Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-260_jifl.pdf
Page Number: 1

(Slip Opinion) 

OCTOBER  TERM,  2019 

1 

Syllabus 

NOTE:  Where  it  is  feasible,  a  syllabus  (headnote)  will  be  released,  as  is 
being  done  in  connection  with  this  case,  at  the  time  the  opinion  is  issued. 
The  syllabus  constitutes  no  part  of  the  opinion  of  the  Court  but  has  been 
prepared  by  the  Reporter  of  Decisions  for  the  convenience  of  the  reader. 
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

Syllabus 

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

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

No. 18–260.  Argued November 6, 2019—Decided April 23, 2020 

The Clean Water Act forbids “any addition” of any pollutant from “any
point  source”  to  “navigable  waters”  without  an  appropriate  permit
from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).  §§ 301(a), 502(12), 
86 Stat. 844, 886.  The Act defines “pollutant” broadly, §502(6); defines
a “point source” as “ ‘any discernible, confined and discrete conveyance 
. . . from which pollutants are or may be discharged,’ ” including, e.g., 
any “ ‘container,’ ” “ ‘pipe, ditch, channel, tunnel, conduit,’ ” or “ ‘well,’ ” 
§502(14); and defines the term “discharge of a pollutant” as “ ‘any ad-
dition  of  any  pollutant  to  navigable  waters  [including  navigable 
streams, rivers, the ocean, or coastal waters] from any point source,’ ” 
§502(12).    It  then  uses  those  terms  in  making  “unlawful”  “ ‘the  dis-
charge of any pollutant by any person’ ” without an appropriate permit. 
§301.

Petitioner County of Maui’s wastewater reclamation facility collects
sewage  from  the  surrounding  area,  partially  treats  it,  and  each  day 
pumps  around  4  million  gallons  of  treated  water  into  the  ground
through  four  wells.    This  effluent  then  travels  about  a  half  mile, 
through groundwater, to the Pacific Ocean.  Respondent environmen-
tal groups brought a citizens’ Clean Water Act suit, alleging that Maui
was “discharg[ing]” a “pollutant” to “navigable waters” without the re-
quired  permit.  The  District  Court  found  that  the  discharge  from 
Maui’s wells into the nearby groundwater was “functionally one into 
navigable water,” 24 F. Supp. 3d 980, 998, and granted summary judg-
ment to the environmental groups.  The Ninth Circuit affirmed, stat-
ing that a permit is required when “pollutants are fairly traceable from 
the point source to a navigable water.”  886 F. 3d 737, 749. 

Held: The statutory provisions at issue require a permit when there is a