PRESS/For Immediate Release                 
Dexter Letinen (305) 279-3353
 
Joette Lorion    (305) 281-0429    

       Miccosukee Tribe Wins On Only Question Presented By the District
               Supreme Court Calls District Argument "Untenable"
      Remands for Factual Record On Issue Presented by Solicitor General
           
    Today the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 14 page opinion delivered by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor (along with a separate two page opinion by Justice Scalia in which he partly agrees and partly dissents) in the case South
Florida Water Management District v the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians and Friends of the Everglades.  The sole question the District presented to the Supreme Court was: "Whether  the pumping of water by a state water management agency that adds nothing to the water being pumped constitutes an "addition' of a pollutant ‘from' a point source triggering the need for a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System under the Clean Water Act."  The Miccsoukee Tribe
prevailed on this issue with the Supreme Court clearly rejecting the only issue the District's presented.  The Opinion states: "This initial argument is untenable, and even the District appears to have abandoned it in its reply brief."
Opinion at p. 7.

    According to Dexter Lehtinen, who argued this case before the Supreme Court, The District wasted tons of taxpayer dollars bringing the question of whether they are responsible for dirty water that their pump discharges into clean
water if their pump doesn't add anything to that water to the U.S. Supreme Court, which heartily rejected it, calling their claim untenable.
 
            The Supreme Court, which did not end its opinion by deciding the sole question the District presented, remanded the case back to the federal district court to develop a factual record on an issue presented by the Solicitor General as to whether WCA 3A (the Everglades) is a distinct body of water from the C-11 (urban Broward County).  This means the case, which was initially decided on summary judgement, will now be open for discovery and a trial on the merits. In a partial dissent, Justice Scalia said that he would have affirmed the lower court opinion as to the question presented.  The
lower court opinion was in favor of the Tribe and Friends.

    According to Lehtinen,  "The Tribe has waged a long struggle to protect its homeland from pollution and is pleased that the Supreme Court is interested in the Everglades and wants to protect its waters.  It appears that the government's nationwide campaign to confuse and obfuscate the facts, has caused the Supreme Court to ask that they be developed further in the lower court. The Tribe looks forward to a trial on the issues and is confident it will prevail."

    According Miccosukee Tribal Chairman Billy Cypress, "The Tribe, whose members have lived in the Eevrglades for generations, does not need a factual record to understand the difference between a polluted manmade canal and
the pristine Everglades.  We do understand, however, why the Supreme Court whose members do not live in the Everglades might think such a record is necessary..  We have no doubt that once its request to further develop the record is accomplished that the district court will see the Everglades clearly as we do, and rule in our favor once again.  What the Tribe will never understand is why the District, which is supposed to be restoring the Everglades, continues to
waste taxpayer money fighting against a Clean Water Act permit for its S-9 pump, so that the polluted water it discharges into the Everglades can be cleaned up."

Note:  A copy of the S-9 Opinion Can Be Obtained by Calling the Above Number