Supreme Court strikes down EPA rules on discharge of water pollution
The Supreme Court on Tuesday struck down rules regulating the discharge of water pollution, narrowing the landmark Clean Water Act in an unusual case that featured sewage and an effort by one of the nation’s greenest cities to take on the Environmental Protection Agency.The justices found the EPA cannot impose generic prohibitions against violating water quality standards.San Francisco sued the EPA after the city was found to have violated certain guidelines for discharging sewage into the Pacific Ocean. City officials argued the EPA had exceeded its authority because the rules were so vague that it was impossible to know when they had crossed a line.San Francisco’s wastewater permit includes 100 pages of detailed rules on effluent limits, but also additional, less specific EPA restrictions known as narrative rules, such as “no discharge of pollutants shall create pollution, contamination, or nuisance” as defined by California’s water code. The city objected to the latter.During oral arguments in October, the Biden administration said the narrative rules are an important backstop to the specific limits it imposes on water pollution.The decision is the latest by the conservative majority on the high court to curtail the EPA’s ability to regulate pollution. Last summer, the justices temporarily blocked a major agency initiative to regulate air pollution that drifts across state lines. That litigation is continuing to play out in the lower courts.This is a developing story. It will be updated.
The justices found the EPA cannot impose generic prohibitions against violating water quality standards.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday struck down rules regulating the discharge of water pollution, narrowing the landmark Clean Water Act in an unusual case that featured sewage and an effort by one of the nation’s greenest cities to take on the Environmental Protection Agency.
The justices found the EPA cannot impose generic prohibitions against violating water quality standards.
San Francisco sued the EPA after the city was found to have violated certain guidelines for discharging sewage into the Pacific Ocean. City officials argued the EPA had exceeded its authority because the rules were so vague that it was impossible to know when they had crossed a line.
San Francisco’s wastewater permit includes 100 pages of detailed rules on effluent limits, but also additional, less specific EPA restrictions known as narrative rules, such as “no discharge of pollutants shall create pollution, contamination, or nuisance” as defined by California’s water code. The city objected to the latter.
During oral arguments in October, the Biden administration said the narrative rules are an important backstop to the specific limits it imposes on water pollution.
The decision is the latest by the conservative majority on the high court to curtail the EPA’s ability to regulate pollution. Last summer, the justices temporarily blocked a major agency initiative to regulate air pollution that drifts across state lines. That litigation is continuing to play out in the lower courts.
This is a developing story. It will be updated.