end up requiring permits for "pollutants carried to navigable waters on a bird's feathers, or… the 100-year migration of pollutants through 250 miles of groundwater to a river."

Instead, Breyer drew on the District Court's ruling to say that the Clean Water Act requires 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."

To determine what exactly the "functional equivalent of a direct discharge" is, Breyer's opinion lays out at least seven factors courts should consider, including the time and distance it takes for pollutants to travel into a navigable water, the nature of the material they travel through, and how much the pollutant is diluted.

Breyer acknowledges that these are vague standards and says it should be up to lower courts to apply them to the facts of individual cases. Breyer's ruling sends the Maui case back to lower courts to hash out whether the county's wastewater treatment plant does, in fact, need an EPA permit under his new multi-pronged test.

In doing so, says Roper, the Court has failed to give landowners any clear guidance as to when they might run afoul of federal regulations.

"As with any sort of balancing test, it's a mess of factors. There's no way of knowing how they're going to apply in any given situation, how to weight them, or what sort of tipping point you need to get to before it constitutes a functional equivalent," he says. "It's giving judges a blank check for how it's going to apply and how people will be punished."

This means individual landowners, companies, and other regulated entities can expect to be the target of Clean Water Act litigation for years to come, he says.

It could also have serious implications for the Trump administration's rewrite of clean water regulations, which is intended to narrow the definition of navigable waters that are regulated by the federal government.

On Tuesday, the administration published the final version of its Navigable Waters Protection Rule, which replaces the more expansive and legally controversial Waters of the United States rule the Obama administration had issued in 2015.

Among its many changes, the Trump administration's new rule declares that groundwater does not count as a navigable water under the Clean Water Act, and it's up to states and tribes, not the federal government, to regulate them.

Breyer's opinion that discharges into groundwater are in fact regulated by the law when they meet his functional equivalent test seems to conflict with this new rule. The majority opinion in Maui could thus provide more ammunition to environmental groups that have already promised to sue the Trump administration over its Navigable Waters Protection rule.

NEXT: Will Summer's Heat, Humidity, and Sunlight Help Us Slow COVID-19?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. it’s obvious that Congress didn’t intend for the Clean Water Act to regulate literally every discharge of a pollutant.

    How *dare* you?!

    1. Change Your Life Right Now! Work From Comfort Of Your Home And Receive Your First Paycheck Within A Week.vzs. No Experience Needed, No Boss Over Your Shoulder… Say Goodbye To Your Old Job! Limited Number Of Spots Open…
      Find out how HERE……More here

    2. The thing people don’t understand is that “pollutants” doesn’t mean toxic waste.

      The most common “pollutant” that draws fines is dirt. Normal dirt from normal actions that goes into a drainage ditch. A drainage ditch that, along with all the other ditches in the region, forms a “nexus” that affects the navigable waterway.

  2. “BREYER, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and GINSBURG, SOTOMAYOR, KAGAN, and KAVANAUGH, JJ., joined. KAVANAUGH, J., filed a concurring opinion. THOMAS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which GORSUCH, J., joined. ALITO, J., filed a dissenting opinion.”

    We will need two more conservatives to counteract this nonsense. Vote Biden and you’ll get more of this garbage.

    1. Yeah, if only there were two more conservatives, not biased liberals like Kavanaugh and Roberts.

      Whatever you think about the implications of this ruling, I think part IV of the opinion makes a pretty convincing argument that this is the interpretation is most supported by the text of the statute.

      The proper way to combat this is for Congress to amend the statute if they really didn’t mean for it to apply to entities which pollute navigable waters through an intermediary channel.

      P.S. I’m not voting for Biden.

      1. I agree that what the courts did was turn this back to Congress to change and be specific about what they meant. I hope that reader will note that it was not some bureaucrat that made a rule here, this is the result of a lawsuit by a civic organization. The bureaucracy is not a proactive entity it is a reactive entity. They don’t sit and make rules, Congress make laws, citizens request rules to carry out those laws, bureaucrats make rules to address citizen concerns.

        I will be voting for Biden.

        1. “I will be voting for Biden.”

          We know.

    2. Did Kavanaugh cite Wickard v Filburn as a precedent? If the power to regulate interstate commerce actually means the power to regulate anything that affects interstate commerce, well then, sure, the navigable waters of the United States can include everything that touches the water and everything that touches the everything that touches the water. The Greek fishing trawlers might not like it that we’re now counting the Mediterranean as navigable waters of the United States, but if they don’t like it they should have said something sooner.

      1. been 2106 years or so since Rome sacked Athens…

  3. +1 dissent team.

  4. Breyer acknowledges that these are vague standards

    So that’s what we’re calling the law these days? Great! In the meantime, I’m on a septic system about a thousand feet from a creek branch that flows into a bigger creek that flows into the Chattahoochee which flows into the Gulf of Mexico and I really gotta take a dump. Do I need the EPA to give me permission to flush the toilet when I’m done or not? I can certainly text them a picture of my bowel movement if it can help them make a determination. I can text them a picture of my bowel movement even if it can’t help them make a determination, for that matter. Hell, I’ll helpfully text them a picture of the exact place the bowel movement came from. Every goddamn time I take a shit, the EPA gets a set of pics.

    1. Never mind flushing the toilet, you’re gonna need a permit before you’re even allowed to pinch one off.

  5. “navigable waters”

    Here’s the simple test; if they can’t deliver the summons in a boat, it ain’t navigable water.

  6. “It’s giving judges a blank check for how it’s going to apply and how people will be punished.”

    Which means the top body in the judicial branch is supporting judicial rule in setting actual policy. Can we please get this checked and balanced, please?

  7. This kind of fucktardery is why I scorn people who view the Supreme Court with deference.

  8. Villa Kennedy is a marvelous 5 start hotel that once used to be house to the Speyer family, a banking family that lived in this house for almost 30 years.

  9. ᴍʏ ʟᴀsᴛ ᴍᴏɴᴛʜ ᴘᴀʏᴄʜᴇᴄᴋ ᴡᴀs ғᴏʀ 17000 ᴅᴏʟʟᴀʀs… ᴀʟʟ ɪ ᴅɪᴅ ᴡᴀs sɪᴍᴘʟᴇ ᴏɴʟɪɴᴇ ᴡᴏʀᴋ ғʀᴏᴍ ᴄᴏᴍғᴏʀᴛ ᴀᴛ ʜᴏᴍᴇ ғᴏʀ 2-3 ʜᴏᴜʀs/ᴅᴀʏ ᴛʜᴀᴛ ɪ ɢᴏᴛ ғʀᴏᴍ ᴛʜɪs ᴀɢᴇɴᴄʏ ɪ ᴅɪsᴄᴏᴠᴇʀᴇᴅ ᴏᴠᴇʀ ᴛʜᴇ ɪɴᴛᴇʀɴᴇᴛ ᴀɴᴅ ᴛʜᴇʏ ᴘᴀɪᴅ ᴍᴇ ғᴏʀ ɪᴛ 117-300 ʙᴜᴄᴋs ᴇᴠᴇʀʏ ʜᴏᴜʀ……..ᴛʀʏ ɪᴛ……….ʏᴏᴜʀsᴇʟғ……….► Read More

  10. i make money extra pachup $80 dollars in a month .its really change my life. if you want change your your life. just now COPY THIS WEBSITE………. Read More

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.