The Supreme Court has agreed to hear the City and County of San Francisco v. Environmental Protection Agency, in which local leaders argue that the EPA’s discharge standards are too vague.
The US Supreme Court recently agreed to hear the City and County of San Franciso v. Environmental Protection Agency. In this case, city officials alledge that EPA’s discharge standards under the Clean Water Act are too vague, as they “bar discharges that ’cause or contribute to a violation of any applicable water quality standard,” rather than imposing quantifiable numerical limits.” (The Hill)
According to the petition from San Francisco,
These generic prohibitions expose San Francisco to enforcement for contributing to excessive pollution without defining in advance what constitutes excess or which pollutants the City might need to control. San Francisco has invested billions of dollars in infrastructure to meet the Act’s requirements and stands ready to invest further to reduce pollution if the Act so requires. Generic water quality prohibitions, however, neither set limits on the quantities of pollutants that San Francisco may discharge nor prescribe management practices that the City must implement. . . . (Permitholders like San Francisco) face the prospect of enforcement without prior notice of what they could have done to comply.
The EPA contends that the standards in their permits are not as ambiguous as San Francisco is contesting and that acceptable discharge thresholds can be found in state and regional water resource control boards.
This case will likely be decided in 2025 and will undoubtedly have a considerable impact on counties that operate their wastewater infrastructure. Follow Conduit Street for more information as this story develops.
Read more about the City and County of San Francisco v. Environmental Protection Agency.