February 7, 2023

Volume XIII, Number 38


February 06, 2023

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

Justices Wrestle with Scope of the CWA’s Permitting Requirement

The Supreme Court of the United States heard oral argument in County of Maui v. Hawai’i Wildlife Fund, No. 18-260, a case in which the justices will decide a key jurisdictional issue under the Clean Water Act (CWA): whether the CWA’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting requirement applies to releases from point sources that traverse a nonpoint source—like groundwater—before entering navigable waters. Below, the Ninth Circuit had held that the County of Maui’s releases of treated wastewater from injection wells that reached the Pacific Ocean via groundwater required a permit because they were “fairly traceable” back to a point source. 

The justices pressed the advocates to defend their proposed tests for when a “discharge” occurs, such that the CWA requires a permit. In urging reversal, Maui contends that the CWA’s requirement that a point source be a “conveyance” means that a discharge occurs only when a point source actually delivers pollutants to navigable waters. By contrast, the environmental groups who sued Maui are asking the justices to hold that a discharge occurs whenever pollutants in navigable waters are (a) fairly traceable to a point source and (b) it was reasonably foreseeable that pollutants from that source would reach navigable waters. The United States argued in support of reversing the Ninth Circuit but argued that the Court make a narrow ruling that only excludes releases into groundwater (as opposed to releases onto land) from the NPDES permitting program.

Much of the questioning focused on three issues: the potential for evasion, predictability in the permitting regime, and whether any limiting principle could be applied to any of the arguments presented. Multiple justices expressed concerns about adopting a test that would allow otherwise-regulated entities to avoid having to obtain NPDES by locating pipes just short of navigable waters. Other questions focused extensively on the need for a standard that makes determining whether a NPDES permit is required clear before a discharge has commenced.

With the argument completed, the justices have taken the case under advisement. A decision is expected before the Court ends its term in June 2020.

© 2023 Beveridge & Diamond PC National Law Review, Volume IX, Number 312

About this Author

Richard S. Davis Clean Water Act Attorney Beveridge & Diamond Washington, DC

Richard uses his 40 years of Clean Water Act experience to find cost-effective solutions for the complex regulatory challenges that his business clients face.

Since joining Beveridge & Diamond in 1981, Richard has practiced almost exclusively under the federal Clean Water Act and its state analogues, chairing or co-chairing the firm’s Clean Water Practice Group for more than 15 years, and helping direct one of the nation’s most innovative and dynamic clean water practices.

Richard has represented individual industrial dischargers and industry groups, as well as local...

Timothy M. Sullivan Environmental & Natural Resources Litigation Attorney Beveridge & Diamond Baltimore, MD
Office Managing Principal

Tim Sullivan’s practice focuses primarily on environmental and natural resources litigation before federal and state courts and adjudicatory bodies.

He represents and advises public and private clients in regulatory, litigation, and other matters involving many federal and state environmental and natural resources laws, with a particular emphasis on Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and the Clean Water Act. Tim is the Managing Principal of Beveridge & Diamond's Baltimore office. 


    Andrew C. Silton Environmental Litigation Attorney Beveridge & Diamond Washington, DC

    Andrew C. Silton guides clients through complex regulatory issues and high stakes litigation arising under the nation's clean water laws.

    His practice focuses primarily on issues arising under the nation’s water quality laws and spans regulatory counseling, enforcement defense, and litigation. He is currently the Deputy Chair of the firm’s Water Practice Group and represents clients from both the private and public sectors in matters arising under the Clean Water Act and state law. Drew advises clients in a variety of sectors, ranging from waste and stormwater utilities to companies...