The Supreme Court's consideration of hydrology in its recent decision finding Clean Water Act (CWA) permits may be necessary for discharges of pollutants that travel through groundwater could lead the court to reject the Trump administration's definition of waters of the United States (WOTUS) for failing to reflect science, says one legal scholar. But other legal experts downplay the significance of the justices' April 23 ruling in County of Maui, v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund, et al., which referenced language from an amicus brief of scientists, arguing that textual analysis remains a more important consideration for the high court. The 6-3 ruling in Maui finds the CWA requires "a permit when there is a direct discharge from a point source into navigable waters or when there is the functional equivalent of a direct discharge" and outlines seven factors to help determine when there is a functional equivalent of a direct discharge.
展开▼
