New York
How County of Maui v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund applies in New York: state-specific rules, key cases, and bar exam notes for Environmental Law (Clean Water Act).
New York adopts a similar interpretative approach as applied in County of Maui, placing emphasis on the discharge of pollutants through groundwater that may later reach navigable waters. This establishes a broader understanding of what constitutes a 'discharge' under the Clean Water Act in the context of groundwater contamination.
Any discharge of pollutants into groundwater that is connected to navigable waters may trigger permits under the Clean Water Act, regardless of direct discharge through traditional point sources.
The court ruled that the EPA must address discharges to groundwater that are part of a larger system contributing to surface water pollution.
Confirmed that environmental review must consider groundwater impacts on surface water, thus broadening the nexus concept in New York's environmental considerations.
Determined that permits are required when groundwater pollution can reasonably be expected to affect navigable waters.
New York’s approach aligns with the County of Maui decision by potentially applying the Clean Water Act more expansively, seeking to preserve water quality even from indirect sources. However, state law may impose additional requirements, reflecting New York's commitment to stringent environmental protection.
Questions on the New York bar exam may test knowledge of state-specific interpretations of the Clean Water Act, particularly regarding groundwater discharges and their relationship to surface waters.