Supreme Court Limits EPA Authority on Water Pollution in Divided Ruling
In a significant decision, the U.S. Supreme Court has reined in the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) authority to regulate water pollution under the Clean Water Act. The 5-4 ruling, led by conservative justices, determined that the EPA overstepped its bounds by imposing narrative permits that require maintaining specific water quality standards, rather than just limiting what can be discharged.
The case, centered on San Francisco’s sewer system discharging raw sewage during heavy rains, saw the Court side with the city. Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority, asserted that while the EPA can set specific discharge limits, it lacks the authority to include broader "end-result" provisions. These provisions hold municipalities accountable for overall water quality, such as ensuring the Pacific Ocean meets certain standards. Alito argued that such requirements could penalize cities even if they adhered to discharge limits, as they might still fail to meet water quality goals.
The ruling has significant implications for the EPA’s use of narrative permits, which have long served as a safeguard against unacceptable water quality even when discharge limits are met. Without these permits, the agency must now rely solely on specific limits, potentially undermining water quality control. Former EPA counsel Kevin Minoli expressed concerns about the impending regulatory vacuum, questioning what measures will replace these permits.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, notably dissenting alongside liberal justices, highlighted the limitations of technology-based limits in ensuring water quality, citing San Francisco’s ongoing issues, including discharges into Mission Creek causing visible pollution. This unusual alliance of city, energy companies, and business groups underscores the broader impact of the decision on pollution regulation.
The ruling aligns with a trend of conservative justices curbing environmental regulations, reflecting a judicial shift toward limiting federal authority. The decision may embolden challenges to other environmental regulations, raising concerns about public health and environmental protection as states navigate new regulatory landscapes.
In conclusion, the Court’s decision strikes a balance between regulatory authority and specific limits, leaving the EPA to navigate future challenges in maintaining water quality without narrative permits. This shift underscores the evolving role of the judiciary in environmental regulation, prompting discussions on effective strategies to uphold water quality standards in a changing legal landscape.
