The U.S. Supreme Court has made a pivotal decision in the case of San Francisco v. EPA, marking its third intervention regarding the federal Clean Water Act (CWA) within five years. This ruling underscores the Court’s ongoing scrutiny of how the Clean Water Act is interpreted and implemented across the nation.

Key Observations from the Ruling

In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court invalidated certain narrative permit conditions associated with CWA discharge permits. Specifically, the ruling noted that conditions forbidding discharges that “contribute” to violations of state water quality standards or “create pollution, contamination or nuisance” were not within Congress’s intent when drafting the legislation. This significant change impacts how pollutant discharges are controlled throughout the country.

Previous Court Influences

Justice Samuel Alito, in the majority opinion, echoed sentiments from a previous case, Sackett v. EPA, where he criticized the Ninth Circuit’s vague interpretation of the Clean Water Act regarding wetlands. In that decision, the Court labeled the standards set by the Ninth Circuit as “hopelessly indeterminate.” Consequently, when the City of San Francisco appealed to the Supreme Court, it was anticipated that the EPA would have to clarify its authority in enforcing more defined permit limitations.

The Supreme Court’s Position

Despite suggestions that the CWA’s Section 1311(b)(1)(C) be understood to limit the scope strictly to numerical effluent limitations, the majority decision rejected this notion. The Court affirmed that while the EPA and individual states can enforce non-numerical limitations, such conditions must clearly detail the necessary actions for compliance to meet national standards.

Accounting for Enforcement Concerns

Similar to the Sackett ruling, the majority opinion in San Francisco reflected ongoing concerns regarding due process, particularly in relation to the severe penalties that could arise from ambiguous “end result” prohibitions. The dissenting justices, led by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, advocated for a more case-specific approach to these enforcement issues.

Next Steps for the EPA and States

The onus now lies with the EPA and state authorities to establish clear technology and water quality standards for discharge permits. The manual provided by the EPA for National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit writers aligns with the Court’s ruling, emphasizing the necessity for precise permit conditions.

However, uncertainty remains regarding the EPA’s capacity to fulfill the expectations set forth by the Supreme Court and its own guidance, as articulated by Justice Alito: “the CWA demands.” As the regulatory landscape evolves, stakeholders will be closely monitoring the developments stemming from this ruling.