FI LED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEV ENT H CI RCUI T J UNE 4, 2 009 T HOMAS K . KAHN CLERK [PUBLIS H] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 7- 13 82 9

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 2- 80 30 9- CV-CM A FRIENDS OF THE EVERGLAD ES, FLORIDA W ILDLIFE FEDERATION, Pl ai nt iffsCo un te r-Defe nd an ts App el le es Cro ss -Ap pe ll an ts , FISHERM EN AGAINST D ESTRUCTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT, Pl ai nt iffCo un te r-Defe nd an t App el le e, MIC COSUKEE TRIBE OF INDIANS OF FLORIDA, In te rv en or -Pl ai nt iffCo un te r-Defe nd an tApp el le e Cro ss -Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, Defen da nt Co un te r-Cl ai m an tCro ss -Ap pe ll ee, CAROL W EHLE, Exe cu ti ve Dire ct or ,Defen da nt App el la nt , UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, U.S. SUGAR CORPORATION, In te rv en or -Defe nd an ts App el la nt s.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal s fr om

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e So uthe rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Jun e 4 , 20 09 ) Befo re DUBINA, Ch ie f Ju dg e, CARNES, Ci rcu itJu dg e, an d GOLDBERG, * Ju dg e. CARNES, Ci rcu itJu dg e: Thi s ap pe al tu rn s o n wh ethe r th e tr an sf er o f a p ol lu tantfro m

on e n av ig ab le bo dy of wat er t o a no th er i s a “ di sc ha rg e o f a p ol lu ta nt ” wit hi n the m ean in g o f th e Cl eanW at er Act , 33 U.S.C. § 1 36 2( 12 ). If itis , a Nati on al Po ll ut io n Di sc ha rg e Eli m in at io n S y st em

pe rm itis requi red . 33 U.S.C. §§ 13 11 (a), 1 34 2( a). The Act
Honora ble Richard W. Goldberg , J udg e, United States Court of International Trade , * sitti ngby designation. 2de fin es “ di sc ha rg e o f a p ol lu ta nt ,” bu t the m ean in g o f th atde fin it io n i s i ts el f

di sp ut ed . Duri ng th e co ur se of t hi s l it ig at io n, the Env iro nm en ta l Pr ot ect io n Age nc y ad op te d areg ul at io n a dd res si ng th is sp eci fic m at te r. The i ss ue we face , aft er we d is po se of apre li m in ary Elev en th Am en dm en t que st io n, i s wh ethe r we owe th atEPA reg ul at io n d efer en ce u nd er Ch ev ro n U.S.A., In c. v. Natur al Res . Defen se Co un ci l, In c., 46 7 U.S. 8 37 , 10 4 S . Ct. 2 77 8 (1 98 4)
. I. The un ique ge og rap hy of So ut h F lo rid a is on ce ag ai n b efo re u s. See Mi cco su ke e Trib e o f In di an s o f Fl a. v. Un it edSta te s, _ _ F .3d__ _, No . 08 -1 07 99 , 20 09 W L 11 99 87 1, at*1 (11 th Cir . May 5, 2 00 9) . Lake Ok eech ob ee i s p artof th atge og rap hy. His to ric al ly, th e la ke ha d a n i ll -d efi ne d s ou th ernsh or el in e be cau se durin g ra in y

sea so ns itov erfl owe d, s pi ll in g awid e, sh al lo w sh eetof wa te r ov erl an d t o t he Flo rid a Bay. “ Bu t p ro gr es s cam e an d t oo k i ts to ll , andinth e n am e of flo odco nt ro l, the y

m ad e th ei r pl an s an d the y dra in edth e la nd .” 1 Inth e 1 93 0s th e Herb ertHoo ve r Dik e was bu il t al on g t he so ut he rnsh or e o f Lak e Oke ech ob ee. Itwas i nt en de d t o c on tro l fl oo di ng bu t fa il eddu rin g the hu rri can es of 1 94 7 a nd19 48 . Con gr es s the n aut ho riz edth e Cen tra l an d S ou th ern Fl or id a Fl oo d P ro

ject; as p artof i t the Arm y Co rp s o f Eng in eers expa nd edth e J ohn Ander son, Seminole W ind, on Seminole W ind (BMGRecords 1992)
. 1 3Hoo ve r Dik e an d b ui ltpu m p s ta ti on s i nc lu di ng S-2 , S-3 , andS-4 . Und er the
m od ernve rs io n o f th atpro ject, n earl y

all wate r fl ow i n S ou th Flo rid a is co ntro ll ed by a com pl ex syste m

of g at es , di ke s, ca na ls , andpu m p s ta ti on s. The areaso uth o f Lak e Oke ech ob ee’s s ho rel in e was de si gn at edth e Eve rg la de s Ag ric ul tu ral Area. The Co rp s dug can al s the re t o c ol le ctrai nwa te r an d
runo ff fro m

th e su ga r can e fi el ds an d the su rro un di ng in du st ria l an d re si de nt ia l area s. Notsu rp ris in gl y , th os e can al s co nt ai n alo aths om e co nc oc ti on of

2 ch em ic al co nt am in an ts in cl ud in g n itro ge n, p ho sp ho ro us , andun -io ni zedam m on ia
. The wate r in th e can al s i s fu ll of s us pe nd edan d d is so lv edso li ds an d h as a lo w ox y ge n c on te nt . Tho se po ll ut edcan al s co nn ectto Lake Okee ch ob ee, wh ic h i s n ow v irtua ll y su rro un de d b y

th e Hoo ve r Dik e. The S -2 , S-3 , andS-4 pu m p s ta ti on s ar e b ui lt in to th e d ik e an d p um

p wat er fro m

th e lo wer l ev el s i n t he can al s o ut si de th e d ik e in to th e h ig he r la ke wate r. They do t ha t b y sp ewin g wat er thr ou gh th e d ik e an d in to “ rim can al s” op ento th e la ke . This pro ces s m ov es th e wat er co nt ai ni ng Agr ic ul tu ral Area co nt am in an ts up hi ll in to Lake Okee ch ob ee, a d is ta nc e o f so m e si xty feet . The p um

ps do no t ad d a nyth in g t o t he can al wate r; t he y si m pl y m ov e it

The c anals a

re c ommonly

called the EAA c anals, a nd we will re fer

to them as the 2 agricultural c anals, a lthough they also contain industrial and r esidential runof f. 4th ro ug h p ip es . At fu ll cap aci ty, th e p um ps withi n t he S-2 , S-3 , andS-4 st at io ns caneach m ov e 9 00 cubi c fee t o f wat er p er s eco nd—m or e th an40 0,0 00 ga ll on s p er m in ut e. The So ut h F lo rid a Water M an ag em en t Di st ric t o pe rat es th e p um pi ng st at io ns . Two o rg an iz at io ns , th e Fri en ds of t he Ever gl ad es an d the Fis he rm en Aga in stth e Des tru ct io n o f th e Env iro nm en t, fi le d t hi s l aws ui t ag ai ns t the W at er Dis tri ctin20 02 . The p la in ti ffs (who m we wil l ca ll co ll ect iv el y

th e Fri en ds of t he Eve rg la de s) so ug htanin

jun ct io n t o fo rce t he W at er Di st ric t t o g eta pe rm itun de r th e Cl eanW at er Act ’s Nati on al Po ll ut io n Di sc ha rg e Eli m in at io n S y st em (NPDES) pr og ram be fo re p um

pi ng th e p ol lu te d c an al wate r in to th e la ke . The co urt al lo wed
a num be r of in te rv en ers to en te r th e la wsu it . Ass ert in g t ha t the po ll ut io n o f Lak e Oke ech ob ee thr eat en s i ts way of l ife , th e Mi cco su ke e Trib e joi ne d o n the pl ai nt iff s’ si de
. The Uni te d S ta te s, “ on be ha lf o f” the EPA andth e Co rp s, joi ne d
on th e d efen se si de , as d idth e U.S. Su ga r Co rp or at io n. Inanam en de d c om pl ai nt , th e p la in ti ffs ad de d t he W at er Di st ric t’s ex ecu ti ve di rect oras ade fen da nt . Inearl y 20 06 th ere was a two -m on th be nc h t ria l i n t he Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a. See M ic co su ke e Trib e v . S. Fla . W at er Mg m t. Di st ., 55 9 F .3d11 91 , 11 92 –9 4 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 9) (de sc rib in g t ha t tria l). Afte r th e tr ia l, the di st ric t co urt d eci de d tha t the W at er Di st ric t was imm un e und er 5th e Ele ve nt h Am en dm en t an d d is m is se d i t fr om th e cas e, bu t the co urt k ep t the
ex ecu ti ve di rect orinth e la wsu itun de r th e Ex p art e You ng do ctrin e. See Ex pa rte You ng , 20 9 U.S. 1 23 , 28 S. Ct. 4 41 (19 08 ). It co nc lu de d tha t o pe rat in g t he S-2 , S3, an d S -4 pu m

p s ta ti on s wi th ou t an NPDES perm itvi ol at edth e Cl eanW at er Act . InJu ne 20 07 th e co urt g ran te d a n i nju nc ti on ag ai ns t the ex ecu ti ve di rect orof t he W at er Di st ric t tha t re qu ire d h er t o “ ap pl y . . . fo r a NPDES p erm itforth with.” All of th e d efen da nt s ex cep t the W at er Di st ric t ap pe al edth e p artof t he fin al jud gm en t th aten joi ne d t he ex ecu ti ve di rect or , whi le th e p la in ti ffs cro ss -ap pe al edth e p art di sm is si ng th e Water Di st ric t und er the Elev en th Am en dm en t. II . W e b eg in with t he cro ss -ap pe al , whi chco nt es ts th e d is m is sa l o f th e Water Dis tri cton Elev en th Am en dm en t i m m un ity gro un ds . The p art ie s d is ag ree m ig ht il y ab ou t thi s i ss ue an d h adgo tt enso wrap pe d up i n t he arg um en ts ab ou t i t tha t n on e of th em ha d s te pp edba ckto askwhy itm at te rs . W e as ke d t ha t que st io n o f th e at to rn ey s atora l ar gu m en t, an d o nc e th ey go t p as t the de er-i n- th e-h ead li gh ts m om en t the y

co ul d o ffer

no go odreas on why we, orth ey , sh ou ldcare if the W at er Dis tri ctis inor o utof thi s l aws ui t. We bel ie ve th atitdo es no t m at te r atall
. No p arty di sp ut es th atth e ex ecu ti ve di rect orof t he W at er Di stric t h as be en pr op erl y su edun de r th e Ex p art e You ng do ctrin e. Thatdo ctrin e p ro vi de s an 6ex cep ti on to Elev en th Am en dm en t i m m un ity forlaws ui ts ag ai ns t s ta te off ic ia ls as lo ng as t he pl ai nt iff

s s eekon ly pro sp ect iv e in jun ct iv e rel ie f to st op on go in g vi ol at io ns of f

ed eral law. See Fla . Ass ’n of R eh ab . Faci li ti es , Inc . v. Fl a. Dep ’t of Heal th & Reh ab . Serv s., 2 25 F.3d12 08 , 12 19 (11 thCir . 20 00 ). Andth atis all th e pl ai nt iff s i n t hi s ca se see k. Th atrel ie f canbe ob ta in edas r ead il y by enjoi ni ng th e real -p ers on ex ecu ti ve di rect oras i t co ul d b e b y en joi ni ng bo th he r an d t he W at er Dis tri ct . See Fed . R. Civ . P. 25 (pr ov id in g fo r au to m at ic subs ti tu ti on of s uc ces so rs up on th e d eath o r en d o f te rm of t he off

ic er n am edas t he ori gi na l p arty). If
an yth in g, i njunc ti on s ag ai ns t re al pe op le are m or e eas il y en fo rcedth anth os e ag ai ns t co rp or at e o r go ve rn m en t en ti ti es be cau se real pe op le canbe pu t i n jai l. At o ne ti m e itap pe aredth atth e Ele ve nt h Am en dm en t i ss ue m ig htm at te r be cau se th e ex ecu ti ve di rect orha d i ni ti al ly argu edth atso m e o f th e rel ie f reque st edby the Fri en ds of t he Ever gl ad es was b ey on d the pro pe r sc op e o f th e Ex pa rte You ng do ctrin e. If true , th atpa rt o f th e reque st edrel ie f wou ldhave be en un av ai labl e unl es s the W at er Di st ric t i ts el f co ul d b e su ed
. Bu t J on atha n Gl og au , th e at to rn ey

rep res en ti ng th e Water Di st ric t, co nc ed edat o ral arg um en t tha t i f th e pl ai nt iff s ar e en ti tl edto th e rel ie f th ey see k, al l o f th atrel ie f canbe ob ta in edby

7en

joi ni ng th e ex ecu ti ve di rect or . W e are en ti tl edto rel y on th atco nc es si on 3 be cau se James Nut t, the att orne y rep res en ti ng th e ex ecu ti ve di rect or , ass ur edus at th e b eg in ni ng of t he arg um en ts th atGlo gau wo ul d s pe ak on th e Ele ve nt h Am en dm en t i ss ue forth e ex ecu ti ve di rect oras we ll as f orth e Water Di stric t. Two-a nd -a-h al f week s af te r or al arg um en t, h owe ve r, we rece iv eda supp le m en ta l l et te r fro m

att orne y Nut t i n wh ic h, re ferr in g t o h im se lf i n t he th ird pe rs on , he s ta te d: “ The Exec ut iv e Dir ect or ’s cou ns el di d n otha ve anop po rtu ni ty to ad dr es s the Co urt’s que st io n, p os edat t he ve ry en d, wh ethe r th e rem ed ie s av ai labl e ag ai ns t the Exec ut iv e Dir ect orth ro ug h t he fic ti onof Yo un g are the same as th e rem ed ie s av ai labl e as [si c] agai ns t the Dis tri ctwere i t n otimm un e. The y

are no t.” The be la te d l ette r is no t h el pf ul . As a g en eral m at te r itis co nc ei vabl e th at

Counsel: In this case, a ll of the relief that [the plaintiffs] wanted, they g ot. 3 Court: Alright, let me a sk you this: Are you now conc edingto this C ourt that under E x parte Young , with the Direc tor in, all of the re lief that they are now see king the y

can obtain through the Dire ctor? Counsel: Yes. Court: Okay . (OA Tr ans., Jan. 16, 2009)

8rem ed ie s av ai labl e ag ai ns t the ex ecu ti ve di rect orm ig htno t m at chth os e av ai labl e

ag ai ns t the W at er Di st ric t, i f itis no t p ro te ct edby the Elev en thAm en dm en t. Bu t we are n otde al in g wi th a ge ne ral m at te r. W e are de al in g wi th th is pa rti cu la r cas e. The on ly rem ed ie s s ou gh t ar e p ro sp ect iv e in jun ct iv e rel ie f of

th e so rt wh ic h, i f gr an te d, wo ul d b e o bt ai ne d t hr ou gh jud ic ia l p ro ces s ap pl ie d a ga in stth e ex ecu ti ve di rect or , who is res po ns ib le forth e o pe rat io n o f th e Water Di st ric t. See Fla . Sta t. § 3 73 .08 3. The pl ai nt iff

s h av e th e g reat es t i nt eres t i n t he av ai labi li ty of rem ed ie s. Th ey are s at is fie d t ha t, as th e at to rn ey forth e Water Di st ric t as su redus at o ral arg um en t,

“ th e rem ed ie s s ou gh t b y

Pla in ti ffs canbe ob ta in edag ai ns t the Exec ut iv e Dir ect or of th e Dis tri ct .” W e are , to o. To en joi n t he ex ecu ti ve di rect orof t he W at er Dis tri ctis forall pra ct ic al purp os es to en joi n the W at er Di st ric t. An d e qu ity is pr act ic al
. An i ss ue is m oo t “ whe n i t n o l on ge r pr es en ts a li ve co nt ro ve rs y with re sp ect to whi chth e co urt can g iv e m ean in gf ul rel ie f.” Fl a. Ass ’n of R eh ab . Faci li ti es , In c., 22 5 F .3dat 1 21 7; see als o P owe ll v. Mc Co rm ack , 39 5 U.S. 4 86 , 49 6, 8 9 S . Ct . 19 44 , 19 51 (19 69 ). To d eci de a m oo t i ss ue is to is su e anadvi so ry op in io n, o ne un ne ces sary

to th e jud ic ia l b us in es s atha ndan d o ut si de th e au th or ity of Art ic le III co urts . Fla. As s’n o f Reh ab . Faci li ti es , 22 5 F .3dat 1 21 6– 17 ; s ee al so B&B C he m . 9Co . v. EPA, 80 6 F .2d98 7, 9 89 (11 th Cir . 19 86 ) (“ A just ic iabl e co nt ro ve rs y is th us di st in gu is he d fr om

a di ffer en ce o r di sp ut e o f a h y po th et ic al or abs tra ctch arac te r; fro m on e th atis acad em ic or m oo t.”) . To de ci de qu es ti on s tha t d o n otm atte r to th e d is po si ti on of acas e is to sep arat e Lady Ju st ic e’s sc al es fro m

he r swo rd . That we wil l n otdo . Cf. Geor ge E. Allen , The Law as a W ay of Li fe, 2 7 (1 96 9) (“ The sc al es of ju st ic e wit ho utth e swo rdis th e im po te nc e o f la w.”). II I. Hav in g d is po se d o f th e Ele ve nt h Am en dm en t i ss ue , we turnno w to whe th er the S-2 , S-3 , andS-4 pu m ps requi re NPDES p erm it s. Th e Cl eanW at er Act b an s the “ di sc ha rg e o f an y po ll ut an t” witho uta pe rm it . 33 U.S.C. §§ 13 11 , 13 42 (a)( 1) . “ Dis ch arg e” i s d efi ne d a s “ an y ad di ti onof a ny po ll ut an t t o n av ig ab le wate rs fro m

an y po in t s ou rce.” 33 U.S.C. § 1 36 2( 12 ). It i s u nd is pu te d t ha t the ag ric ul tu ral an d i ndus tri al run of f in th e can al s co nt ai ns “po ll ut an ts ,” th atLake Okee ch ob ee an d t he can al s ar e “ navi gabl e wate rs ,” an d t ha t the se th ree p um p s ta ti on s ar e “po in t s ou rces ” ev enth ou gh th ey ad d n ot hi ng to th e wat er as th ey m ov e italo ng . See S. Fl a. W at er Mg m t. Di st . v. Mi cco su ke e Trib e, 54 1 U.S. 9 5, 1 02 , 10 5, 1 24 S. Ct. 1 53 7, 1 54 2– 43 (20 04 ). The qu es ti on is whet he r m ov in g a n e xi st in g p ol lu ta ntfro m on e n av ig ab le wate r bo dy

10to an ot he r is an“ ad di ti on . . . to na vi gabl e wat ers ” o f th atpo ll ut an t. The d is tri ct 4
co urt d eci de d tha t i t i s, b utth atde ci si on cam e b efo re the EPA ado pt edit s reg ul at io n. Ou r rev ie w is de no vo . Uni te d S ta te s v . DBB, In c., 18 0 F .3d12 77 , 12 81 (11 th Cir . 19 99 ). A. The W at er Di st ric t’s ce nt ral arg um en t i s b as edon th e “un it ary wate rs ” th eo ry . Thatth eo ry

is de riv edfro m

th e d ic ti on ary de fin it io n o f th e wor d

“ ad di ti on ,” whi chis no t d efi ne d i n t he Act. See ge ne ral ly S.D. W arre n C o. v . Me. Bd . of En vt l. Pro t., 5 47 U.S. 37 0, 3 76 , 12 6 S . Ct. 1 84 3, 1 84 7 (2 00 6) (st at in g t ha t anun de fin edst atut ory

term is to be read“ in acco rd an ce wi thit s o rd in ary or na tu ral m ean in g” (qu ot at io n o m it te d) ). The d ic ti on ary de fin it io n o f “ ad di ti on ” is

The pe rmitting re quirement doe s not apply unless the bodies of wa

ter a re me aning fully 4 distinct. Miccosukee, 541 U .S. at 112, 124 S. C t. at 1547. The district cour t concluded that L ake Okee chobee and the a gricultural c anals a re me aning fully

distinct based on ten fa ct finding s that it detailed at considera

ble length. Our re view of those f indings is limited to looki ngfor c lear err or, see Anderson v. City

of B essemer

City , 470 U.S. 564, 574, 105 S. C t. 1504, 1512 (1985), and the defe ndants do not even c halleng e them as c learly erroneous. Given the fac t findings the district court made , we a

re satisfied that the agricultural c anals a nd L ake O keec hobee a

re me aning fully distinct water bodies. The EPA wr ote an opinion letter that attempted to build a case for the w ater s not being meaning fully

distinct. That letter is not entitled to Chevron defe renc e. See Christense n v. Har ris County , 529 U.S. 576, 587, 120 S. C t. 1655 (2000) (“ Interpre tations such as those in opinion letters . . . do not war

rant Chevr on-style def

ere nce.” ). Applying Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134, 140, 65 S. C t. 161 (1944), wefind the EPA’s informa l view of the te rm “mea ningf ully distinct” unpersua sively

narr ow. 11“ to joi n, an ne x, o r un it e” s o a s t o i nc reas e th e o ve ral l n um be r or am ou ntof so m ethi ng . W eb st er’s Thi rdNew Int ern at io na l Di ct io na ry 24 (19 93 ). The un it ary wate rs th eo ry ho ld s tha t i t i s n otan“ ad di ti on . . . to na vi gabl e wate rs ” to m ov e ex is ti ng po ll ut an ts fro m on e n av ig ab le wate r to an othe r. An ad di ti on oc cu rs , un de r th is th eo ry , on ly whe n p ol lu ta nt s fi rs t en te r na vi gabl e wate rs fro m

a po in t s ou rce, n otwhen th ey are m ov edbe twee n n av ig ab le wate rs . The m et ap ho r th e Supr em e Co urt h as ad op te d t o e xp la in th e uni tary wate rs th eo ry is : “ If o ne tak es a la dl e o f so up fro m a po t, l ift s i t ab ov e th e p ot , andpo ur s i t b ack in to th e p ot , on e h as no t ‘add ed ’ so up or a nyth in g e ls e to th e p ot .” Mi cco su ke e, 54 1 U.S. at11 0, 1 24 S. Ct. at15 45 –4 6 (a lt erat io n a ndqu ot at io n m ark s o mit te d)
. Und er tha t m et ap ho r th e n av ig ab le wate rs of t he Uni te d S ta te s ar e n ota m ul ti tu de of di ffer en t p ot s, b uton e p ot . Ladl in g p ol lu ti on fro m on e n av ig ab le wate r to an ot he r do es no t ad d a nyth in g t o t he po t. So no NPDES perm itis requi redto do th at . The un it ary wate rs th eo ry ha s a l ow b at ti ng av erag e. Infact , itha s s tru ck ou t i n e ve ry

co urt o f ap pe al s wh ere i t h as co m e up t o t he pl at e. See, e.g ., Cats ki ll Mo un ta in s C h. o f Tro utUnl im it ed , Inc . v. Ci ty of New York (C at sk il ls I), 27 3 F.3 d 4 81 , 49 1 (2 d C ir. 2 00 1) (“ [T]he tr an sf er o f wat er co nt ai ni ng po ll ut an ts fro m on e b od y of wa te r to an ot he r, di st in ctbo dy of wat er i s p la in ly an ad di ti on an d t hu s 12a ‘dis ch arg e’ tha t d em an ds anNPDES perm it .”); Cat sk il l M ou nt ai ns Ch . of Tro ut

Unl im it ed , Inc . v. Ci ty of New York (C at sk il ls II), 4 51 F.3d77 , 83 (2dCir . 20 06 ) (co nc lu di ng th at“ [t]he Cit y als o re as se rts th e uni ta ry -wat er the ory of n av ig ab le wate rs . Our rejec ti on of thi s the ory inCat sk il ls I, ho wev er, i s . . . no t u nd erm in ed ” by Micc os uk ee, 5 41 U.S. 95 , 12 4 S . Ct. 1 53 7) ; Dag ue v. Ci ty of Bu rli ng to n, 9 35 F.2 d 1 34 3, 1 35 4– 55 (2dCir . 19 91 ) (rejec ti ng th e id ea tha t p ol lu ta nt s ar e ‘add ed ’ on ly on fi rs t en try int o a ny nav ig ab le wate r); Dub oi s v . U.S. Dep’t o f Agr ic ., 10 2 F.3 d 1 27 3, 1 29 6 (1 stCir . 19 96 ) (“ [T]here i s n o b as is inlaw o r fac t fo r th e d is tri ct co urt’s ‘si ng ul ar en ti ty’ [un it ary wate rs ] th eo ry .”); N. Plai ns Res . Cou nc il v. Fi de li ty E xp lo rat io n a ndDev., 3 25 F.3d11 55 , 11 63 (9t h C ir. 2 00 3) . Eventh e Supr em e Co urt h as cal le d astrik e o r two on th e th eo ry , st at in g i n M ic co su ke e th at

“ se ve ral NPDES pro vi si on s m ig htbe readto su gg es t a v ie w con trary to th e uni ta ry wate rs ap pr oa ch .” 54 1 U.S. at10 7, 1 24 S. Ct. at15 44 . The Co urt h as no t, ho wev er, cal le d t he th eo ry ou t yet. W e h av e n o c on tro ll in g c irc ui t p rece de nton th e uni ta ry wate rs th eo ry . W e di d a t o ne ti m e d eci de to rejectit , bu t tha t d eci si on was v acat ed . See Mi cco su ke e Trib e v . S. Fla . W at er Mg m t. Di st ., 28 0 F .3d13 64 , 13 68 (11 th Cir . 20 02 ) (co nc lu di ng th at“ ad di ti on . . . to na vi gabl e wat ers ” in cl ud es pu m pi ng po ll ut ed wate r fro m

on e n av ig ab le wate r bo dy int o a no th er), v acat ed , Mic co su ke e, 54 1 13U.S. at 1 12 , 12 4 S . Ct. at15 47 . Part s o f de ci si on s tha t ar e v acat edan d h av e n ot

be enrei ns ta te d “ ha ve no leg al effe ctwhat ev er. The y are v oi d.” Uni te d S ta te s v . Si gm a In t’l, In c., 30 0 F .3d12 78 , 12 80 (11 th Cir . 20 02 ) (enba nc ). W e are free to gi ve st at em en ts ina va cat edop in io n p ers ua si ve va lu e if we th in k t he y

de se rv e it
. See Tal la ha ss ee NAACP v . LeonCo un ty, 82 7 F .2d14 36 , 14 40 (11 thCir . 19 87 ). InMi cco su ke e, we ad dr es se d wh ethe r th e la w requi redanNPDES perm it be fo re p ol lu te d wat er co ul d b e m ov edth ro ug h t he S-9 pu m p fr om so m e p art ic ul ar Eve rg la de s ca na ls in to a wate r co ns erv at io n a rea. 2 80 F.3dat 1 36 7. Ina fo ot no te , we de cl in edto ad op t the un it ary wate rs th eo ry . Id. at13 68 n.5 (“ W e rejectth e W at er Di st ric t’s ar gu m en t tha t n o a dd it io n o f po ll ut an ts canoc cu r un le ss po ll ut an ts are ad de d fr om th e o ut si de worl d i ns of

ar as th e Water Di st ric t co nt en ds th e o ut si de worl d c an no t i nc lu de an ot he r bo dy of n av ig ab le wate rs .”). In st eadwe sa idth at“ th e rec ei vi ng bo dy of wat er i s the rel ev an t b ody of n av ig ab le wate r” an d th at“ th e rel ev an t i nqui ry is whet he r—b utforth e p oi ntso ur ce—th e p ol lu ta nt s wou ldha ve be enad de d t o t he rece iv in g b ody of wate r.” Id . at 1 36 8. Fo r th at pr op os it io n we c it edCat sk il ls I, a Seco ndCir cu itde ci si on reject in g t he un it ary wate rs th eo ry . Becau se th e p ol lu te d c an al wate r wou ldno t h av e fl owe d i nt o t he co ns erv at io n a rea b utforS-9 's p um pi ng , we con cl ud edth atS-9 was a dd in g po ll ut an ts to a m ean in gf

ul ly dis ti nc t wat er b od y , so anNPDES perm itwas

14requi red . Id. at13 68 –6 9. Th e Supr em e Co urt v acat edou r de ci si on an d re m an de d

fo r fu rth er fa ct fin di ng s, h owe ve r, be cau se th e ex is ti ng reco rddi d n otco nv in ce i t th atth e can al s an d t he wate r co ns erv at io n a rea wer e m ean in gf ul ly dis ti nc t wat er bo di es . Mic co su ke e, 54 1 U.S. at11 2, 1 24 S. Ct. at15 47 . The Co urt al so st at ed th atth e Water Di st ric t’s u ni ta ry wate rs arg um en t was to be av ai labl e o n re m an d. Id . at 1 12 , 12 4 S . Ct. at15 47 . Insu m , all of t he ex is ti ng pre ced en t an d t he st at em en ts inou r own va cat ed de ci si on are ag ai ns t the un it ary wate rs th eo ry . Thatpre ced en t an d tho se st at em en ts tak e th e v ie w th atth e tr an sf er o f po ll ut an ts fro m

on e m ean in gf

ul ly di st in ctna vi gabl e b od y

of wa te r to an ot he r is an“ ad di ti on. . . to na vi gabl e wat ers ” fo r Cl eanW at er Actpe rm it ti ng pu rp os es . If no th in g h adch an ge d, we m ig htm ak e itun an im ou s. Bu t the re h as be ena ch an ge . An im po rta nton e. Und er i ts reg ul at ory

au th or ity , th e EPA ha s re cen tl y is su eda reg ul at io n a do pt in g afin al rul e sp eci fic al ly addres si ng th is ve ry qu es ti on . Becau se th atreg ul at io n was no t av ai labl e atth e ti m e o f th e ear li er d eci si on s, the y are n otpre ced en t ag ai ns t i t. We are t he fir stco urt t o a dd res s the “ ad di ti on . . . to na vi gabl e wat ers ” is su e in li gh t of th e reg ul at io n—to de ci de whet he r th e reg ul at io n i s due Ch ev ro n d efer en ce.

15B.

The EPA’ s n ew reg ul at io n, wh ic h b ecame fin al on June 13 , 20 08 , exp la in s th atitwas a do pt edto : cl ari fy th atwate r tr an sf

ers are n otsubjec t t o re gu la ti on un de r th e Nat io na l Po ll ut io n Di sc ha rg e Eli m in at io n S y st em (NPDES) p erm it ti ng pro gr am . Thi s ru le de fin es wate r tr an sf ers as a n a ct iv ity

th atco nv ey s o r co nn ect s wate rs of t he Uni te d S ta te s wi th ou t s ub jecti ng th e tr an sf

erre d wat er t o in te rv en in g i ndus tri al , m

un ic ip al , or c omm erci al us e. NPDES W at er Tran sf

ers Ru le , 73 Fed . Reg . 33 ,69 7– 70 8 (J un e 1 3, 2 00 8) (co di fie d at40 C.F.R. § 12 2.3 (i) ). Every on e ag rees th atth e EPA’s reg ul at io n i s en ti tl edto Ch ev ro n d efer en ce i f itis a reas on ab le co ns tru ct io n o f anam bi gu ou s s tatu te . Und er Sm il ey

v. Ci ti ba nk , 51 7 U.S. 7 35 , 74 0– 41 , 11 6 S . Ct. 1 73 0, 1 73 4 (1 99 6) , an d Un it edSta te s v . Mo rto n, 4 67 U.S. 82 2, 8 35 n.2 1, 1 04 S. Ct. 2 76 9, 2 77 6 n .21 (1 98 4) , itdo es no t m at te r th atth e reg ul at io n was pro po se d a ndis su edwell aft er th e b eg in ni ng of t hi s l aws ui t. Nei th er d oe s i t m atte r if itwas d on e in res po ns e to th is or s im il ar l aws ui ts . See Barn hart v . W al to n, 5 35 U.S. 21 2, 2 21 , 12 2 S . Ct. 12 65 , 12 71 (20 02 ). Nor d oe s i t m at te r whe th er the ne w reg ul at io n i s a dram at ic sh iftinEPA po li cy . Natl . Cab le & Tele co m m . Ass oc . v. BrandX Int ern etServ s., 54 5 U.S. 9 67 , 98 1, 1 25 S. Ct. 2 68 8, 2 69 9 (2 00 5) (“ Age nc y in co ns is te nc y

is no t a ba si s fo r de cl in in g t o a na lyze th e ag en cy ’s in te rp ret at io n u nd er the Ch ev ro n fram ewo rk .”). 16All th atm at te rs is whet he r th e reg ul at io n i s a r eas on ab le co ns tru ct io n o f an

am bi gu ou s s ta tu te . Che vr on , 46 7 U.S. at84 2– 43 , 10 4 S . Ct. at27 81 (“ If the in te nt of Co ng res s i s cl ear, tha t i s the en d o f th e m at te r; f orth e co urt, as well as the ag en cy , m

us t g iv e eff

ectto th e una m

bi gu ou sl y ex pr es se d i nt en t o f Co ng res s.”) ; i d. at84 4, 1 04 S. Ct. at27 82 (“ [A] court m ay no t s ub st itut e it s o wn co ns tru ct io n o f a st atut ory pro vi si on fora reas on ab le in te rp ret at io n m ad e b y th e adm in is tra to r of

an ag en cy .”); Sie rra C lub v . Jo hn so n, 5 41 F.3d12 57 , 12 65 n.3 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ) (“ [A] co urt m us t g iv e eff

ectto anag en cy ’s reas on ab le in te rp ret at io n o f anam bi gu ou s st atut e.”). In o th er wo rd s, the re m us t b e two or m or e rea so nabl e way s t o i nt erp ret th e st atut e, an d t he reg ul at io n m us t ad op t o ne of t ho se way s. Th os e two requi rem en ts are o bv io us ly int ertwin ed . See Ma tthe w C. Ste ph en so n & Adri an Verm eu le , Che vr on Has On ly O ne Ste p, 9 5 Va. L. Rev . 59 7 (2 00 9) ; Ori n S . Kerr, Sh ed di ng Lig hton Ch ev ro n: An Em pi ric al Stu dy of th e Ch ev ro n Do ctrin e in th e U.S. Cou rts of Ap pe al s, 1 5 Yal e J. o n R eg . 1, 3 0 (1 99 8) (ex am in in g 2 00 co urt o f ap pe al s ca se s ap pl y in g C he vr on an d fi nd in g t ha t i n 2 8 p erce ntof t he m th e in qu iry was co ll ap se d i nt o t he si ng le qu es ti on of wh ethe r th e in te rp ret at io n was reas on ab le ). The Fri en ds of t he Ever gl ad es ’ po si ti on is th atth e EPA’s reg ul at io n d oe s no t warran t Ch ev ro n d efer en ce b ecau se th e m ean in g o f th e “ ad di ti on . . . to 17na vi gabl e wat ers ” la ng ua ge is cle ar an d i ts lac k o f am bi gu ity for ecl os es th e uni ta ry wate rs th eo ry . Cf., e.g., Ala . Powe r Co . v. U.S. Dep ’t of En erg y , 30 7 F .3d13 00 , 13 12 (11 th Cir . 20 02 ) (fi nd in g t ha t, b ecau se “us in g t rad it io na l t oo ls of s tatu to ry co ns tru ct io n,” th e Nuc le ar Wast e Po li cy Act p ro vi si on inqu es ti on was c le ar, n o le ve l o f de fere nc e ap pl ie d t o t he ag en cy ’s con tra ry in te rp ret at io n) ; Br an d X, 5 45 U.S. at 9 82 –8 3, 1 25 S. Ct. at27 00 (“ Onl y a jud ic ia l p rece de ntho ld in g tha t the st atut e una m

bi gu ou sl y for ecl os es th e ag en cy ’s in te rp ret at io n, an d the refo re co nt ai ns no gap fo r th e ag en cy to fil l, d is pl aces a co nf

li ct in g a ge nc y co ns tru ct io n.” ). The de fen da nt s h av e two alt ern at iv e p os it io ns . Thei r bo ld er po si ti onis th atth e EPA’s reg ul at io n m irr or s the un am bi gu ou s m ean in g o f th e st atut e. Thei r m or e m od es t o ne is th atev enif the st atut e is am bi gu ou s, the reg ul at io n i s o ne reas on ab le in te rp ret at io n o f it . The tru e co nf li ct , andm os t o f ou r di sc us si on , cen te rs on whet he r th ere i s ambig ui ty. C. Bo th si de s p it chsev eral de ci si on s t o u s. Th e Water Di st ric t, ar gu in g fo r am bi gu ity , th ro ws u s Nat io na l Wild li fe Fe de rat io n v . Con su m ers Po wer Co ,, 86 2 F.2 d 5 80 (6t h C ir. 1 98 8) , andNati on al W il dl ife Fed erat io n v . Gors uc h, 6 93 F.2d 15 6 (D.C . Cir . 19 82 ). In t ho se cas es th e co urts co nc lu de d t ha t the “ di sc ha rg e o f a po ll ut an t” lan gu ag e in th e Cl eanW at er Actwas a m bi gu ou s an d d eferredto th e 18EPA’ s v ie w th atda m s d idno t ad d p ol lu ta nt s, wh ic h m ean t tha t n o NPDES p erm it s

were n eces sa ry . 86 2 F .2dat 5 84 –8 5; 69 3 F .2dat 1 83 . The i ss ue s tho se cas es ad dr es se d, h owe ve r, were d iff eren t fr om

th e o ne be fo re u s. InGors uc h t he Nati on al W il dl ife Fed erat io n s ue d t he EPA forfai li ng to requi re NPDES p erm it s fo r da m s. 6 93 F.2dat 1 61 . The m an -m ad e d am s an d t he ir res erv oi rs cau se d c hang es inth e wat er’s t em pe ratur e, nu tri en t l oa ds , andox y ge n co nt en t, an d t he affe ct edwate r was th enrel eas edth ro ug h t he da m s i nt o t he riv ers be lo w. Id. The EPA gav e two reas on s wh y no pe rm itwas re qu ire d: (1) th e ch an ge s caus edby the dam s wer e n otpo ll ut an ts ; an d (2 ) ev enif the y were, rel eas in g wat er thr ou gh a da m di d n otad d t ho se po ll ut an ts to th e wat er b ecau se th e wat er wo ul d h av e rea ch edth e d own st ream riv er an y way , andit s p as sa ge th ro ug h t he da m

di d n otch an ge it . Id. at16 5. Th e D.C. Ci rcu itco nc lu de d t ha t ne ithe r th e la ng ua ge of t he st atut e n or it s l eg is la ti ve hi st ory

co nc lu si ve ly supp orte d e ithe r si de ’s po si ti on ab ou t wh at“ di sc ha rg e o f a p ol lu ta nt ” m ean t u nd er th e ci rcu m st an ces of t ha t ca se , so th e co urt d eferredto th e EPA’s po si ti on . Id. at 5 17 5, 1 83 .

Gorsuch pr edate s Chevron but applied a substantially

simil ar le vel of de fer ence . See 5 693 F.2d at 181 (“We hold mere ly that EPA’s interpre tation is reasona ble, not inconsistent with congressional intent, and e ntitled to gre at def ere nce; ther efor e, it must be upheld.”). 19Indo in g s o, the Gors uc h c ou rt a ccep te d t he EPA’ s p os it io n t ha t co ld er

wate r an d c ha ng es inox y ge n a nddi ss ol ve d n ut rie ntco nt en t wer e n otpo ll ut an ts at al l. Id . at 1 74 . Thatren de redirr el ev an t wh ethe r th e ch an ge d wat er was be in g ‘add ed ’ to na vi gabl e wat er b y it s m ov em en t thr ou gh a da m . In an y ev en t, the wate r was m ov in g fr om

a ri ve r ab ov e a d am

to th e sa m e ri ve r be lo w it . Becau se th e fac ts of the cas e d idno t p res en t the is su e o f whe th er the tra ns fer o f po ll ut an ts fro m on e b od y of wa te r to a di ffer en t b od y of wate r ad ds po ll ut an ts to th e na vi gabl e wat ers , th e Gor su chco urt co ul d n otha ve de ci de d t ha t i ss ue . W at ts v. Bel lS ou thTele co m

m s., In c., 31 6 F .3d12 03 , 12 07 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ) (“ Wha te ve r th ei r op in io ns say, j ud ic ia l d eci si on s ca nn otm ak e la w beyon d the fact s o f th e cas es inwhi chth os e d eci si on s ar e an no un ced .”); Uni te d S ta te s v . Agu il la rd , 21 7 F.3 d 1 31 9, 1 32 1 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 0) (sa m e). It fo ll ows th atth e co urt al so co ul d n ot ha ve de ci de d wh ethe r th e st atut ory lan gu ag e was am

bi gu ou s re ga rd in g t ha t i ss ue , whi chis th e o ne be fo re u s. Lan gu ag e can be am bi gu ou s i n s om e res pe ct s b utno t in ot he rs . The ot he r de ci si on th e Water Di st ric t p it ch es us is Co ns um ers Po wer. In th atcas e a p owe r pl an t s uc ke d wat er co nt ai ni ng so m e unl uc ky fis h o utof Lak e Mi ch ig an , pu m

pe d t he wate r up hi ll , andth endi rect editan d t he fis h b ackdo wnh il l th ro ug h turbi ne s tha t g en erat edele ctric ity . 86 2 F .2dat 5 81 . In the pro ces s the 20tu rb in es pu reedso m e o f th e fi sh an d s pe wedth e fi shpu ree b ackin to Lake

Mi ch ig an . Id. at58 1– 82 . The p la ntwas a“ da m ” fo r pe rm itti ng pu rp os es be cau se pa rt o f th e g en erat in g p ro ces s i nv ol ve d i m po un di ng wate r. Id. at58 9– 90 . Deferrin g t o t he EPA’ s p os it io n, the Six th Cir cu itco nc lu de d t ha t “ any en tra in ed fis h re le as edwith t he
. . . faci li ty’ s turbi ne ge ne rat in g wat er o rig in at e in Lake Mi ch ig anan d d o n oten te r th e Lak e fro m th e o ut si de worl d.” Id. at58 5. Fi sh , li vi ng or d ead , are b io lo gi cal m at eri al un de r th e Cl eanW at er Act , andth e fi sh in Co ns um ers Po wer h adalwa y s ex is te d i n t he same lak e to whi chth e p owe r pl an t returne d t he m . See i d. Acco rd in gl y , th e co urt d idno t h av e b efo re i t, an d s o c ou ld no t h av e d eci de d, wh ethe r m ov in g p ol lu ta nt s b etweendi ffer en t b od ie s o f
na vi gabl e wat er co ns ti tu te s an ad di ti on of p ol lu ta nt s t o n av ig ab le wate rs . See W at ts , 31 6 F .3dat 1 20 7. Gor su chan d C on su m ers Po wer i nv ol ve d wat er tha t wo un d up wh ere i t wou ldha ve go ne an yway . Thatis no t the cas e h ere. Water f ro m th e ag ric ul tu ral can al s wo ul d n otflo w up st ream in to Lake Okee ch ob ee i f th e S-2 , S-3 , andS-4 pu m ps di d n otm ov e itth ere. Here , un li ke inGors uc h a ndCo ns um ers Po wer, po ll ut an ts are b ei ng m ov edbe twee n m ean in gf ul ly dis ti nc t wat er b od ie s. The fa ct 6 th atth os e d eci si on s fo un d t he st atut e am bi gu ou s as ap pl ie d t o d iff eren t fa ctua l See supra

note 2. 6 21si tu at io ns is of l it tl e h el p t o t he W at er Di st ric t. See Barn ha rt v . Sig m on Co al Co .,

53 4 U.S. 4 38 , 45 0, 1 22 S. Ct. 9 41 , 95 0 (2 00 2) (ex pl ai ni ng th atth e in qu iry as t o whe th er a s ta tu te is am

bi gu ou s i s u nd ert ak en“ with re ga rdto th e p art ic ul ar d is pu te in th e cas e”); Uni te d S ta te s v . San to s, _ _ U.S. _ _, 1 28 S. Ct. 2 02 0, 2 02 4 (2 00 8) (n ot in g t ha t “ co nt ex t g iv es m ean in g” with re ga rdto th e ci rcu m st an ces un de r whi cha st atut e is am

bi gu ou s) . Con te xtm ean s a l ot . The Fri en ds of t he Ever gl ad es , arg ui ng ag ai ns t am bi gu ity , pi tc h u s o th er de ci si on s. See , e.g., Ca ts ki ll s I, 2 73 F.3dat 4 81 ; Ca ts ki ll s II , 45 1 F .3dat 7 7; Mi cco su ke e, 28 0 F .3dat 1 36 7, v acat ed , 54 1 U.S. at11 2, 1 24 S. Ct. at15 47 ; Dub oi s, 1 02 F.3dat 1 27 3. Th ey arg ue th atall of t he co urts of app eal s tha t h av e ad dr es se d t he is su e h av e fo un d t ha t “ any ad di ti on of a ny po ll ut an t t o n av ig ab le wate rs ” in cl ud es m ov in g p ol lu te d wat er b etweenm ean in gf ul ly dis ti nc t wat er bo di es . Thatst at em en t d ep en ds , ho wev er, o n wh aton e m ean s b y “ th e is su e.” Each de ci si on th e Fri en ds of t he Ever gl ad es rel y on ad dr es se d wh ic h i nt erp ret at io n of th e st atut ory

lan gu ag e was m os t p laus ib le or p refe rab le . Becau se th ey all cam e ou t b efo re the EPA’ s n ew reg ul at io n wen t i nt o e ffec t, n on e o f th os e d eci si on s ad dr es se d t he is su e b efo re u s, wh ic h i s wh ethe r th e EPA’s in te rp ret at io n o f th e st atut ory lan gu ag e is reas on ab le , eve n i f we m ig htpre fer ano th er o ne . Decid in g ho w bes t t o c on st ru e st atut ory lan gu ag e is no t the same thi ng as d eci di ng whet he r

22a p art ic ul ar co ns tru ct io n i s wi th in th e b al lp arkof r eas on ab le ne ss . See Bra ndX,

54 5 U.S. at98 0, 1 25 S. Ct. at26 99 (“ Ch ev ro n re qu ire s a f ed eral co urt t o a ccep t the ag en cy ’s con st ru ct io n o f th e st atut e, ev enif the ag en cy ’s read in g d iff ers fro m what th e co urt b el ie ve s i s the be stst atut ory in te rp ret at io n.” ); S ho tz v. Ci ty of Pl an ta ti on , 34 4 F .3d11 61 , 11 78 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ) (o bs erv in g t ha t “ in th e ab se nc e o f an adm in is tra ti ve in te rp ret at io n,” a co urt m us t i m po se it s o wn co ns tru ct io n o n t he st atut e). St il l, the Fri en ds of t he Ever gl ad es urg e u s t o i nf er fro m th e o pi ni on s i n th os e o th er ca se s tha t the co urts be li ev edth e Act ’s lan gu ag e una m bi gu ou sl y requi res a pe rm itinth es e ci rcu m st an ces , andth ey arg ue th atwe sh ou ldbe pe rs ua de d b y

th atin fere nc e. Inth e Cat sk il ls cas es , th e Sec on d C irc ui t h el d t ha t pu m pi ng po ll ut edwate r fro m th e Sch oh ari e Res erv oi r in to th e Eso pu s C reek requi redanNPDES permit . Cats ki ll s I, 2 73 F.3dat 4 89 . Tho se wate r bo di es were hydro lo gi cal ly con ne ct ed ; the y bo th flo wedin to th e Hud so n R iv er. Bu t b ecau se of di rect io na l fl ow an d g rav ity , water s fr om th e res erv oi r “un de r na tu ral co nd it io ns . . . w ou ldne ve r rea chEso pu s C reek .” Id . at 4 84 . The Se co ndCir cu itst at edth at

“ [n ]o on e can reas on ab ly argu e th atth e wat er i n t he Res erv oi r an d t he Eso pu s ar e in an y sen se th e ‘sam e.’” Id. at49 2.

23The Seco ndCir cu itth enbru sh edasi de th e EPA’s in fo rm al op in io n t ha t n o

pe rm itwas re qu ire d. Th e co urt ci te d t he “ or di nary m ean in g” of t he st atut ory tex t, es pe ci al ly the word“ ad di ti on ,” an d c al le d t he “ ‘sin gu lar en ti ty’ th eo ry of
na vi gabl e wat ers . . . in co ns is te ntwith t he ord in ary m ean in g o f th e wor d ‘add it io n.’” Id. at 4 93 . It co nc lu de d t ha t “ no ne of t he st atut e’s br oa d p ur po se s sway s u s fr om

whatwe fin d t o b e th e p la in m ean in g o f it s t ex t . . . . W e fi ndth at th e te xtua l re qu ire m en ts of t he
. . . de fin it io n o f ‘dis ch arg e o f a p ol lu ta nt ’ in§ 13 62 (1 2) are m ethe re.” Id . at 4 94 . In Ca ts ki ll s II th atco urt co nf irmed it s ho ld in g. Indo in g s o, i t fo un d u np ers ua si ve th e EPA’s 20 05 gu id an ce l et te r, whi ch rei te rat edth e EPA’s vi ew th ata pe rm itwas n otrequi red . Thatlet te r, th e co urt ex pl ai ne d, “ si m

pl y ov erl oo ke d [t he ] pl ai n l an gu ag e [o f th e st atut e].” 45 1 F .3dat 84 . The l et te r was no t en ti tl edto , anddi d n otrece iv e, Ch ev ro n- le ve l d efer en ce. Id . at 8 2. Iton ly w arra nt edan d re cei ve d S ki dm or e co ns id erat io n fo r pe rs ua si ve va lu e, whi chis a si gn ifi can tl y les s d efer en ti al st an da rd . Id. Im po rta nt ly, th e Sec on d C irc ui t ex pl ic it ly refus edto for ecl os e th e po ss ib il ity

th atit s d eci si on m ig htbe di ffer en t i f Ch ev ro n d efer en ce ap pl ie d. Cat sk il ls I, 27 3 F .3dat 4 90 (“ If the EPA’ s p os it io n h adbe enad op te d i n a ru le m ak in g o r ot he r fo rm al pro ceed in g, d efer en ce o f th e so rt app li edby the

24Gor su chan d C on su m ers Po wer co urts m ig htbe ap pr op ria te .”). Thatis th e

si tu at io n we h av e h ere. Ourop in io n i n M ic co su ke e fo ll owe d t he same lin e o f rea so ni ng as t he Seco ndCir cu itinth e Cat sk il ls cas es an d re se rv edth e sa m e que st io n, wh ic h i s the qu es ti on be fo re u s n ow. Mi cco su ke e, 28 0 F .3dat 1 36 7, v acat ed , 54 1 U.S. at11 2, 12 4 S . Ct. at15 47 . In M ic co su ke e we s ta te d o urbe li ef tha t the Cle anW at er Act requi redanNPDES permitfor tra ns fers of p ol lu te d wat er b etweenm ean in gf ul ly di st in ctwate r bo di es , bu t we qua li fie d t ha t co nc lu si on . Id. at13 69 . W e p oi nt ed ou t tha t we co ul d “ as cert ai n n o EPA p os it io n app li cab le to S-9 to whi chto gi ve an y de fere nc e, m

uc h l es s C he vr on de fere nc e.” Id . at 1 36 8 n .4. No w th ere i s an EPA reg ul at io n t ha t p os es th e Ch ev ro n i ss ue m is si ng fro m th e Mi cco su ke e cas e. 7 Non e o f th e d eci si on s the pa rti es ha ve th ro wn o urway he lp s ei th er s id e m uc h. Th e Water Di st ric t’s d eci si on s fo un d a m bi gu ity inth e rel ev an t p ro vi si on of th e Cl eanW at er Actas i t ap pl ie d t o d am s i nv ol vi ng th e sam e b od ie s o f wat er, n ot to pu m ps tra ns ferr in g p ol lu tant s b etweenm ean in gf ul ly dis ti nc t b od ie s o f wat er.

The Dubois ca se is simil ar to Micc osukee a nd the Catskills cases. In Dubois the First 7 Circuit held that transfe rringpollutants from a river to a pond re quired a

n NPDES permit beca use the c ourt wante d to avoid “a w atering down of Congress’ c lear statutory protec tions.” 102 F.3d at 1299. Howeve r, the c ourt did not apply Chevron def

ere nce, id. at 1285 n.15, and it does not appe ar that the For est Service had promulg ated a reg ulation that the court c ould have defe rre d to even if it had de sired to do so. I d. at 1296–99. 25The Fri en ds of t he Ever gl ad es ’ de ci si on s, tho ug h i nv ol vi ng th e sa m e fac tu al

co nt ex t, d eci de d o nl y

ho w bes t t o c on st ru e th e st atut ory lan gu ag e—n otwhet he r th atlan gu ag e is am

bi gu ou s an d c ou ldreas on ab ly be co ns tru edan othe r way . W e tu rnto th atis su e n ow. IV. Inth e fi rs t s te p o f Ch ev ro n a na lysis we ap pl y th e tr ad it io na l t oo ls of st atut ory co ns tru ct io n t o a sc ert ai n wh ethe r Co ng res s h ada sp eci fic in te ntonth e pr eci se qu es ti on be fo re u s. See Ch ev ro n, 4 67 U.S. at 8 43 n.9 , 10 4 S . Ct. at27 82 n.9 (“ If a co urt, em

pl oyin g trad it io na l t oo ls of s tatu to ry co ns tru ct io n, as cert ai ns th atCo ng res s h adanin te nt io n o n t he pre ci se qu es ti on at i ss ue , th atin te nt io n i s the la w andm

us t b e g iv eneffe ct .”). If Co ng res s d id , th enth e st atut e is no t am bi gu ou s an d C he vr on ha s n o ro le to pl ay . The trad it io na l t oo ls of s ta tu to ry co ns tru ct io n in cl ud e “ ex am in at io n o f th e te xtof t he st atut e, it s s tru ctur e, an d i ts st at ed pu rp os e.” Mi am i-Da de Co un ty v. EPA, 52 9 F .3d10 49 , 10 63 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ); s ee al so Ro bi ns on v. Sh el l Oi l Co ., 51 9 U.S. 3 37 , 34 1, 1 17 S. Ct. 8 43 , 84 6 (1 99 7) (“ The pl ai nn es s o r am

bi gu ity of s ta tu to ry

lan gu ag e is de te rm in edby referen ce t o

26th e la ng ua ge it se lf, the sp eci fic co nt ex t i n wh ic h tha t l an gu ag e is us ed , andth e

br oa de r co nt ex t o f th e st atut e as a who le .”). 8 A. The Cle anW at er Actou tl aws “ th e d is ch arg e o f an y po ll ut an t” subjec t t o se ve ral ex cep ti on s, o ne of wh ic h i s wh ere a n NPDES p erm itis ob ta in ed . 33 U.S.C. §§ 13 11 , 13 42 (a)( 1) . “ Dis ch arg e” i nc lu de s “ any ad di ti on of a ny po ll ut an t to na vi gabl e wat ers fro m an y po in t s ou rce.” 33 U.S.C. § 1 36 2( 12 ). “ Nav ig ab le wate rs ,” in tu rn , is de fin edas “ th e wat ers of t he Uni te d S ta te s.” 3 3 U.S.C. § 13 62 (7 ). The Supr em e Co urt h as rece nt ly ins tru ct edth atth e te rm “ di sc ha rg e o f po ll ut an ts ” an d i ts de fin it io n i s “ of pa rti cu la r si gn ifi can ce” wi th in a “ co m pl ic at ed st atut e.” S.D. W arre n C o., 5 47 U.S. at 3 80 , 12 6 S . Ct. at18 50 . The qu es ti on is whet he r “ ad di ti on . . . to na vi gabl e wat ers ”—m ean in g ad di ti on to “ th e wat ers of t he Uni te d S ta te s” —re fers to wate rs inth e in di vi du al se ns e o r as on e uni ta ry

who le . Und er the W at er Di st ric t’s u ni ta ry wate rs th eo ry ,

“ to navi gabl e wat ers ” m ean s t o a ll na vi gabl e wat ers as asi ng ul ar wh ol e. As a res ul t, p ol lu ta nt s ca n b e ad de d t o n av ig ab le wate rs on ly onc e, an d p ol lu ta nt s tha t are a lre ady

inna vi gabl e wat ers are n otad de d t o n av ig ab le wate rs ag ai n wh en
Rece ntly , we r eluctantly conclude d that in determiningfor Chevr on purposes whe ther 8 Congr ess had a

n intent on the issue at hand, we also look to leg islative history . Miccosukee , No. 08-10799, 2009 WL1199871 at *14. We do that on pag e 34, infra
. 27m ov edbe twee n wat er b od ie s. Co nv ers el y , th e Fri en ds of t he Ever gl ad es ’ po si ti on

is th at“ to na vi gabl e wat ers ” ref ers to each in di vi du al wate r bo dy. As a re su lt , th e st atut e m ean s “ an y

ad di ti on of a ny po ll ut an t t o a ny nav ig ab le wate rs ,” ev enth ou gh th os e are no t the word s the st atut e u se s. Un de r th e Fri en ds of the Ever gl ad es ’ read in g, p ol lu ta nt s ex is ti ng inon e n av ig ab le wate r, li ke th e ag ric ul tu ral can al s, ar e

“ ad de d . . . to na vi gabl e wat ers ” whe n t he y are tran sf

erre d i nt o a no th er n av ig ab le wate r, li ke Lake Okee ch ob ee. The co m m on m ean in g o f th e te rm “ wate rs ” is no t h el pf

ul . In o rd in ary us ag e

“ wate rs ” can co ll ect iv el y refe r to sev eral di ffer en t b od ie s o f wat er s uc h a s “ th e wate rs of t he Gul f co as t,” o r canrefe r to an y on e b od y of wa te r su chas “ th e wat ers of Mo bi le Bay. ” An “ ad di ti on . . . to na vi gabl e wat ers ” co ul d e nc om pa ss an y ad di ti on to a si ng le bo dy of n av ig ab le wate r reg ard le ss of s ou rce ( li ke wate r pu m pe d fr om on e n av ig ab le bo dy of wat er t o a no th er), o r itco ul d m eanon ly an ad di ti on to th e to ta l n av ig ab le wate rs fro m ou ts id e o f th em

(li ke a fact ory

pu m pi ng po ll ut an ts in to a na vi gabl e st ream ). Becaus e th e st atut ory lan gu ag e co ul d b e u se d ei th er way, we tu rnne xtto it s i m m ed ia te co nt ex t. B. The co nt ex t i n wh ic h l an gu ag e is us edis im po rta nt . See Ro bi ns on , 51 9 U.S. at34 1, 1 17 S. Ct. at84 6; Koo ns Bu ic k P on ti ac GMC , Inc . v. Nig h, 5 43 U.S. 50 , 2860 , 12 5 S . Ct. 4 60 , 46 7 (2 00 4) (“ A pro vi si on th atm ay see m am bi gu ou s i n is ol at io n i s o fte n c la rif

ie d b y th e rem ai nd er o f th e st atut ory sch em e . . . becaus e th e sa m e te rm in ol og y

is us edels ewh ere i n aco nt ex t tha t m ak es it s m ean in g c le ar . . . .”); FDA v. Bro wn & W il li am so n To ba cco Co rp ., 52 9 U.S. 1 20 , 13 2, 1 20 S. Ct. 12 91 , 13 00 –0 1 (2 00 0) (“ The m ean in g— oram bi gu ity —o f certa in word s o r ph ras es m ay on ly beco m e ev id en t wh enpl acedinco nt ex t.”) . The Water Di st ric t ar gu es th atth e co nt ex t o f 33 U.S.C. § 1 36 2( 12 ) de m on st rat es th atCo ng res s i nt en ti on al ly se le ct edeachwordinth e d efi ni ti on of “ di sc ha rg e” t o d el iv er a s pe ci fic m ean in g. It a ss ert s tha t the Fri en ds of t he Ever gl ad es ’ read in g o f th e st atut e wou ldrequi re us to ad d wo rd s t o t he law, wh ic h i s i m pe rm is si bl e.

“ Dis ch arg e” i s d efi ne d i n t he Act as “ [a]ny ad di ti on of a ny po ll ut an t t o na vi gabl e wat ers fro m

an y po in t s ou rce.” 33 U.S.C. § 1 36 2( 12 ). Acco rd in g t o t he W at er Di st ric t, the co ns pi cu ou s ab se nc e o f “ any ” b efo re “ navi gabl e wat ers ” in § 13 62 (1 2) supp orts th e uni ta ry wate rs th eo ry

be cau se itim

pl ie s tha t Co ng res s was no t t al ki ng ab ou t an y

na vi gabl e wat er, b utab ou t al l n av ig ab le wate rs as awho le
. The Fri en ds of t he Ever gl ad es ’ read in g e ffec ti ve ly ask s u s t o a dda fo urth “ an y ” to th e st atut e so th atitwou ldread : “ Any add it io n o f an y po ll ut an t t o a ny nav ig ab le wate rs fro m

an y po in t s ou rce.” Butwe are n otall owe d t o a ddor s ub tra ctword s fro m a st atut e; we can no t re writ e it . See 6 2 C as es , Mo re o r Les s, EachCo nt ai ni ng 29Si x J ars of J am v. Un it edSta te s, 3 40 U.S. 59 3, 5 96 , 71 S. Ct. 5 15 , 51 8 (1 95 1) (we are n ot“ to ad d n orto subt ract , nei th er t o d el et e n orto di st ort [t he word s]” Co ng res s h as us ed ); B lo un t v . Riz zi , 40 0 U.S. 4 10 , 41 9, 9 1 S . Ct. 4 23 , 42 9 (1 97 1) (“ [I]t is forCo ng res s, n otth is Co urt, t o re writ e th e st atut e.”); Ngu y env. Un it ed St at es , 55 6 F .3d12 44 , 12 56 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ) (“ W e are no t au th or iz edto rewri te , rev is e, m od ify, or am en d s ta tu to ry lan gu ag e inth e g ui se of i nt erp ret in g i t . . . .”); Alb rit to n v . Cag le ’s, Inc ., 50 8 F .3d10 12 , 10 17 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ) (“ W e are no t em po weredto rewri te st atut es .”). Bes id es , if the m ean in g o f la ng ua ge is pl ai n, n o al te rat io n s ho ul d b e n eces sa ry to cla rif y it . The ad di ti on or s ub tra ct io n o f wor ds in di cat es th atth e una lt eredlan gu ag e is no t p la in
. The re i s al so th e fac t tha t Co ng res s kno ws h ow t o u se th e te rm “ an y na vi gabl e wat er[s ]” whenitwant s t o p ro te ctin di vi du al wate r bo di es in st eadof
na vi gabl e wat ers as aco ll ect iv e who le . W ithi n t he Cle anW at er Actit se lf, Co ng res s au th or iz edth e EPA to in ve st ig at e “ th e p ol lu ti on of a ny nav ig ab le wate rs ,” 33 U.S.C. § 1 25 4( a)(3 ), an d re ferr edto th e EPA’s di ss em in at io n o f in fo rm at io n abo utch an ge s i n the flo w “ of an y na vi gabl e wat ers .” 33 U.S.C. § 13 14 (f)(2 )(F) . Oth er wat er p ro te ct io n s ta tu te s al so us e th e te rm “ an y na vi gabl e wate r[s ]. ” See, e.g ., 33 U.S.C. § 4 07 (“ It s ha ll no t b e la wfu l t o t hr ow, d is ch arg e, orde po si t. . . an y

refu se m at te r . . . int o a ny nav ig ab le wate r of th e Uni te d S ta te s. . 30. .”); 3 3 U.S.C. § 41 9 (“ The Secr et ary of th e Arm y is au th or iz ed
. . . to go ve rnth e tra ns po rta ti on an d dum

pi ng in to an y

na vi gabl e wat er, o r wat ers ad jacen t the ret o, of dre dg in gs , earth, g arb ag e, an d o th er ref us e m at eri al s . . . .”); 3 3 U.S.C. § 51 2 (“No b rid ge sh al l atan y

ti m e unr eas on ab ly obs tru ctth e fre e n av ig at io n o f an y na vi gabl e wat ers of t he Uni te d S ta te s.”) . The co m m on us e b y

Co ng res s o f “ an y na vi gabl e wat er” o r “ an y na vi gabl e wat ers ” whe n i t i nt en ds to pro te cteach in di vi du al wate r bo dy sup po rts th e co nc lu si onth atth e u se of t he un m od ifi edterm

“ na vi gabl e wat ers ” in § 1 36 2( 12 ) (o r th e u se init s d efi ni ti on , “ th e wat ers of the Uni te d S tate s,” a t § 13 62 (7 )) m ean s the wate rs co ll ect iv el y . See Del ga do v. U. S. Att ’y Gen., 4 87 F.3d85 5, 8 62 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ) (“ [W] he re Co ng res s kno ws h ow t o sa y so m ethi ng bu t ch oo se s n otto , it s s il en ce i s co ntro ll in g.” (qu ot at io n m ark s om itte d) ); Di recTV, In c. v. Br own , 37 1 F .3d81 4, 8 18 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ) (“ [W] he n Co ng res s u se s d iff

eren t l an gu ag e in si m il ar s ect io ns , itin te nd s d iff eren t m ean in gs .” (quo ti ng Irao la& CIA, S.A. v. Ki m be rly-Cla rkCo rp ., 23 2 F .3d85 4, 85 9 (1 1th C ir. 2 00 0) ). Tha t co nt ex t d oe s n ot , ho wev er, es tabl is h t ha t the m ean in g o f th e st atut ory la ng ua ge is cle ar. Altho ug h C on gr es s d idus e th e te rm “ an y na vi gabl e wat ers ” in th e Cl eanW at er Actto pro te ctin di vi du al wate r bo di es , itals o u se d t he un m od ifi ed“ na vi gabl e wat ers ” to m eanth e sa m e th in g. Fo r ex am pl e, as th e 31Supr em e Co urt n ot edinMi cco su ke e, 54 1 U.S. at10 7, 1 24 S. Ct. at15 44 , th e Act

di sc us se s the st at es ’ crea ti on of wa te r-b ody -s pe ci fic qu al ity st an da rd s b as edon

“ th e d es ig na te d u se s o f th e n av ig ab le wate rs in vo lv ed .” 33 U.S.C. § 1 31 3( c)(2 ). In th atco nt ex t “ th e n av ig ab le wate rs ” m us t re fer t o m an y

in di vi du al wate r bo di es
— ex act ly wha t the Fri en ds of t he Ever gl ad es co nt en d t ha t i t m ean s i n 3 3 U.S.C. § 13 62 (1 2) . Id. (“ Any add it io n o f an y po ll ut an t t o n av ig ab le wate rs . . . .”); see als o Mi cco su ke e, 54 1 U.S. at10 6– 07 , 12 4 S . Ct. at15 44 (ci ti ng § 1 31 3( c)(2 ) an d st at in g t ha t “ se ve ral NPDES pro vi si on s m ig htbe readto su gg es t a v ie w con tra ry to th e uni ta ry

wate rs ap pr oa ch ”). The res ul t s o fa r is th atwe are n otpe rs ua de d t ha t the m ean in g o f th e st atut ory pro vi si on at i ss ue , readeit he r in is ol at io n o r inco njunc ti on with s im il ar pr ov is io ns , is pl ai n o ne way or the ot he r. The s ta tu to ry co nt ex t i nd ic at es th at so m et im es th e te rm

“ na vi gabl e wat ers ” was us edinon e se ns e an d s om et im es in th e o th er s en se . C. The “br oa de r co nt ex t o f th e st atut e as a who le ” d oe s n otres ol ve th e am bi gu ity . Rob in so n, 5 19 U.S. at 3 41 , 11 7 S . Ct. at84 6; see als o Ko on s B ui ck , 54 3 U.S. at60 , 12 5 S . Ct. at46 7 (e xp la in in g t ha t a s eem in gl y am bi gu ou s pr ov is io n m ay

be cla rif ie d b y th e b ro adco nt ex t o f th e st atut e if “ on ly one of t he 32pe rm is si bl e m ean in gs pro du ces a subs tant iv e eff ectth atis co m

pa ti bl e wit h t he res t of th e la w”). The ge ne ral pu rp os e o f th e Cl eanW at er Actis bro adan d a m bi ti ou s: The ob jecti ve of t hi s ch ap te r is to res to re an d m ai nt ai n t he ch em ic al , ph y si cal , andbi ol og ic al in te gr ity of t he Nati on 's wat ers . In o rd er t o a ch ie ve th is ob jecti ve itis he reb y

de cl aredth at , con si st en t wi th th e p ro vi si on s o f th is ch ap te r— (1 ) itis th e n at io na l g oa l tha t the di sc ha rg e o f po ll ut an ts in to th e n av ig ab le wate rs be eli m in at edby 198 5. . . . 33 U.S.C. § 1 25 1( a). The NPDES perm it ti ng pro gr am is th e cen te rp ie ce o f th e Cl eanW at er Act . See, e.g ., Am . Iro n & Ste el Ins t. v . EPA, 11 5 F .3d97 9, 9 90 (D.C. Ci r. 19 97 ); Go rs uc h, 6 93 F.2dat 1 75 –7 6 (“ The re i s i nd eedso m e b as is inth e le gi sl at iv e h is to ry

for th e p os it io n t ha t Co ng res s v ie wedth e NPDES pr og ram as i ts m os t ef fect iv e weap on ag ai ns t p ol lu ti on .”). Inli gh t o f th e swe ep in g g oa ls of t he Act, the Sen at e Co nf

eren ce Re po rt s ta te s tha t the “ co nf eree s fu ll y

in te ndth atth e te rm ‘ na vi gabl e wat ers ’ be gi ve n t he bro ad es t p os si bl e co ns ti tu ti on al in te rp ret at io n . . . ”. S. Rep . No. 9 2- 12 36 (19 72 ) (Co nf . Rep .), rep rin te d i n 19 72 U.S.C.C.A.N. 9 37 76 , 38 22 . The Fri en ds of t he Ever gl ad es arg ue th at , for two reas on s, the Cle an W at er Act ’s am

bi ti ou s an ti -p ol lu ti on go al s m ak e itab su rdto readth e Actas

That statement a

ppear s intended to extend the application of the Clea n Water Ac t to 9 cover as much water a s the Commerce Clause would allow. See g ener ally Rapanos v. United States, 547 U.S. 715, 126 S. C t. 2208 (2006). Thequestion befor e us is not the constitutional rea ch of the Act but the mea ning of specific statutory

languag e whe re the Act does a pply
. 33im

pl ic it ly creat in g asi zeab le ex cep ti on to th e NPDES pe rm it ti ng pro gr am for po ll ut an ts th atco m e fro m othe r navi gabl e wat ers . Fi rs t, the y

ass ertth atth e p erm it ti ng pro gr am it se lf i s d es ig ne d t o p ro te ct in di vi du al wate r bo di es . Stat e wat er qua li ty stan da rd s, wh ic h a re s pe ci fic to in di vi du al wate r bo di es , are i nt ertwin edwith t he NPDES perm it ti ng pro ces s. If a wate r bo dy fail s t o m eetth e st at e wat er qua li ty stan da rd s, the go ve rn m en t al te rs th e te rm s o f th e NPDES pe rm it s h el d b y co ntrib ut in g p oi ntso ur ces inord er t o rat ch etdo wn the lo adof p ol lu tant s tha t m ay be pu m pe d i nt o t ha t wat er b od y . Mi cco su ke e, 54 1 U.S. at10 7, 1 24 S. Ct. at15 44 ; s ee al so 33 U.S.C. § 1 31 3( d)
. Giv enth e p erm it ti ng requi rem en t’s ro le inm ai nt ai ni ng in di vi du al iz edwate r qu al ity st an da rd s, the Fri en ds of t he Ever gl ad es arg ue th atitwou ldm ak e li tt le se ns e to all ow u nc on tro ll ed , un -p erm it te d p um pi ng be twee n n av ig ab le wate rs th at co ul d h av e d iff

eren t qua li ty stan da rd s. Lak e Oke ech ob ee, fo r ex am pl e, is cl as si fie d a s drin ki ng wate r un de r th e st at e wat er qua li ty stan da rd s. Pu m pi ng di rty agri cu ltur al can al wate r in to th e lake m ak es itm or e d iff ic ul t t o m eetth e la ke ’s qu al ity

st an da rd s. To all ow s uc h p um pi ng witho uta pe rm itten ds to un de rm in e th e g oa ls of the NPDES pro gr am . The Fri en ds of t he Ever gl ad es arg ue th atth e uni ta ry

wate rs th eo ry , whi chwou ldex cl ud e fro m th e p erm it ti ng

34requi rem en t the pu m pi ng of p ol lu ta nt s i nt o t he lak e, is anun reas on ab ly narro w read in g o f th e Act . Seco nd , th e Fri en ds of t he Ever gl ad es arg ue th atread in g t he st atut e to pr ot ecton ly the na vi gabl e wat ers as o ne un it ary who le co ul d l eadto res ul ts ev en m or e ab surdth anpu m

pi ng di rty cana l wat er i nt o ares erv oi r of dri nk in g wat er. If
an“ ad di ti on . . . to na vi gabl e wat ers ” o ccu rs on ly at a p ol lu ta nt ’s firs t en try int o na vi gabl e wat ers , andno t wh enitis tra ns ferr edto a di ffer en t wat er b od y , th enth e NPDES pr og ram

— the cen te rp ie ce o f th e Cl eanW at er Act— wo ul d re qu ire no pe rm itto pu m

p t he m os t l oa th so m e n av ig ab le wate r in th e co un try int o t he m os t pr is ti ne on e. The se ho rri bl e h y

po th et ic al s ar e fri gh te ni ng en ou gh th atwe m ig htag ree with t he Fri en ds of t he Ever gl ad es th atth e uni ta ry wate rs th eo ry

do es no t co m

po rt with t he bro ad , gen eral go al s o f th e Cl eanW at er Act . See g en eral ly 33 U.S.C. § 12 51 (a) (s ta ti ng th e Act ’s go al “ to res to re an d m ai nt ai n t he ch em ic al , ph y si cal , and bi ol og ic al in te gr ity

of t he Nati on ’s water s” ). Bu t we “ in te rp retan d app ly statut es , no t co ng res si on al purp os es .” Inre Hedric k, 5 24 F.3d11 75 , 11 88 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ); se e al so Onca le v. Su nd own er Offs ho re Se rv s., In c., 52 3 U.S. 7 5, 7 9, 1 18 S. Ct. 99 8, 1 00 2 (1 99 8) (“ [I]t is ul ti m at el y th e p ro vi si on s o f ou r la ws ra th er tha n t he pr in ci pa l co nc ern s o f ou r le gi sl at or s b y whi chwe are g ov ern ed .”); Norfo lkS. R. 35Co . v. So rrel l, 5 49 U.S. 15 8, 1 71 , 12 7 S . Ct. 7 99 (20 07 ) (“ [I]t fru strat es rathe r th an

effe ctua te s l eg is la ti ve in te ntsi m pl is ti cal ly to as su m e th atwhat ev er fu rth ers th e st atut e’s pr im ary ob

jecti ve m us t b e th e la w.” (ci ta ti on om it te d) ). Andth ere a re ot he r pr ov is io ns of t he Cle anW at er Actth atdo no t co m po rt wi th it s b ro ad pu rp os e o f res to rin g andm ai nt ai ni ng th e ch em ic al , ph y si cal an d b io lo gi cal in te gr ity of t he Nati on ’s water s. (Whi chm ay he lp ex pl ai n wh y

th e Act ’s exp res s go al of c om

pl et el y eli m in at in g a ll di sc ha rg e o f po ll ut an ts in to th e n av ig ab le wate rs by 19 85 was n otm et .) No o ne di sp ut es th atth e NPDES pr og ram is res tri ct edto po in t s ou rces . Non -p oi ntso ur ce p ol lu ti on , chi efl y run of f, is wid el y

reco gn iz edas aser io us wate r qu al ity pro bl em , bu t the NPDES pro gr am do es no t ev enad dr es s i t. See ge ne ral ly Rap an os , 54 7 U.S. at77 7, 1 26 S. Ct. at22 47 (Kenne dy, J., con cu rri ng ) (o bs erv in g th atag ric ul tu ral run of

f fro m farm s al on g the Mi ss is si pp i Ri ve r cre at es anan nu al hypo xi c ‘deadzo ne ’ in th e Gul f of Mex ic o t ha t i s n earl y

th e si ze o f New Je rs ey ); Or. Natu ral Dese rt As s’n v . U. S. Fores t Se rv ., 55 0 F .3d77 8, 7 80 (9t h C ir. 2 00 8) (s ta ti ng th atth e “ di sp arat e tr eat m en t o f di sc harg es fro m po in t s ou rces an d no np oi ntso ur ces is anorg an iz at io na l p arad ig m of t he [Cl eanW at er] Act”). No t on ly are ord in ary no n- po in t s ou rces ou ts id e th e NPDES pr og ram , bu t Co ng res s ev encreate d asp eci al ex cep ti on to th e d efi ni ti on of “ po in t s ou rce” to ex cl ud e 36ag ric ul tu ral st orm wate r di sc harg es an d re tu rnflo ws fr om irr ig at io n, d es pi te th ei r kn own , subs ta nt ia ll y

ha rm fu l i m

pa cton wate r qu al ity . 33 U.S.C. § 1 36 2( 14 ). The po in t i s tha t i t m ay

see m in co ns is te ntwith the lo fty go al s o f th e Cl ean W at er Actto lea ve ou t o f th e p erm it ti ng pro ces s the tra ns fer o f po ll ut an ts fro m on e na vi gabl e b od y

of wa te r to an ot he r, bu t i t i s n o m or e so th anto leave ou t al l n on po in t s ou rces , all owi ng ag ric ul tu ral run -o ffs to crea te a hu ge “ de adzo ne ” in th e Gul f of Mex ic o. Yetwe kn ow the Act d oe s tha t. Whatth is il lu st rat es is th atev en whe n the pre am

bl e to leg is lati on sp eak s s in gl e-m in de dl y an d e sp ou se s l of

ty goa ls , th e le gi sl at iv e p ro ces s s erv es as am el ti ng po t o f co m pe ti ng in te res ts an d aface -o ff of ba tt li ng fact io ns . Wha t em erg es fro m th e co nf li ctto be co m e th e en act m en t i s of te n l es s p ur e th anth e p ream bl e p ro m is es . The p ro vi si on s o f le gi sl at io n re fle ct co m pr om is es co bb le d t og ethe r by com pe ti ng po li ti cal for ces an d c om pr om is e is th e en em y of s in gl e-m in de dn es s. Itis no t d iff ic ul t t o b el ie ve th atth e le gi sl at iv e pr oc es s re su lt edina Cl eanW at er Actth atlea ve s m or e th anon e g ap inth e pe rm it ti ng requi rem en ts iten act s. Wy eth v . Levi ne , __U.S. __ , 12 9 S . Ct. 1 18 7, 12 15 –1 6 (2 00 9) (Tho m as , J., co nc urrin g) (“ Leg is la to rs m ay co m pr om is e o n a st atut e th atdo es no t fu ll y ad dr es s a p erce iv edm is ch ie f, acce pt in g h al f a l oa f to faci li ta te a la w’ s en actm en t.” ( qu ot at io n o m it te d) ); B d. o f Gov ern or s v . Dim en si on Fi n. Co rp ., 47 4 U.S. 3 61 , 37 3– 74 , 10 6 S . Ct. 6 81 , 68 8– 89 (19 86 ) (“ App li cat io n o f 37‘bro adpu rp os es ’ of leg is la ti on at the ex pe ns e o f sp eci fic pro vi si on s i gn or es th e co m pl ex ity of t he pro bl em s C on gr es s i s ca ll edup on to ad dr es s an d t he dynam ic s of leg is la ti ve act io n. . . . [T] he fin al lan gu ag e o f th e le gi sl at io n m ay refl ect ha rd -fo ug htco m

pr om is es .”). As the Supr em e Co urt o nc e sa id , “ [a]ftersei zi ng ev ery th in g fr om whi chaid canbe de riv edwe are l eftwith a n a m bi gu ou s s tatu te .” Uni te d S ta te s v . Bas s, 4 04 U.S. 33 6, 3 47 , 92 S. Ct. 5 15 , 52 2 (1 97 1) (in te rn al alt erat io n andcit at io n o m it te d)
. The re ar e two reas on ab le way s t o re adth e § 13 61 (1 2) lan gu ag e “ an y ad di ti on of
an y po ll ut an t t o n av ig ab le wate rs fro m an y po in t s ou rce.” One i s tha t i t m ean s

“ an y ad di ti on . . . to [an y ] na vi gabl e wat ers ;” th e o th er i s tha t i t m ean s “ an y ad di ti on . . . to na vi gabl e wat ers [as a who le ]
. ” As we h av e h el d b efo re, “ th e ex is te nc e o f two reas on ab le , com pe ti ng in te rp ret at io ns is th e v ery de fin it io n o f
am bi gu ity .” Uni te d S tate s v . Acos ta , 36 3 F .3d11 41 , 11 55 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ) (quo tati onm ark s o m itte d)
. D. Hav in g c on cl ud edth atth e st atut ory lan gu ag e is am

bi gu ou s, o urfin al is su e is whethe r th e EPA’s reg ul at io n, wh ic h a ccep ts th e uni ta ry wate rs th eo ry

th at tra ns ferr in g p ol lu tant s b etweenna vi gabl e wat ers is no t an “ ad di ti on . . . to na vi gabl e wat ers ,” is a pe rm is si bl e co ns tru ct io n o f th atlan gu ag e. Ch ev ro n, 4 67 38U.S. at 8 43 , 10 4 S . Ct. at27 82 . In m ak in g t ha t d et erm in at io n, we “ ne edno t

co nc lu de th atth e ag en cy

co ns tru ct io n was . . . th e rea di ng th e co urt wo ul d h av e reac he d i f th e que st io n i ni ti al ly hadari se n i n ajud ic ia l p ro ceed in g.” Id. at83 7, 84 3 n .11 , 10 4 S . Ct. at27 82 n. 1 1; see als o i d. at84 4, 1 04 S. Ct. at27 82 (“ [A] co urt m ay no t s ub st itut e it s o wn co ns tru ct io n o f a s ta tu to ry pro vi si on fora reas on ab le in te rp ret at io n m ad e b y th e adm in is tra to r of

anag en cy .”). Becaus e th e EPA’ s co ns tru ct io n i s o ne of t he two read in gs we ha ve fou ndis reas on ab le , we can no t s ay

th atitis “ arb itrary, capri ci ou s, o r m an ife st ly con tra ry to th e st atut e.” Id . at 8 44 , 10 4 S . Ct. at27 82 . So m et im es itis he lp fu l t o s tri p aleg al qu es ti on of t he co nt en ti ou s p ol ic y in te res ts att ach edto itan d t hi nkab ou t i t i n t he ab st ractus in g ahypo th et ic al
. Co ns id er the is su e th is way : Two b uc ke ts si t s id e b y si de , on e with fo urm arb le s in itan d t he othe r with n on e. Ther e is a ru le pro hi bi ti ng “ an y ad di ti on of a ny m arb le s t o b uc ke ts by any pe rs on .” A per so n c om es alo ng , pi ck s up t wo m arb le s fro m th e fi rs t b uc ke t, an d dro ps th em in to th e se co ndbu ck et . Has the m arb le
m ov er “ ad d[ ed ] an y

m arb le s t o b uc ke ts ”? On o ne ha nd , as the Fri en ds of t he Eve rg la de s m ig htarg ue , th ere are n ow two m arb le s i n abu ck etwher e th ere wer e no ne be fo re, s o a n a dd it io n o f m arb le s h as oc curred . On th e o th er h an d, as th e W at er Di st ric t m ig htarg ue an d a s the EPA wou ldde ci de , th ere wer e fo urm arb le s 39in bu ck et s b efo re, an d t he re ar e st il l fo urm arb le s i n b uc ke ts , so no ad di ti on of

m arb le s h as oc cu rred . Wha te ve r po si ti onwe m ig httak e if we ha d t o p ic k o ne si de orth e o th er, we can no t s ay th ateit he r si de is un reas on ab le
. Lik e th e m arb le s ru le , th e Cl eanW at er Act ’s lan gu ag e ab ou t “ an y ad di ti on of an y po ll ut an t t o n av ig ab le wate rs fro m any po in t s ou rce,” 33 U.S.C. § 1 36 2( 12 ), is am bi gu ou s. Th e EPA’s reg ul at io n a do pt in g t he un it ary wate rs th eo ry is a reas on ab le , andth eref

or e p erm is si bl e, co ns tru ct io n o f th e la ng ua ge . Unl es s an d un ti l the EPA res ci nd s o r Co ng res s o ve rri de s the reg ul at io n, we m us t g iv e eff

ectto it
. Inth e d efen da nt s’ app eal , we REVERSE th e d is tri ctco urt’s jud gm en t tha t th e o pe rat io n o f th e S-2 , S-3 , andS-4 pu m ps witho utNPDES perm it s v io la te s the Cl eanW at er Act . W e DISM ISS AS M OOT the pl ai nt iff s’ cro ss -ap pe al fro m

th e di sm is sa l o f th e Water Di st ric t o n El ev en th Am en dm en t g ro un ds
. REVERSED i n pa rt a nd DI SMI SSED i n pa rt.

40