The Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled that EPA cannot enforce requirements in wastewater permits that “do not spell out what a permittee must do or refrain from doing,” in a major blow to the agency’s power under the Clean Water Act.
The 5-4 decision in San Francisco v. EPA resolves a long-running dispute between the progressive West Coast city and the nation’s environmental regulator. Justice Samuel Alito wrote the majority opinion, and Justice Amy Coney Barrett led a partial dissent.
San Francisco had challenged EPA’s attempts to fine the city for allegedly violating its wastewater permit for a sewage treatment plant, which releases large quantities of stormwater and sewage during rain events.
The city argued that EPA was wrong to rely on generic provisions in the wastewater permit to impose crushing fines under the Clean Water Act. EPA, city attorneys said, could only go after sewage treatment plants for quantitative pollutant discharges.
The case drew the attention of powerful lobbying groups like the National Mining Association and U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which wrote friend of the court briefs in favor of San Francisco’s case.
The court’s ruling for San Francisco could make it harder for regulators to hold entities accountable for harming water quality, environmental advocates have said. It means that EPA and California regulators will need to be more specific in the terms and conditions they include in wastewater permits, potentially adding more time to the permit-writing process.
The court’s majority disagreed.
“If the EPA does its work, our holding should have no adverse effect on water quality,” the ruling said.
