US Supreme Court

Subscribe to US Supreme Court via RSS

The decision could complicate states’ ability to pursue groundwater natural resource damages actions.

By Kegan A. Brown, Gary P. Gengel, Thomas C. Pearce, and Taylor R. West

On November 22, 2021, the US Supreme Court held that equitable apportionment applies to a dispute between states about their respective interests in groundwater that flows through multiple states in Mississippi v. Tennessee.[1] The decision may have implications for natural resource damages (NRD) claims. Natural resource trustees often assert claims to pursue damages to groundwater. In assessing these claims, courts often must determine (1) whether the trustee has a trusteeship interest in the groundwater resource at issue, and (2) if so, the extent of the trustee’s interest in that groundwater resource relative to the interests of other trustees in the same groundwater.

Decision concludes a permit is required if such discharges are the “functional equivalent” of a direct discharge to navigable waters.

By Janice Schneider, Maria Hoye, and Ethan Prall

On April 23, 2020, the Supreme Court of the United States issued an opinion in County of Maui, Hawai’i v. Hawai’i Wildlife Fund, holding that the Clean Water Act (CWA) requires a permit for certain discharges through groundwater. Specifically, a permit is required if there is a “direct discharge” from a point source to navigable waters, or if a given discharge is the “functional equivalent” of a direct discharge when that discharge passes through groundwater before reaching navigable waters.[1]

In establishing this new functional equivalence test, the Court rejected both the argument that allowing any regulation of discharges through groundwater would expand the CWA’s scope without warrant, and the contrary argument that every discharge that is “fairly traceable” from a point of discharge to navigable waters must be regulated under the CWA. When applying the test, the Court explained that several factors — most centrally, time and distance — are relevant to determining whether a discharge through groundwater is the functional equivalent of a direct discharge.

By Andrea Hogan, Lucas Quass, John Morris and Steven Mach

On January 13, 2017, the US Supreme Court granted certiorari for an appeal that will allow the Court to determine the proper jurisdiction for litigation challenging the Clean Water Rule (the Final Rule).[1] The federal Clean Water Act (CWA) provides for original jurisdiction in the Circuit Courts of Appeal for certain categories of actions taken by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). By accepting review of the appeal, the Court will now decide whether to affirm the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeal’s assertion of original jurisdiction over litigation challenging the Final Rule, and in doing so, the Court will set the stage for consideration of Final Rule litigation on the merits. As a result of the Supreme Court’s grant of certiorari, on January 25, 2017, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeal granted a motion to hold in abeyance the litigation over the Final Rule until the US Supreme Court reaches a decision regarding jurisdiction.

Clean Water Rule’s Broad Application

EPA and the US Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) jointly issued the Final Rule to define “waters of the United States” (WOTUS), a threshold term that delimits CWA’s scope and application. The Final Rule has broad application. It defines jurisdictional waters not only for Section 404 of the CWA (permitting for dredge and fill operations) but also under Section 303 (addressing water quality standards and maximum daily loads); Section 311 (relating to oil spill prevention and response); Section 401 (concerning state water quality certifications); and Section 402 (establishing the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program). Critics of the Final Rule argue that it expands federal jurisdiction significantly beyond the bounds of court precedent interpreting the CWA’s statutory mandate. We previously published a Client Alert that discusses the Final Rule’s scope and implications in greater detail.