The U.S. Supreme Court has waded in again on the issue of how wide the reach of the Clean Water Act is. The high court on Nov. 6 heard oral arguments in a case that deals with whether pollutants from a Maui wastewater treatment plant that are discharged into groundwater and eventually end up in the Pacific Ocean are covered by federal permits that govern specific facilities, or “point sources.”

夏威夷毛伊县和联邦政府县认为，应将排放到地下水中的县排除在这种国家污染物消除系统或NPDES许可证之外。另一方面，夏威夷野生动植物基金会和其他环保组织强烈不同意。

See more case details, updates and broader implications这里和这里。

Attorney Elbert Lin, representing the county, argued that a NPDES permit is mandated “only when a point source or series of point sources is the means of delivering pollutants to navigable waters.” Groundwater “is a nonpoint source,” said Lin, a former West Virginia solicitor general. [View transcript of oral arguments这里。]。

But Justice Stephen Breyer said that the county's approach would amount to “an absolute road map for people who want to avoid the point source regulation.” For example, he said, companies could build discharge pipes from the treatment plant to a point “five feet” from a body of water.

The justices seemed to be wrestling with how to draw a regulatory line that would be tough enough to dissuade people from trying to get around the clean water statute but on the other hand wouldn't require many thousands of homeowners to get a federal permit to install septic tanks.

水资源公司Dawson＆Associates的高级顾问拉里·利伯斯曼（Larry Liebesman）（参加法院会议）表示，该县和政府明确排除排放到地下水的立场不得不获得NPDES许可证，这似乎并没有持续这一天。

Liebesman, a former Justice Dept. senior trial attorney specializing in environmental cases, said in an interview, “Frankly, I think the justices, just about all of them, weren’t buying that argument.” He added, "I think the environmental groups are likely to prevail on that point.”

EarthJustice高级律师David Henkin在法庭上代表环境团体的高级律师在接受采访时说：“我很高兴大法官在这里磨练了真正的大型问题，这就是人们是否可以逃避干净的清洁水只需用地下水作为下水道来污染可通航的水域即可。”

Liebesman added, “On the flip side, I think the justices, including the more liberal ones, are very concerned about a limiting principle"—what sort of standard to devise. There was no consensus on what that benchmark should look like.

亨金（Henkin）提出了一个标准，涉及污染物的可追溯性和移动污染的“近端原因”。但是首席法官约翰·罗伯茨（John Roberts）对此表示怀疑。他说，他希望看到一个“有限的原则”，因为当地下水携带污染转移到像太平洋这样的联邦管制水域时。

布雷耶还认为亨金的建议不足。他说：“我担心有5亿人或突然发现他们必须去申请EPA的许可证。”

在诉讼期间，在一个关头，大法官正在讨论如何从一群房主的个体化粪池中追踪污染。对于罗伯茨来说，追踪污染者的困难引发了文学参考。他说：“这就像阿加莎·克里斯蒂（Agatha Christie）的小说。”“你有20个人，他们同时向那个家伙开枪。”

A decision in the case is expected during the court's current term, but it isn't clear when.