South Florida Water Management District v. Miccosukee Tribe of Indians
2004 U.S. LEXIS 2376, 541 U.S. 95, 158 L. Ed. 2d 264 (2004)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The conveyance of pollutants from one distinct navigable water body to another by a point source constitutes an "addition" of a pollutant under the Clean Water Act, regardless of whether the point source itself is the original generator of the pollutants.
Facts:
- The South Florida Water Management District (District) operates the Central and South Florida Flood Control Project.
- As part of this project, a canal known as C-11 collects rainwater and groundwater from a developed, 104-square-mile area, resulting in the water becoming polluted with phosphorous from fertilizers.
- A large pump station, S-9, moves this phosphorous-laden water from the C-11 canal.
- The S-9 pump discharges the water into a large, separate wetland area called Water Conservation Area 3 (WCA-3), which is a remnant of the Everglades and a naturally low-phosphorous ecosystem.
- Levees artificially separate the C-11 canal basin and WCA-3, preventing the water from flowing back into the C-11 basin.
- The phosphorous from the C-11 water alters the ecological balance of WCA-3, stimulating the growth of foreign algae and plants.
Procedural Posture:
- The Miccosukee Tribe of Indians and Friends of the Everglades sued the South Florida Water Management District in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
- On cross-motions for summary judgment, the District Court (trial court) granted summary judgment for the Tribe, ruling that the S-9 pump required an NPDES permit.
- The South Florida Water Management District, as appellant, appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the decision.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the conveyance of polluted water from one navigable water body to another by a point source, without the point source itself introducing the pollutant, constitute an 'addition' of a pollutant 'from' a point source under the Clean Water Act?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice O’Connor
Yes, the conveyance of polluted water between distinct navigable bodies of water by a point source constitutes an 'addition' of a pollutant under the Clean Water Act, even if the point source does not generate the pollutant. The court reasoned that the definition of a 'point source' as a 'conveyance'—such as a pipe, ditch, or channel—makes clear that its role is to transport pollutants, not necessarily to create them. Adopting the District's contrary view would illogically exempt facilities like municipal water treatment plants, a primary target of the Act's regulatory scheme. However, the Court vacated the lower court's decision because there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the C-11 canal and WCA-3 are meaningfully distinct water bodies, noting evidence of a shared aquifer and seepage through the levees. The case was remanded for further factual development on this issue, and the Court declined to rule on the government's broader 'unitary waters' theory, which posits that all navigable waters are a single body for CWA purposes.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Justice Scalia
Yes, a point source need not generate pollutants to be subject to the Clean Water Act's permit requirement. Justice Scalia concurred with the majority's conclusion that the S-9 pump's activity constitutes an 'addition' from a 'point source'. However, he dissented from the majority's decision to vacate and remand the case. He argued that the 'unitary waters' theory had already been raised and rejected below, and that the majority improperly relied on a factual possibility—that the two water bodies would merge if the pump were shut off—that was never raised by the parties. He would have affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals without reaching these other issues.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies that the Clean Water Act's permitting requirements apply to the conveyance of pollutants, not just their creation, broadening the regulatory scope of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). However, by declining to resolve the 'unitary waters' theory and remanding on the factual question of whether the water bodies are distinct, the Court introduced significant uncertainty. This ambiguity has led to subsequent litigation and regulatory debate focusing on what defines a distinct body of water and whether transfers between any navigable waters are exempt from permitting. The ruling places a high premium on fact-specific hydrological analyses in water transfer cases.
