As reported today here in the NY Times:
Separately on Tuesday, the court ruled unanimously in a Clean Water Act case from the Florida Everglades that a pumping station that conveys pollution from one body of water to another remains subject to the law's requirement for a permit, even if the pump is not itself the source of the pollution.Thanks to How Appealing, here are links to two Florida stories today about the ruling, the first, from the PalmBeachPost.com, is headlined "High court ruling in Everglades case pleases both sides." The second, titled "Glades pumping-station case sent back to court in Miami," is from the Miami Herald. Posted by Marcia Oddi at March 24, 2004 10:32 AMBut the court sidestepped the most provocative assertion in the case, put forward by the Bush administration: that no permit is required in that circumstance because all the country's navigable waters are "unitary." Since the law requires a permit for the "addition" of pollution to the water, pollution that is simply moved within the "unitary" water system cannot be said to be added, the administration argued.
Writing for the court today in South Florida Water Management District v. Miccosukee Tribe, No. 02-626, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said this new argument needed to be presented first to the lower courts, where the case now returns.