Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-260_jifl.pdf
Page Number: 5.0

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

1 

Opinion of the Court 

NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the 
preliminary  print  of  the  United  States  Reports.  Readers  are  requested  to 
notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Wash-
ington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order that 
corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 18–260 
_________________ 

COUNTY OF MAUI, HAWAII, PETITIONER v. HAWAII 
WILDLIFE FUND, ET AL. 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 
APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT 

[April 23, 2020] 

JUSTICE BREYER delivered the opinion of the Court. 
The Clean Water Act forbids the “addition” of any pollu-
tant from a “point source” to “navigable waters” without the
appropriate  permit  from  the  Environmental  Protection
Agency  (EPA).    Federal  Water  Pollution  Control  Act, 
§§301(a), 502(12)(A), as amended by the Federal Water Pol-
lution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (Clean Water Act) 
§2,  86  Stat.  844,  886,  33  U. S. C.  §§1311(a),  1362(12)(A).
The question presented here is whether the Act “requires a
permit  when  pollutants  originate  from  a  point  source  but
are  conveyed  to  navigable  waters  by  a  nonpoint  source,” 
here, “groundwater.”  Pet. for Cert. i.  Suppose, for example, 
that  a  sewage  treatment  plant  discharges  polluted  water
into the ground where it mixes with groundwater, which, in
turn,  flows  into  a  navigable  river,  or  perhaps  the  ocean. 
Must the plant’s owner seek an EPA permit before emitting
the pollutant?  We conclude that the statutory provisions at 
issue  require  a  permit  if  the  addition  of  the  pollutants 
through groundwater is the functional equivalent of a direct 
discharge from the point source into navigable waters.