Document: 541 U.S. 95 SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICTv.MICCOSUKEE TRIBE OF INDIANS ET AL. No. 02-626. Supreme Court of United States. Argued January 14, 2004. Decided March 23, Congress established the Central and South Florida Flood Control Project (Project) to address drainage flood control problems in reclaimed portions Everglades. Five elements are at issue here. The first, "C-11" canal, collects ground water rainwater from an area that includes urban, agricultural, residential development. second element, pump station "S-9," moves canal third undeveloped wetland, "WCA-3," which is a remnant original Petitioner, Project's day-to-day operator (hereinafter District), impounds there keep it flowing into ocean preserve wetlands habitat. Absent such human intervention, would flow back C-11 basin's populated areas. Such prevented by levees, including "L-33" "L-37" levees combined effect L-33, L-37, C-11, S-9 artificially separate basin WCA-3, otherwise be single wetland. has environmental impact on wetland ecosystems. Rain western side L-33 L-37 falls WCA-3's ecosystem, but rain falling eastern absorbs contaminants, phosphorous fertilizers, before entering canal. When pumped across phosphorus alters WCA-3 ecosystem's balance, stimulating growth algae plants foreign Respondents Tribe) filed suit under Clean Water Act (Act), prohibits "the discharge any pollutant person" unless done compliance with Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1311(a). Under Act's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), dischargers must obtain permits limiting type quantity pollutants they can release Nation's waters. 1342. defines "`discharge pollutant'" as "any addition navigable waters point source," 1362(12), "`point source'" discernible, confined discrete conveyance" "from or may discharged," 1362(14). Tribe claims requires NPDES permit because phosphorus-laden District contends S-9's operation does not constitute "discharge [a] pollutant" Act. granted summary judgment, Eleventh Circuit affirmed. Both rested their holdings predicate determination two distinct bodies. Held: case remanded for further proceedings regarding parties' factual dispute over whether meaningfully Pp. 104-112. (a) Each three arguments advanced Federal Government amicus would, if accepted, lead conclusion require permit. P. 104. (b) rejects District's initial argument program covers source only when originate originating elsewhere merely pass through source. definition "conveyance," 1362(14), makes plain need convey examples sources—pipes, ditches, tunnels, conduits—are objects transport, do generate, pollutants. And one primary goals was impose permitting requirements municipal wastewater treatment plants, treat added others. 104-105. (c) all bodies should viewed unitarily purposes permitting. Because waters, required body discharged, unaltered, another body. Despite relevance this "unitary waters" approach, neither nor raised briefs respecting certiorari, unaware examined its present form. Thus, declines resolve However, judgment vacated event, unitary will open parties remand. 105-109. (d) believe impoundment bodies, hydrologically indistinguishable parts agrees that, so, pumping other cannot "addition" within meaning disputes premise one. also disagree about how relationship between assessed. This decide here Court's test adequate determining distinct, court applied prematurely. Summary appropriate where no genuine material fact, some issues remain unresolved correctly characterized nonnatural, appears were shut down, might brief time east, rather than west. But record suggests drained flood, mean longer water, instead part larger extending basin. It call question Circuit's cause fact WCA-3. Nothing considered these judgment. If, after development record, concludes 109-112. 280 F. 3d 1364, remanded. O'CONNOR, J., delivered opinion Court, Parts I II-A unanimous, II-B II-C joined REHNQUIST, C. STEVENS, KENNEDY, SOUTER, THOMAS, GINSBURG, BREYER, JJ. SCALIA, concurring dissenting part, post, p. 112. 1 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT APPEALS FOR ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. 2 Timothy S. Bishop argued petitioner. With him Sheryl Grimm Wood James E. Nutt. 3 Jeffrey Minear States curiae urging reversal. Solicitor General Olson, Assistant Attorney Sansonetti, Deputy Hungar, Clark, Kilbourne, Ellen Durkee, Sylvia Quast. 4 Dexter W. Lehtinen respondents. respondent Miccosukee Indians Juan M. Vargas, Claudio Riedi, Sonia Escobio O'Donnell, Richard J. Ovelmen, Dionè Carroll. John Childe Friends Everglades.* 5 JUSTICE O'CONNOR Court. 6 Petitioner Management operates facility transfers reservoir short distance away. Everglades brought citizen contending System. agreed A panel Appeals For reasons explained below, we vacate remand accuracy determination. 7 * 8 consists vast array canals, pumps, areas land south Florida's coastal hills Historically, itself Everglades, surface flowed uniform unchanneled sheet. Starting early 1900's, however, State began build canals drain make them suitable cultivation. These proved trouble; lowered table, allowing saltwater intrude upon wells, incapable controlling flooding. 1948 problems. gave Army Corps Engineers task constructing comprehensive network storage areas, improvements serve several simultaneous purposes, protection, conservation, drainage. fundamentally altered hydrology changing natural sheet water. local sponsor (District). 9 case. One called "C-11." 104-square-mile central Broward County. App. 110. development, home 136,000 people. At terminus element here: large known "S-9." level rises above set level, begins operating pumps out travel far. Sixty feet away, empties consider largest "water conservation areas" remnants conserve fresh-water directly ocean, Id., 10 Using stations like S-9, maintains table significantly higher developed lands east. simply rejoin That return prevented, or, more accurately, slowed, hold Two those final WCA-3; left nature, covered undifferentiated slowly southward. B 11 As description illustrates, wrought large-scale hydrologic change Florida, deliberate accidental. Its most obvious been conversion what once use. affected 12 ecosystem hand, land. Before enters runoff indirectly contaminants produced activities. therefore differs chemically Of particular interest here, contains elevated levels phosphorous, found fertilizers used farmers balance (which naturally low phosphorous) stimulates ecosystem. 13 phosphorous-related impacts well have received great deal attention state federal authorities 20 years. number initiatives currently way reduce thereby restore ecological integrity Tribe), impatient pace progress, Southern Florida. They sought, among things, enjoin and, turn, conveyance C 14 enacted (Act) 1972. stated objective "to maintain chemical, physical, biological waters." 86 Stat. 816, 1251. To ends, provision relevant case, 1342, establishes System, NPDES. Generally speaking, place limits released phrase source." 1362(12). source,'" defined conveyance," pipe, ditch, channel, tunnel, discharged." 15 According Tribe, operate without phosphorous-laden pollutant, "navigable question, contends, constitutes 16 cross-motions Tribe's motion, reasoning follows: 17 "In exists undisputedly containing being discharged both . different quality levels. transfer contents occur naturally." Pet. Cert. 28a-29a. 18 reasoned first "in [Act], receiving water." 1368 (CA11 2002). After concluding indeed then asked "point so trigger requirement. answer explained: 19 "[F]or source, inquiry — We, therefore, conclude occurs cause-in-fact "When changes causes flowed, pollutants." Ibid. (footnote omitted). 21 believed station, concluded accordingly affirmed grant held We certiorari. 539 957 (2003). II 22 Government, amicus, advance arguments, program. involve application disputed contentions law agreed-upon facts, while involves facts. decline legal disagreements, dispute. 23 In opening merits, applies "only originates Brief 20. mirrors presented petition certiorari: "Whether management agency adds nothing `addition' `from' triggering Act." i. Although position, Amicus Curiae 21, agree proposition add conveys 24 untenable, even abandoned reply brief. Reply 2. is, definition, "discernible, confined, conveyance." 1362(14) (emphasis added). pollutant; waters," are, States." 1362(7). Tellingly, sources" listed include pipes, conduits, themselves generate transport them. addition, plants. See, e. g., 1311(b)(1)(B) (establishing schedule publicly owned works). interpretation cover reject proposed reading contained reach sources 25 Having answered precise turn argument, primarily merits briefing oral argument. ibid., fall "`navigable waters'" (that States, territorial seas," 1362(7)) requirements. Government's approach true polluted pristine, mix. See Catskill Mountains Chapter Trout Unlimited, Inc. v. New York, 273 481, 492 (CA2 2001); Dubois Dept. Agriculture, 102 1273 (CA1 1996). 26 focuses absence word "any" prior 1362(12) signals Congress' understanding pollution caused engineered water" another. argues intended addressed nonpoint programs. Section 1314(f)(2)(F), concerns sources, directs Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) give information evaluation "pollution resulting movement, flow, circulation construction dams, channels, causeways, diversion facilities." 27 note, 1314(f)(2)(F) explicitly exempt source" definition. provisions read suggest view contrary approach. example, individualized ambient standards taking consideration designated uses involved." 1313(c)(2)(A). Those standards, affect permits; standard conditions fail achieve given body, determine total load sustain allocate holders who 1313(d). protects individual "waters States" whole. 28 adopt deference longstanding EPA process "transporting, impounding, releasing "`addition'" "`the States.'" 16. identify administrative documents espoused position. Indeed, former officials reached opposite conclusion. Former Administrator Carol Browner et al. Amici (citing re Riverside Irrigation Dist., 1975 WL 23864 (Ofc. Gen. Coun., June 27, 1975) (irrigation ditches qualify waters)). could conflict current regulations. 40 CFR 122.45(g)(4) (2003) allows industrial user "intake credit" withdraws holder discharges use, remove withdrawn. There caveat, however: extends credit discharger demonstrates intake drawn same made." thus movement least times. 29 Finally, numerous amici warn affirming significant practical consequences. If every another, thousands new issued, particularly whose supply networks often rely various Colorado 2-4. Many diversions expensive meet criteria. construing raise costs distribution prohibitively, violate specific instruction authority each quantities jurisdiction shall superseded, abrogated impaired" 1251(g). On necessary protect quality, regulatory issuing general associated §§ 122.28, 123.25 (2003).* position interpreted interbasin transfers. Pennsylvania Department 11-18. 30 adopting despite (The adopted own merits.) aware reported examines precisely form now presents it. result, find respect District, 31 courts contended all, point, claiming "share unique, intimately related, hydrological association," "can appropriately viewed, 402 Opposition 13. Second put "[i]f takes ladle soup pot, lifts pours `added' anything else pot." 3d, 492. What premise; according pots soup, 32 contain supporting divided line uncertain soil extremely porous, flows easily much "[g]round essentially thing." 111, 117. course, share common underlying aquifer. Tr. Oral Arg. 42. Moreover, continually leak, escape means boundary indistinct, mingling waters; reveals use travels seepage 172; see id., 37 (describing "cyclical"). counsel focused differing "biological characteristics" respective 43; Respondent 6-7; 18-22, emphasizes close connections two. 47. disputes, Tribe. party defends; determined "because 28a. endorsed test. 1368. 34 distinct. Instead, fact. Celotex Corp. Catrett, 477 317 (1986). us leads unresolved. certainly correct characterize nonnatural one, propelled diesel-fired motors against pull gravity. west, does. effects shutting down extend beyond that. limited quite quickly. 1366 ("Without portion County days"). flooding "distinct water," 1368, ordering later emergency relief injunction admitted had previously understood "`literally ope[n] gates.'" 1371. 35 validity distinction reviewing full possible broader Accordingly, vacated, consistent opinion. 36 ordered. Notes: Briefs ofamici reversal Ken Salazar, Colorado, Alan Gilbert, General, Felicity Hannay, Anthony Trumbly, Senior Patricia A. Madrid, Mexico, Glenn R. Smith, Stephen Farris, Attorneys Mark Bennett Hawaii, Lawrence Wasden Idaho, Jon Bruning Nebraska, Brian Sandoval Nevada, Wayne Stenehjem North Dakota, Long Greg Abbott Texas, L. Shurtleff Utah, Patrick Crank Wyoming; Idaho Governor Dirk Kempthorne Michael Bogert; City Weston, Susan Trevarthen Nancy Stroud; York Cardozo, Leonard Koerner, Kenneth Rubin, Alexandra Dapolito Dunn; Fruit Vegetable Association Terry Cole, Rademacher, Costigan; Lake Worth Drainage G. Spillias Michelle Diffenderfer; Home Builders Virginia Albrecht, Andrew Turner, Duane Desiderio, Thomas Ward; Hydropower Sam Kalen Swiger; League Cities Ruda I. Crowley; Resources Robert V. Trout, Peggy Montaño, Kightlinger, Gregory K. Wilkinson, Guy Martin, Schiffer, Gregg Houtz; Nationwide Public Projects Coalition Liebesman; Pacific Legal Foundation Robin Rivett Frank Shepherd; Utility Group Kristy N. Bulleit. affirmance Eliot Spitzer, Caitlin Halligan, Aronowitz, H. Easton, Peter Lehner, Chief Tierney, Blumenthal Connecticut, Lisa Madigan Illinois, Albert B. Chandler III Kentucky, Steven Rowe Maine, Reilly Massachusetts, Cox Michigan, Jeremiah (Jay) Nixon Missouri, Harvey Jersey, Roy Cooper Carolina, Drew Edmondson Oklahoma, William Sorrell Vermont, Christine O. Gregoire Washington; Commonwealth Mather, Sr., Leslie Anne Miller, Glenn, Scott Roy; Wetland Managers Parenteau Julia LeMense Huff; Greater Minnesota Douglas Skor; Wildlife Federation David Guest Monica Reimer; Tribal Council Tracy Labin, T. Anderson, Rodgers, Jr.; Murphy Howard Fox; Tongue & Yellowstone River Jack Tuholske Elizabeth Brennan; Inc., Karl Coplan; Lazarus. An applicant provide about, itself, nature system used. greatly burden authorizing category specified geographic area. Once permit, entities, cases, take action besides adhering conditions. 122.28(b)(2)(v) part. 38 join opinion, requirement pumps. dissent, decision below ground, Part II-C, ante, invite yet theory, II-B, ante. Neither actions taken response presented. affirm Appeals' disposition reaching issues. 39 problematic well. unitary-waters decided below. 109. my fair support contention. n. 2002) ("We outside world insofar added)); Appellant 00-15703-CC (CA11), ("The Levee another"). phrased terms clarity made. directing already rejected. holding precluded possibility ultimately Ante, 111. knowledge, historically 46-49, arguing absent (a journey moment, uphill). (1986), district speculate sua sponte possibilities contemplated. Cf. Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 56(e) (opponent "set forth facts showing trial"). 41 presented, leaving theory

Category: 7