`
`
`
` OCTOBER TERM, 2012
`
`
`Syllabus
`
`1
`
` NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is
`
`
`
` being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.
`
`
`
` The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been
`
` prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.
`
` See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337.
`
`
`SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
`
`
`
` Syllabus
`
` LOS ANGELES COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT
`
`v. NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, INC.,
`
`ET AL.
`CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
`
`THE NINTH CIRCUIT
` No. 11–460. Argued December 4, 2012—Decided January 8, 2013
`
`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. Because storm
`water is often heavily polluted, the Clean Water Act (CWA) and its
`implementing regulations require certain MS4 operators to obtain a
`National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit
`before discharging storm water into navigable waters. The District
`has such a permit for its MS4. Respondents Natural Resources De-
`fense Council, Inc. (NRDC) and Santa Monica Baykeeper (Baykeeper)
`
`filed a citizen suit against the District and others under §505 of the
`
`CWA, 33 U. S. C. §1365, alleging, among other things, that water-
`
`quality measurements from monitoring stations within the Los Ange-
`les and San Gabriel Rivers demonstrated that the District was violat-
`ing the terms of its permit. The District Court granted summary
`judgment to the District on these claims, concluding that the record
`was insufficient to warrant a finding that the MS4 had discharged
`storm water containing the standards-exceeding pollutants detected
`at the downstream monitoring stations. The Ninth Circuit reversed
`in relevant part. The court held that the District was liable for the
`discharge of pollutants that, in the court’s view, occurred when the
`polluted water detected at the monitoring stations flowed out of the
`concrete-lined portions of the rivers, where the monitoring stations
`
`are located, into lower, unlined portions of the same rivers.
`Held: The flow of water from an improved portion of a navigable wa-
`terway into an unimproved portion of the same waterway does not
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
` LOS ANGELES COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DIST. v.
`
` NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, INC.
`
`
` Syllabus
`
`qualify as a “discharge of a pollutant” under the CWA. See South
`
`Fla. Water Management Dist. v. Miccosukee Tribe, 541 U. S. 95, 109–
`
`112 (holding that the transfer of polluted water between “two parts of
`the same water body” does not constitute a discharge of pollutants
`under the CWA). The Ninth Circuit’s decision cannot be squared
`
`
`with this holding.
`
`The NRDC and Baykeeper alternatively argue that, based on the
` terms of the District’s NPDES permit, the exceedances detected at
`
`the monitoring stations sufficed to establish the District’s liability
`under the CWA for its upstream discharges. This argument, which
`failed below, is not embraced within the narrow question on which
`certiorari was granted. The Court therefore does not address it.
`Pp. 3–5.
`673 F. 3d 880, reversed and remanded.
`GINSBURG, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS,
`
`
`C. J., and SCALIA, KENNEDY, THOMAS, BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JJ., joined. ALITO, J., concurred in the judgment.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Cite as: 568 U. S. ____ (2013)
`
`Opinion of the Court
`
`1
`
`
` NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the
`
`
`
` preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to
`
` notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Wash-
`
` ington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order
`
`
` that corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press.
`
`
`
`
`SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
`
`_________________
`
` No. 11–460
`_________________
` LOS ANGELES COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT
`
`
`
` PETITIONER v. NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE
`
`COUNCIL, INC., ET AL.
`
`
`ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
`
`
`APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
`
`
`[January 8, 2013]
`
` 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 pump-
`ing polluted water from one part of a water body into
`another part of the same body is not a discharge of pol-
`lutants 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 there-
`fore reverse that court’s judgment.
`
`Petitioner Los Angeles County Flood Control District
`
`
`(District) operates a “municipal separate storm sewer
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
` LOS ANGELES COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DIST. v.
`
` NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, INC.
`
`Opinion of the Court
`
`system” (MS4)—a drainage system that collects, trans-
`
`ports, 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 Fed. Reg. 68724–68727
`(1999), the CWA and its implementing regulations require
`the operator of an MS4 serving a population of at least
`100,000 to obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimina-
`tion System (NPDES) permit before discharging storm
`water into navigable waters. See 33 U. S. C. §§1311(a),
`1342(p)(2)(C), and (D); 40 CFR §§122.26(a)(3), (b)(4), (b)(7).
`The District first obtained a NPDES permit for its MS4 in
`1990; thereafter, the permit was several times renewed.
`Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. County of Los
`Angeles, 673 F. 3d 880, 886 (CA9 2011).
`
`
`
`
`Respondents Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.
`(NRDC) and Santa Monica Baykeeper (Baykeeper) filed
`a citizen suit against the District and several other de-
`fendants under §505 of the CWA, 33 U. S. C. §1365. They
`alleged, among other things, that water-quality measure-
`ments from monitoring stations located within the Los
`Angeles and San Gabriel Rivers demonstrated that the
`District was violating the terms of its permit.
`
`The District Court granted summary judgment to the
`District on these claims. It was undisputed, the District
`Court acknowledged, that “data from the Los Angeles
`River and San Gabriel River [monitoring] stations indi-
`cate[d] that water quality standards ha[d] repeatedly been
`exceeded for a number of pollutants, including aluminum,
`copper, cyanide, fecal coliform bacteria, and zinc.” App. to
`Pet. for Cert. 108. But numerous entities other than the
`District, the court added, discharge into the rivers up-
`
`stream of the monitoring stations. See id., at 115–116.
`See also 673 F. 3d, at 889 (observing that the pollutants of
`
`“thousands of permitted dischargers” reach the rivers).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Cite as: 568 U. S. ____ (2013)
`
`Opinion of the Court
` The record was insufficient, the District Court concluded,
`
`to warrant a finding that the District’s MS4 had dis-
`charged storm water containing the standards-exceeding
`pollutants detected at
`the downstream monitoring
`stations.
`The Ninth Circuit reversed in relevant part. The moni-
`
`
`toring stations for the Los Angeles and San Gabriel Riv-
`ers, the Court of Appeals said, are located in “concrete
`channels” constructed for flood-control purposes. Id., at
`900. See also id., at 889 (describing the monitoring
`stations’ location). Based on this impression, the Court of
`Appeals held that a discharge of pollutants occurred under
`the CWA when the polluted water detected at the monitor-
`ing stations “flowed out of the concrete channels” and
`entered downstream portions of the waterways lacking
`concrete linings. Id., at 900. Because the District exer-
`
`cises control over the concrete-lined portions of the rivers,
`
`the Court of Appeals held, the District is liable for the
`
`discharges that, in the appellate court’s view, occur when
`
`water exits those concrete channels. See id., at 899–901.
`We granted certiorari on the following question: Under
`
`the CWA, does a “discharge of pollutants” occur when
`polluted water “flows from one portion of a river that is
`navigable water of the United States, through a concrete
`channel or other engineered improvement in the river,”
`and then “into a lower portion of the same river”? Pet.
`for Cert. i. See 567 U. S. ___ (2012). As noted above,
`see supra, at 1, the parties, as well as the United States
`as amicus curiae, agree that the answer to this question
`is “no.”
`That agreement is hardly surprising, for we held in
`
`
`Miccosukee that the transfer of polluted water between
`“two parts of the same water body” does not constitute a
`discharge of pollutants under the CWA. 541 U. S., at 109–
`112. We derived that determination from the CWA’s text,
`
`which defines the term “discharge of a pollutant” to mean
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`LOS ANGELES COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DIST. v.
`
`NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, INC.
`
`Opinion of the Court
`
`“any addition of any pollutant to navigable waters from
`any point source.” 33 U. S. C. §1362(12) (emphasis added).
`Under a common understanding of the meaning of the
`word “add,” no pollutants are “added” to a water body
`when water is merely transferred between different por-
`tions of that water body. See Webster’s Third New Inter-
`national Dictionary 24 (2002) (“add” means “to join, annex,
`or unite (as one thing to another) so as to bring about
`an increase (as in number, size, or importance) or so as to
`form one aggregate”). “As the Second Circuit [aptly] put it
`. . . , ‘[i]f one takes a ladle of soup from a pot, lifts it above
`the pot, and pours it back into the pot, one has not “added”
`soup or anything else to the pot.’” Miccosukee, 541 U. S.,
`at 109–110 (quoting Catskill Mountains Chapter of Trout
`Unlimited, Inc. v. New York, 273 F. 3d 481, 492 (CA2
`2001)).
`In Miccosukee, polluted water was removed from a ca-
`nal, transported through a pump station, and then de-
`
`
`posited into a nearby reservoir. 541 U. S., at 100. We
`
`held that this water transfer would count as a discharge of
`pollutants under the CWA only if the canal and the reser-
`
`voir were “meaningfully distinct water bodies.” Id., at
`112. It follows, a fortiori, from Miccosukee that no dis-
`charge of pollutants occurs when water, rather than being
`removed and then returned to a water body, simply flows
`from one portion of the water body to another. We hold,
`therefore, that the flow of water from an improved portion
`of a navigable waterway into an unimproved portion of
`the very same waterway does not qualify as a discharge of
`pollutants under the CWA. Because the decision below
`cannot be squared with that holding, the Court of Appeals’
`
`judgment must be reversed.1
`——————
`1The NRDC, Baykeeper, and the United States contend—contrary to
`the District—that the Court of Appeals understood that no discharge of
`
` pollutants occurs when water flows from an improved into an unim-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cite as: 568 U. S. ____ (2013)
`
`
`Opinion of the Court
`The NRDC and Baykeeper urge that the Court of Ap-
`
`peals reached the right result, albeit for the wrong reason.
`The monitoring system proposed by the District and writ-
`ten into its permit showed numerous instances in which
`water-quality standards were exceeded. Under the per-
`mit’s terms, the NRDC and Baykeeper maintain, the ex-
`ceedances detected at the instream monitoring stations
`are by themselves sufficient to establish the District’s
`liability under the CWA for its upstream discharges. See
`Brief for Respondents 33–62.2 This argument failed be-
`low. See 673 F. 3d, at 898, 901; App. to Pet. for Cert. 100–
`102.
`It is not embraced within, or even touched by,
`the narrow question on which we granted certiorari. We
`therefore do not address, and indicate no opinion on, the
`issue the NRDC and Baykeeper seek to substitute for the
`question we took up for review.
`
`
`*
`*
`*
`
`For the reasons stated, the judgment of the Court of
`Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is reversed, and the case is
`remanded.
`
`JUSTICE ALITO concurs in the judgment.
`——————
`proved portion of a navigable waterway. They suggest that the Court of
`Appeals misperceived the facts, erroneously believing that the monitor-
`ing stations for the Los Angeles and San Gabriel Rivers “were sampling
`water from a portion of the MS4 that was distinct from the rivers
`
`themselves and from which discharges through an outfall to the rivers
`subsequently occurred.” Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 18.
`
`See also Brief for Respondents 30–31 (“The court of appeals’ statements
`suggest it believed the monitoring stations sampled polluted storm-
`water from the District’s MS4 before, not after, discharge to the Los
`Angeles and San Gabriel Rivers.”). Whatever the source of the Court of
`Appeals’ error, all parties agree that the court’s analysis was erroneous.
`2Shortly before oral argument in this case, a renewed permit was
`approved for the District’s MS4. Unlike the District’s prior permit,
`which required only instream monitoring, the renewed permit requires
`end-of-pipe monitoring at individual MS4 discharge points. See id., at
`20–21; Reply Brief 5, n. 2.
`
`It is so ordered.