The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5–4 on March 4 that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) wastewater discharge permitting system violates federal law.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote a dissenting opinion that was joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
The nation’s highest court ruled that the EPA must provide specific effluent limitations to wastewater facilities and the governmental bodies that operate them. Effluent is liquid waste or sewage released into a sea or river.
San Francisco argued in the appeal that the EPA imposed overly vague limitations on how much pollution may be present in wastewater discharged by water utilities.
The EPA grants permits to local governments and water management authorities under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), to limit the amount of pollution flowing into bodies of water. Under these regulations, operators of wastewater facilities are responsible for the quality of the water into which the pollution is discharged.
San Francisco argued it was unfair to hold it responsible for polluted Pacific Ocean beaches near the city because the pollution may have come from outside sources.
The EPA said that the city’s wastewater system cannot cope with runoff during storms, leading to pollution being released into the ocean.
The city said it was facing potentially billions of dollars in fines for violating its permit.
“We hold that the two challenged provisions exceed the EPA’s authority,” Alito wrote for the court.
“The text and structure of the [Clean Water Act], as well as the history of federal water pollution legislation, make this clear.
“And resorting to such requirements is not necessary to protect water quality. The EPA may itself determine what a facility should do to protect water quality, and the agency has ample tools to obtain whatever information it needs to make that determination.
“If the EPA does its work, our holding should have no adverse effect on water quality.”
