Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-260_jifl.pdf
Page Number: 40

Cite as:  590 U. S. ____ (2020) 

7 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

respects.

If that is what the Court meant by “the functional equiv-
alent of a direct discharge,” the test would apply at best to
only  a  small  set  of  situations  not  involving  a  direct  dis-
charge.  The Court’s example of a pipe that emits pollutants
a few feet from the ocean would presumably qualify on de 
minimis  grounds,  but  if  the  pipe  were  moved  back  any 
significant  distance,  the  discharge  would  not  be  exactly
equal to a direct discharge.  There would be some lag from
the  time  of  the  discharge  to  the  time  when  the  pollutant 
reaches navigable waters; some of the pollutant might not 
reach  that  destination;  and  the  pollutant  might  have
changed  somewhat  in  composition  by  the  time  it  reached 
the navigable waters.

For these reasons, the Court’s reference to “the functional 
equivalent of a direct discharge,” if taken literally, would be 
of little importance, but the Court’s understanding of this
concept  is  very  different  from  the  literal  meaning  of  the 
phrase.  As used by the Court, “the functional equivalent of 
a  direct  discharge”  means  a  discharge  that  is  sufficiently 
similar to a direct discharge to warrant a permit in light of 
the Clean Water Act’s “language, structure, and purposes.”  
See  ante,  at  18.  But  what,  in  concrete  terms,  does  this 
mean?  How similar is sufficiently similar?

The Court provides this guidance.  It explains that time 
and distance are the most important factors, ante, at 16, but 
it does not set any time or distance limits except to observe
that a permit is needed where the discharge is a few feet 
away  from  navigable  waters  and  that  a  permit  is  not  re-
quired where the discharge is far away and it takes “many
years” for the pollutants to complete the journey.  Ante, at 
15–16.  Beyond this, the Court provides a list (and a non-
exhaustive  one  at  that!)  of  five  other  factors  that  may  be 
relevant: “the nature of the material through which the pol-
lutant travels,” “the extent to which the pollutant is diluted