4o

In a 5-4 decision, the United States Supreme Court sided with the City and County of San Francisco in a case against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), restricting the agency’s authority to impose certain conditions in water pollution permits.

The decision, authored by Justice Samuel Alito, held that the Clean Water Act does not authorize the EPA to include “end-result” requirements in National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits1. These requirements had made permittees responsible for the overall quality of receiving waters, rather than specifying exact pollutant discharge limits.

Key points of the ruling include:

1. The EPA must set specific effluent limitations and actions for permittees to follow, rather than holding them accountable for achieving particular end results in receiving waters.
2. The Court emphasized that the Clean Water Act’s “permit shield” provision, which protects compliant permittees from liability, would be undermined by end-result requirements.
3. The decision invalidated two provisions in San Francisco’s permit that prohibited discharges contributing to water quality standard violations or creating pollution as defined by California law.

This decision marks the third time in less than five years that the Supreme Court has overturned a Ninth Circuit interpretation of the Clean Water Act.

The ruling is expected to have far-reaching implications for water pollution control efforts nationwide, potentially affecting thousands of permits issued by the EPA over several decades. 

This Supreme Court decision could have significant impacts on future environmental regulations, particularly in the realm of water pollution control:

Reduced Regulatory Flexibility

The ruling limits the EPA’s ability to use broad, outcome-based requirements in water pollution permits. This reduction in flexibility may force the agency to:

1. Develop more specific, quantitative discharge limits for pollutants
2. Rely less on general water quality standards as permit conditions

Environmental groups are concerned that the ruling could result in:

• More industrial chemicals, sewage, and other dangerous pollution entering waterways
• Reduced ability for states to protect their waters effectively.