Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-260_jifl.pdf
Page Number: 37

4 

COUNTY OF MAUI v. HAWAII WILDLIFE FUND 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

that would take effect if the County were unsuccessful on 
appeal.  Under  that  agreement,  the  County  must:  make
good-faith efforts to obtain and comply with an NPDES per-
mit; pay $100,000 in civil penalties; spend $2.5 million on a
“supplemental environmental project” in the western part
of the island of Maui; and pay nearly $1 million for respond-
ents’ attorney’s fees and other costs of litigation.2 

On appeal, the Ninth Circuit affirmed on the ground that
pollutants  that  eventually  reached  the  ocean  were  “fairly 
traceable”  to  the  wells.    886  F. 3d  737,  749  (2018).    We 
granted review and must now decide whether the Court of
Appeals erred in holding that the discharge of effluent from
the wells into groundwater requires a permit. 

II 
The Clean Water Act generally makes it unlawful to “dis-
charge”  a  “pollutant”3  without  a  permit. 
33  U. S. C. 
§1311(a).  The Act defines the “discharge of a pollutant” as 
“any addition of any pollutant to navigable waters[4 ] from
any  point  source.”  §1362(12).  And  a  “point  source”  is 
broadly  defined  as  “any  discernible,  confined and  discrete 

—————— 

2 Settlement Agreement and Order re: Remedies in No. 1:12cv198, Doc.
259  (Haw.);  Stipulated  Settlement  Agreement  Regarding  Award  of 
Plaintiffs’ Costs of Litigation, ibid., Doc. 267 (Haw.). 

3 The Act defines a “pollutant” as:
“dredged spoil, solid waste, incinerator residue, sewage, garbage, sew-
age sludge, munitions, chemical wastes, biological materials, radioactive
materials, heat, wrecked or discarded equipment, rock, sand, cellar dirt 
and industrial, municipal, and agricultural waste discharged into water 
. . . .”  §1362(6). 

4 The Act defines “navigable waters” as “waters of the United States, 
including the territorial seas.”  §1362(7).  The term “navigable waters” 
has a well-known meaning, but the broader term “waters of the United 
States” is not defined by the Clean Water Act and has presented a diffi-
cult issue for this Court.  See Rapanos v. United  States, 547 U. S. 715 
(2006).  The EPA’s definition of “waters of the United States” expressly 
excludes  groundwater,  see  40  CFR  §122.2  (2019);  84  Fed.  Reg.  4190 
(2019), and no party in this case disputes that interpretation.