October Term 2012 · Docket 11-460
Does stormwater from a city sewer system count as a pollutant discharge?
Los Angeles County seeks to avoid a permit for stormwater flowing from its sewer system into the ocean. The Natural Resources Defense Council argues the flow requires a permit.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
The county argued the water flow is natural and not a pollutant discharge.
The council argued the sewer system creates a discharge that requires a permit.
questions_asked_by_justices
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 39-25 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 39-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-19 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 35, lines 11-27 — Transcript, file page 35, lines 11-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 21-33 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 21-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 27-35 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 27-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 51-17 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 51-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 33-11 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 33-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 37-43 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 37-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 47-49 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 47-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 60, lines 19-29 — Transcript, file page 60, lines 19-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 61, lines 33-35 — Transcript, file page 61, lines 33-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 61, lines 45-1 — Transcript, file page 61, lines 45-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 63, lines 29-39 — Transcript, file page 63, lines 29-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 17-23 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 17-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 27-29 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 27-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 33-35 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 33-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 47-3 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 47-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 5-11 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 5-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 21-41 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 21-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 11-13 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 11-13
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
The case tests whether stormwater leaving a municipal sewer system counts as a pollutant discharge. The county argues the flow is natural and needs no permit. The council argues the flow is a discharge requiring a permit.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 39-25 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 39-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-19 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 35, lines 11-27 — Transcript, file page 35, lines 11-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 33-11 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 33-11
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on December 4, 2012.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 61, lines 45-1 — Transcript, file page 61, lines 45-1
What each side wants
The county wants the Court to reject the permit requirement for its stormwater flow.
The council wants the Court to uphold the permit requirement for the stormwater flow.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 39-25 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 39-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-19 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 35, lines 11-27 — Transcript, file page 35, lines 11-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 33-11 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 33-11
What each side says
The county argues the water flow is natural and not a pollutant discharge.
The council argues the sewer system creates a discharge that requires a permit.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 39-25 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 39-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-19 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 35, lines 11-27 — Transcript, file page 35, lines 11-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 33-11 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 33-11
What the justices asked
Chief Justice Roberts asked if the sewer system remains active.
Chief Justice Roberts asked why monitoring stations sit where they do.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 21-33 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 21-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 27-35 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 27-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 51-17 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 51-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 37-43 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 37-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 47-49 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 47-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 60, lines 19-29 — Transcript, file page 60, lines 19-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 61, lines 33-35 — Transcript, file page 61, lines 33-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 61, lines 45-1 — Transcript, file page 61, lines 45-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 63, lines 29-39 — Transcript, file page 63, lines 29-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 17-23 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 17-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 27-29 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 27-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 33-35 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 33-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 47-3 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 47-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 5-11 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 5-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 21-41 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 21-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 11-13 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 11-13
Why it matters
This case defines when cities must permit stormwater entering waterways. It shapes how municipalities manage urban runoff and water quality.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 39-25 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 39-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-19 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 35, lines 11-27 — Transcript, file page 35, lines 11-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 33-11 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 33-11
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 21-33 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 21-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 27-35 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 27-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 51-17 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 51-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 37-43 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 37-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 47-49 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 47-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 60, lines 19-29 — Transcript, file page 60, lines 19-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 61, lines 33-35 — Transcript, file page 61, lines 33-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 61, lines 45-1 — Transcript, file page 61, lines 45-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 63, lines 29-39 — Transcript, file page 63, lines 29-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 17-23 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 17-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 27-29 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 27-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 33-35 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 33-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 47-3 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 47-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 5-11 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 5-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 21-41 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 21-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 11-13 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 11-13
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 39-25 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 39-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-19 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 35, lines 11-27 — Transcript, file page 35, lines 11-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 33-11 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 33-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 39-25 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 39-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-19 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 35, lines 11-27 — Transcript, file page 35, lines 11-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 33-11 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 33-11
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.