In a case that centered on uncommon alliances and unsightly descriptions of uncooked sewage being launched into San Francisco Bay and the Pacific Ocean throughout rain storms, the U.S. Supreme Court docket on Tuesday handed San Francisco a victory in a long-running authorized battle with the U.S. Environmental Safety Company.
Handing down a 5-4 resolution, the courtroom narrowed the Clear Water Act, America’s landmark water air pollution legislation, and dominated that the EPA set necessities too broadly in issuing permits for town’s wastewater remedy vegetation.
The case is the newest in a collection of Supreme Court docket rulings lately to rewrite or weaken main environmental legal guidelines.
San Francisco officers cheered the opinion, written by Justice Samuel Alito, saying it could present extra equity and certainty. Business teams, together with the Nationwide Mining Affiliation and the American Petroleum Institute, sided with San Francisco, a metropolis that has lengthy billed itself as an environmental pioneer.
“This is a good-government decision that assures certainty in water quality permitting and that every permittee has predictable, knowable standards to protect water quality,” San Francisco Metropolis Legal professional David Chiu and San Francisco Public Utilities Fee Normal Supervisor Dennis Herrera stated in a joint assertion.
Environmental teams referred to as the choice the newest rollback of air pollution legal guidelines by the 6-3 conservative majority on the courtroom, and stated it might have widespread results round California and the nation.
“It will result in more pollution, and less accountability,” stated lawyer Eric Buescher of San Francisco Baykeeper, an environmental group based mostly in Oakland.
The case centered on sewage.
San Francisco has greater than 1,900 miles of sewer mains and laterals. Some are greater than 100 years outdated. The town operates two giant wastewater remedy vegetation that run 24 hours a day.
One, the Oceanside Water Air pollution Management Plant, is positioned between Ocean Seaside and Lake Merced, alongside the Nice Freeway close to the San Francisco Zoo. The opposite, the Southeast Therapy Plant, is positioned on town’s east aspect, close to India Basin about 3 miles south of Oracle Park.
The Oceanside plant treats sewage from properties and companies and discharges it into the Pacific Ocean. The Southeast plant discharges into San Francisco Bay.
For years, the 2 vegetation have operated below permits from the EPA and state officers which can be required below the federal Clear Water Act. The permits restrict how a lot air pollution wastewater vegetation across the nation can launch into oceans, bays and rivers.
However in 2019, the EPA set situations on the Oceanside plant that not solely restricted the particular quantities of pollution popping out of the plant’s discharge pipe, however which additionally required the waters the place it discharged meet extra normal air pollution requirements.
The EPA banned the plant from making any discharge that “contributes to a violation of any applicable water quality standard.” It additionally prevented the plant from creating “pollution, contamination or nuisance” below state water rules.
The town sued, saying the principles had been too imprecise.
“They might as well have said: Do not violate the Clean Water Act,” Tara Steeley, an lawyer for town, advised the courtroom in October.
Metropolis officers additionally stated excessive ranges of water air pollution close to the vegetation, equivalent to fecal coliform, might need come from different sources
However environmental teams argued the principles would enhance water high quality, shield wildlife and safeguard the well being of people that swim, surf or fish.
Final October, on the request of teams such because the Sierra Membership and Save the Bay, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted 8-2 to ask metropolis officers to settle the case, over fears that the Supreme Court docket would use it to weaken water air pollution guidelines nationwide.
In 2023, the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court docket of Appeals dominated in opposition to town. The town appealed to the Supreme Court docket. California and 14 different states filed briefs in assist of the EPA. A number of different giant cities with older sewage techniques just like San Francisco’s, like New York and Chicago, sided with San Francisco.
In his ruling Tuesday, Alito wrote that the EPA overreached.
“A permittee that punctiliously follows every specific requirement in its permit may nevertheless face crushing penalties if the quality of the water in its receiving waters falls below the applicable standards,” he wrote.
He was joined by justices Clarence Thomas, John Roberts, Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch.
Amy Coney Barrett, a conservative, wrote the dissenting opinion. She was joined by Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
The necessity for the extra normal water high quality guidelines, she wrote, “is on display in this case — discharges from components of San Francisco’s sewer system have allegedly led to serious breaches of the water quality standards, such as ‘discoloration, scum and floating material, including toilet paper, in Mission Creek.’”
Buescher of San Francisco Baykeeper, stated he expects the ruling will result in extra water air pollution nationwide.
“I fully expect other cities and industrial facilities to start to bring these kinds of challenges now,” he stated.
Initially Revealed: March 4, 2025 at 3:27 PM PST
