Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-260_jifl.pdf
Page Number: 16

12 

COUNTY OF MAUI v. HAWAII WILDLIFE FUND 

Opinion of the Court 

“the  best,  if  not  the  only,  reading”  of  the  statutory  provi-
sions is that “all releases of pollutants to groundwater” are 
excluded from the scope of the permitting program, “even
where pollutants are conveyed to jurisdictional surface wa-
ters via groundwater.”  84 Fed. Reg. 16810, 16811.

Neither the Solicitor General nor any party has asked us
to give what the Court has referred to as Chevron deference 
to EPA’s interpretation of the statute.  See Chevron U. S. A. 
Inc.  v.  Natural  Resources  Defense  Council,  Inc.,  467  U. S. 
837, 844 (1984).  Even so, we often pay particular attention 
to an agency’s views in light of the agency’s expertise in a 
given area, its knowledge gained through practical experi-
ence, and its familiarity with the interpretive demands of 
administrative need.  See United States v. Mead Corp., 533 
U. S.  218,  234–235  (2001);  Skidmore  v.  Swift  &  Co.,  323 
U. S. 134, 139–140 (1944).  But here, as we have explained, 
to follow EPA’s reading would open a loophole allowing easy 
evasion of the statutory provision’s basic purposes.  Such an 
interpretation is neither persuasive nor reasonable.

EPA correctly points out that Congress did not require a
permit for all discharges to groundwater; rather, Congress 
authorized study and funding related to groundwater pol-
lution.  See Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 15– 
19.  But there is quite a gap between “not all” and “none.”
The  statutory  text  itself  alludes  to  no  exception  for  dis-
charges  through  groundwater.    These  separate  provisions 
for study and funding that EPA points to would be a “sur-
prisingly indirect route” to convey “an important and easily
expressed  message”—that  the  permit  requirement  simply 
does not apply if the pollutants travel through groundwa-
ter.  Landgraf  v.  USI  Film  Products,  511  U. S.  244,  262 
(1994).  In  truth,  the  most  these  provisions  show  is  that 
Congress  thought  that  the  problem  of  groundwater  pollu-
tion, as distinct from navigable water pollution, would pri-
marily be addressed by the States or perhaps by other fed-
eral statutes.