Supreme Court Leans Toward Expanding Clean Water Act
WASHINGTON — Supreme Court justices, both conservative and liberal, appeared skeptical Wednesday of a Trump administration argument that the federal Clean Water Act should not apply to sewage plant wastewater that flows into the ground and eventually seeps into federally protected waters, such as rivers or oceans.
The case from Hawaii has emerged as a major test of the scope of the federal anti-pollution law, even as the Environmental Protection Agency under President Donald Trump cuts back on enforcement. If justices side with environmentalists, their ruling could extend federal regulation to water treatment plants across the country.
The law makes it illegal to discharge pollutants from “any point source” that flows into protected waters, but a lawyer for the Justice Department and the County of Maui in Hawaii argued the law does not cover pollution that flows from a treatment plant through the ground and into the ocean.
The case arose when environmentalists sued a sewage plant in Maui, alleging it was discharging more than 3 million gallons of treated wastewater into the ground each day, and that some of it was flowing underground from there into the Pacific Ocean.
They won before a federal judge and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, which held that the pollution was subject to federal control because it was the “functional equivalent of a discharge into the navigable water.”
Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm Stewart said the EPA disagreed with that view. “Groundwater will break the causal chain,” he said.
“Any groundwater?” asked a skeptical Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.
Justices Elena Kagan and Stephen G. Breyer said that if that view were adopted, it would allow polluters to run pipes that stop 25 feet short of a river or bay. It would give “an absolute road map” for how to break the law while spewing pollution, Breyer said.
But the justices also struggled over how to prevent the stricter permitting rules required under the Clean Water Act from applying to ordinary home owners with a leaky septic tank.
The Supreme Court had agreed earlier this year to hear the appeal from the County of Maui, which had the backing of the Association of California Water Agencies. Their lawyers called the 9th Circuit’s ruling a “radical expansion” of federal authority.
The EPA had supported the suit brought by environmentalists when it was in the lower courts. But the Trump administration switched sides and urged the court to rule for the county.
The Clean Water Act calls for preventing discharge of pollutants into the “navigable waters of the United States.” Water agencies say the law refers only to polluted water flowing directly into streams, rivers and bays, not groundwater.
For more than a decade, the justices have been split over how far the federal government can go to regulate water inside the United States, whether it be wetlands, or, as in this case, groundwater. The court’s conservatives have argued the federal government can regulate only polluted water that flows directly into a river, bay or the ocean. The law forbids discharges of pollutants into “the waters of the United States.”
But environmentalists as well as the court’s liberal justices have said this authority can extend farther inland to prevent pollution that will eventually flow into rivers and bays.
A ruling in the case, County of Maui v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund, is expected next year.
©2019 Los Angeles Times
Visit the Los Angeles Times at www.latimes.com
Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
In The News
WASHINGTON — The Trump administration’s move to curtail a program sparing young immigrants from deportation is an effort to “dismantle” an initiative the U.S. Supreme Court just spared, a group of immigrants said in court. Acting Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf said last month that the... Read More
WASHINGTON - Senate Republicans are preparing for the possibility they and President Donald Trump will have an opportunity to turn the Supreme Court sharply to the conservative right soon. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s recent announcement that she is undergoing treatment for a recurrence of cancer is... Read More
WASHINGTON - While the Constitution does not expressly grant lifetime appointment for Supreme Court justices, it has, since the nation’s founding, been inferred from Article III, Section I, that “The Judges… shall hold their Offices during good Behavior” has meant career tenure. Today, due to advances... Read More
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court declined by a 5-4 vote Friday to halt the Trump administration's construction of portions of the border wall with Mexico following a recent lower court ruling that the administration improperly diverted money to the project. The court's four liberal justices dissented, saying... Read More
President Donald Trump came into office vowing to repeal and replace Obamacare. While he successfully neutralized the health care law’s requirement that everyone carry insurance, the law remains in effect. When Fox News host Chris Wallace noted that Trump has yet to put forward a replacement... Read More
The latest Supreme Court vote cast by Chief Justice John Roberts, rejecting an effort by a Nevada church to ease limits on attendance at its services during the coronavirus pandemic, was condemned by conservative lawmakers. Roberts was the decider late Friday, joining the court’s liberals in... Read More