Environmental Law — CWA

Listen to this article

U.S. Supreme Court

Civil

Environmental Law — CWA

The flow of water from an improved portion of a navigable waterway into an unimproved portion of the same waterway does not qualify as a “discharge of a pollutant” under the CWA.

See Water Management Dist. v. Miccosukee Tribe, 541 U. S. 95–112 (holding that the transfer of polluted water between “two parts of the same water body” does not constitute a discharge of pollutants under the CWA). The Ninth Circuit’s decision cannot be squared with this holding.

The NRDC and Baykeeper alternatively argue that, based on the terms of the District’s NPDES permit, the exceedances detected at the monitoring stations sufficed to establish the District’s liability under the CWA for its upstream discharges. This argument, which failed below, is not embraced within the narrow question on which certiorari was granted. The Court therefore does not address it.

673 F. 3d 880, reversed and remanded.

11-460 Los Angeles County Flood Control Dist. V. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.

Ginsburg, J.; Alito, J., concurring.