In one of the first U.S. Supreme Court cases argued in the 2024-25 session earlier this month, reactions were divided among the justices who decide whether National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits are they can enforce under the federal Clean Water Act if they include generics. , rather than specific wastewater treatment discharge mandates.
The case pits municipal water utilities and construction and business trade groups against the US Environmental Protection Agency. The city and county of San Francisco are seeking a high court review after a federal court. That city’s appeals court rejected an argument by the utility commission that the language in its new permit was so vague that the city could face penalties for not complying.
“We just want to understand our prohibition limits so we can meet them,” argued Tara M. Steeley, assistant city attorney, who said billions of dollars in improvements have been made to its former refinery. Oceanside Wastewater Treatment. Amanda Aspatore, general counsel for the National Association of Clean Water Agencies, which filed a brief in support of the company, says federal permits must provide clear guidance on what can be safely discharged into the US waters. It is also supported by major industry trade groups the American Petroleum Institute and the American Chemistry Council
US Department of Justice Assistant Attorney General Frederick Liu, representing the EPA, responded that the lack of permit submission details “made it impossible … to impose anything more than generic limitations.” About 14 states, including California, filed briefs last month in support of the agency.
According to SCOTUSblog, the justices are split along expected political lines, but unanimity is also unclear among conservative justices. Environmental advocates worry about impacts on national discharge rules if the court rules in favor of the city, with the Natural Resources Defense Council pointing to “very troubling implications.”
Days before the Oct. 17 arguments, San Francisco supervisors approved, 8-2, a nonbinding resolution urging city officials to settle the lawsuit before the high court’s ruling could “greatly harm the quality of of water throughout the country.” The judges could pronounce as early as the first quarter.
But in an unexpected move in a separate case, Davis Polk lawyers say, the Supreme Court on Oct. 16 rejected a request by utilities, independent power producers and states to pause the Rule of The EPA mandated emissions controls for coal-fired power plants and new gas-fired power plants ended in May, while a lower court weighs opponents’ biggest legal challenge. The action follows two similar ones from the court this month related to EPA rules.
“Given their rulings in recent years that undermined protections, the majority’s refusal to block this vital rule is a victory for common sense,” said NRDC Senior Counsel Meredith Hankins. The lawsuit now goes back to the appeals court in Washington, DC for a decision.
But the outcome of the Nov. 5 election could also further affect the application of the rule, if Republican Donald Trump wins his presidential bid.
