South Florida Water Management District v. Miccosukee Tribe

Media Items
Oral Argument
Get Adobe Flash Player
Opinion Announcement
Get Adobe Flash Player
Advocates
Timothy S. Bishop (argued the cause for Petitioner)
Jeffrey P. Minear (argued the cause for Petitioner, on behalf of the United States, as amicus curiae)
Dexter W. Lehtinen (argued the cause for Respondents)
Case Basics
Docket No.: 
02-626
Petitioner: 
South Florida Water Management District
Respondent: 
Miccosukee Tribe of Indians, et al.
Opinion: 
541 U.S. 95 (2004)

Cite this page
The Oyez Project, South Florida Water Management District v. Miccosukee Tribe , 541 U.S. 95 (2004)
available at: (http://oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2003/2003_02_626)
Facts of the Case: 

The Miccosukee Tribe of Indians and the Friends of the Everglades sued the South Florida Water Management District under the Clean Water Act (CWA) in federal district court. The suit alleged that the water district violated the Clean Water Act by releasing pollutants from a pump system without a discharge elimination system permit. The Clean Water Act prohibits the "addition of any pollutant... from any point source" without a specific permit. The water district defended its action by claiming that it was not actually adding pollutants to the water, but merely transporting polluted water from one body of water to another, less polluted, body.

The district court ruled against the water district and found that it had violated the CWA by using the pump. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed on this point, "conclud[ing] that the release of water caused by the... pump station's operation constitutes an addition of pollutants from a point source."

Question: 

Does pumping water into a water conservation area - where the water being pumped contains a pollutant but the pumping station itself adds no pollutants to the water - violate the Clean Water Act's prohibition of adding pollutants from a point source?

Conclusion: 

In an opinion delivered by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the Court sent the case back to the district court to consider whether the water conservation area and the canal used to transport the water are distinct. If the district court decides the two are not distinct, then the water district will not need a permit under the Clean Water Act. The Court rejected the water district's argument that the act covers a point source only when pollutants originate from that source, not when pollutants originating elsewhere pass through the point source. A point source need only convey the pollutant to navigable waters. The Court was unanimous in sending the case back to district court. Justice Antonin Scalia dissented from part of the Court's reasoning.

Decisions

Decision: 9 votes for South Florida Water Management District, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Water Pollution Control (Clean Water), plus amendments

Sort by Ideology

Voted with the majority
Rehnquist
Voted with the majority
Stevens
Wrote the majority opinion
O'Connor
Wrote a special concurrence
Scalia
Voted with the majority
Kennedy
Voted with the majority
Souter
Voted with the majority
Thomas
Voted with the majority
Ginsburg
Voted with the majority
Breyer

Full Opinion by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor