Los Angeles County Flood Control District Petitioner v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., et al. (568 U.S. 78)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided January 8, 2013 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 568 U.S. 78 · 133 S. Ct. 710
- Decided
- January 8, 2013
- Term
- October Term 2012
- Vote
- 9–0
- Majority author
- Justice Ginsburg
- Issue area
- Economic Activity
- Disposition
- Reversed and remanded
- Outcome
- Petitioning party won
- Ideological direction
- Conservative
Opinion excerpt
Justice Ginsburg delivered the opinion of the Court. The Court granted review in this case limited to a single question: Under the Clean Water Act (CWA), 86 Stat. 816, as amended, 33 U. S. C. § 1251 et seq., does the flow of water out of a concrete channel within a river rank as a “discharge of a pollutant”? In this Court, the parties and the United States as amicus curiae agree that the answer to this question is “no.” They base this accord on South Fla. Water Management Dist. v. Miccosukee Tribe, 541 U. S. 95, 109-112 (2004), in which we accepted that pumping polluted water from one part of a water body into another part of the same body is not a discharge of pollutants under the CWA. Adhering to the view we took in Miccosukee, we hold that the parties correctly answered the sole question presented in the negative. The decision in this suit rendered by the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is inconsistent with our determination. We therefore reverse that court’s judgment. Petitioner Los Angeles County Flood Control District (District) operates a “municipal separate storm sewer system” (MS4)—a drainage system that collects, transports, and discharges storm water. See 40 CFR § 122.26(b)(8) (2012). See also § 122.26(b)(13) (“Storm water means storm water runoff, snow melt runoff, and surface runoff and drainage.”). Because storm water is often heavily polluted, see 64…
Excerpt of a 9,047-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.