Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P. v. Upstate Forever

The Supreme Court vacated and remanded this case following its decision in a similar matter regarding the Clean Water Act. The Court was asked to decide if federal law regulates pollution that travels through groundwater before reaching navigable waters like rivers or oceans.

This case affects how companies manage underground leaks and whether they need federal permits for indirect pollution. It impacts environmental groups' ability to sue over pipeline spills that seep into the water table.

The case is part of a long-running debate over the reach of federal environmental laws. It centers on the definition of 'navigable waters' and how strictly the government can regulate pollution that does not flow directly from a pipe.

The Court issued a summary disposition on May 4, 2020, vacating the lower court's judgment in light of the County of Maui v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund decision.

The Supreme Court sent the case back to lower courts to be reconsidered under a new legal standard for groundwater pollution.

Watch for how lower courts, agencies, or affected parties respond to the ruling. The Fourth Circuit must now apply the 'functional equivalent' test to determine if the specific discharge requires a permit.

The case focused on whether the Clean Water Act applies when pollutants move through groundwater to reach protected surface waters. Environmental groups argued this indirect path still requires a federal permit.

Companies may face higher costs for monitoring underground infrastructure like pipelines. They could also face more lawsuits if pollutants from their facilities eventually reach nearby lakes or streams.

The Court used the 'functional equivalent' test from a related case. This rule requires a permit if the discharge into groundwater is very similar to a direct discharge into open water.

The case returns to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. That court will re-examine the facts to see if the pollution meets the Supreme Court's new criteria.

This reflects a trend of the Court seeking a middle ground between total federal control and limited state oversight. It clarifies the scope of the Clean Water Act without expanding it to all groundwater.