Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-260_jifl.pdf
Page Number: 47

14 

COUNTY OF MAUI v. HAWAII WILDLIFE FUND 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

permits—or that they face severe penalties for failing to do 
so.  That, however, is where this alternative interpretation 
would lead. 

And  the  same  is  true  for  the  test adopted  by  the  Ninth
Circuit.  The Ninth Circuit held that a permit is required if
a pollutant that reaches navigable waters is “fairly trace-
able,” but there is no real difference between “fairly trace- 
able” and “originally from.”  Unless a pollutant is “traceable” 
to a point source, how could that point source be required 
to get a permit?  And the addition of the qualifier “fairly” 
does not seem to add anything.  What would it mean for a 
pollutant  to  be  “unfairly  traceable”  to  a  point  source?
Traceable only as a result of a method that is scientifically
unsound?  In that situation, why would a court consider the 
pollutant to be traceable to the source in question at all?  So 
if a pollutant can be reliably determined to have originally 
come from a point source, a permit would appear to be re-
quired under the Ninth Circuit’s test. 

Respondents,  instead  of  defending  the  Ninth  Circuit’s 
interpretation, argue that a discharge from a point source
must  be  the  “proximate  cause”  of  a  pollutant’s  reaching 
navigable  waters.  Brief  for  Respondents  12.  But  as  the 
Court concludes, ante, at 6, there is no basis for transplant-
ing this concept from the law of torts into the Clean Water
Act, and it is unclear what it would mean in that context. 
For these reasons, of the two possible interpretations of
the  statutory  terms,  the  better  is  the  interpretation  that
reads “from” to mean “directly from.” 

C 
Even if the Court were to find §1362(12) ambiguous, ap-
plicable  clear  statement  rules  foreclose  the  “functional 

—————— 
also assert that respondents’ theory would require permits for green in-
frastructure,  water  reuse,  and  groundwater  discharge.  See,  e.g.,  Brief 
for National Association of Clean Water Agencies et al. as Amici Curiae 
20–26.