Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-260_jifl.pdf
Page Number: 35

2 

COUNTY OF MAUI v. HAWAII WILDLIFE FUND 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

functional  equivalent  of  a  direct  discharge.”  Ante,  at  15. 
This is not a plausible interpretation of the statutory text
and, to make matters worse, the Court’s test has no clear 
meaning.

Just what is the “functional equivalent” of a “direct dis-
charge”?  The Court provides no real answer.  All it will say 
is  that  the  distance  a  pollutant  travels  and  the  time  this 
trip entails are the most important factors, but at least five 
other factors may have a bearing on the question, and even
this list is not exhaustive.  Ante, at 16.  Entities like water 
treatment authorities that need to know whether they must
get a permit are left to guess how this nebulous standard 
will be applied.  Regulators are given the discretion, at least 
in  the  first  instance,  to  make  of  this  standard  what  they 
will.  And the lower courts?  The Court’s advice, in essence, 
is: “That’s your problem. Muddle through as best you can.” 

I 

Petitioner,  the  County  of  Maui  (County),  built  the 
Lahaina  Wastewater  Reclamation  Facility  in  the  1970s.
Excerpts  of  Record  304.  The  facility  receives  sewage  and 
then discharges treated wastewater into wells (essentially 
long pipes) that extend 200 feet or more below ground level. 
Id., at 694–695.  Some of this discharge enters an aquifer 
below the facility.  Id., at 696. 

In all the years of its operation, the facility has never had 
a  National  Pollution  Discharge  Elimination  System
(NPDES) permit for discharges from the wells, a fact that
has been well known to both the EPA and the Hawaii De-
partment  of  Health  (HDOH).  The  EPA  helped  to  finance
the  construction  of  the  facility  with  a  Clean  Water  Act 
grant.  Id., at 141.  In 1973, before breaking ground on the
facility, the County prepared an environmental impact re-
port  and  shared  it  with  the  EPA  and  the  HDOH.  Id.,  at 
140,  342.  The  report  predicted  that  effluent  injected  into 
groundwater  from  the  wells  would  “eventually  reach  the