The U.S. Supreme Court undermined the rules regarding the discharge of raw sewage into the water supply in a 5-4 ruling that undermines the Clean Water Act of 1972.
The CWA is the main law that controls the pollution prevention and water quality of the country’s waterways.
A Republican Super Majority Court on Tuesday determined that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) could not adopt general water-centric pollution emission restrictions for clean-up law permit holders and must provide certain restrictions on pollution permits.
The ruling is a victory for San Francisco, allowing non-specific or “story”-challenged wastewater to rely on drinking water to protect the quality of surface water sources such as rivers and streams.
The court prevented the EPA from issuing permission for the facility to be responsible for surface water quality, or a “final result” permission, in a 5-4 decision written by Judge Samuel Alito.
Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justice John Roberts and Justice Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh, who joined in part of the majority opinion, wrote: “We are a sought after sought after.
The EPA issued a permit to San Francisco, allowing pollutants to be discharged from its combined sewer system into the Pacific Ocean. Conditions for permits include prohibitions regarding discharges that contribute to violations of applicable water quality standards. The permit included a general ban on water quality impacts as part of the EPA’s efforts to halt the release of San Francisco’s native sewage into the Pacific Ocean during a storm.
San Francisco disputed these terms and argued that the EPA had no legal authority to impose them. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in July 2023 upheld the EPA’s authority to issue general restrictions on discharges under the Clean Water Act. San Francisco took the case to the Supreme Court.
The incident attracted the attention of powerful business groups, including the National Mining Association and the American Chamber of Commerce, who wrote the Amicus briefs in support of San Francisco’s position. It was the first case of addressing the regulation of the Clean Water Act as the court robbed Chevron’s respect in June 2024 with Loper Bright Enterprises v Raimondo, but little mention was made during oral debate.
“The cities are wrong,” according to Judge Amy Coney Barrett, who wrote the objection, three Democrats, including Sotomayor, Kagan and Jackson. “The relevant provisions of the Clean Water Act direct the EPA to impose any more stringent restrictions necessary to or meet applicable water quality standards.”
