Arguments in City and County of San Francisco v. EPA were heard before the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) last month.

 

The question before SCOTUS is whether the Clean Water Act (CWA) allows the EPA (or an authorized state) “to impose generic prohibitions in National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits that subject permit-holders to enforcement for violating water quality standards without identifying specific limits to which their discharges must conform,” according to an Oyez summary of the case.

The stakes in the case are high. Should San Francisco lose the legal battle, it may have to spend as much as $10 billion on improvements “that would have a ‘negligible impact’ on water quality but serious effects on residents’ wallets,” argued San Francisco City Attorney David Chiu, according to The San Francisco Standard. “According to Chiu, ratepayers could see their water and sewage bills increase from around $850 annually to nearly $9,000, a change that could throw thousands into poverty.”

San Francisco’s NPDES permit prohibits discharges that “cause or contribute to a violation of any water quality standard” and/or create any “pollution, contamination, or nuisance” as defined by California law.

“The provisions in question are called ‘generic prohibitions’ because they don’t specify limits on sewage discharge,” The San Francisco Standard says. “The EPA is basically saying, ‘You can’t pollute too much, but we won’t tell you what too much is until after you’ve already done it.’ That’s untenable,” said Dennis Herrera, the general manager for San Francisco’s Public Utilities Commission.

SCOTUS justices appeared divided during oral arguments in the matter, according to several sources.

“The court’s liberal minority appeared broadly skeptical of the city’s argument,” while Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh appeared “receptive of the city’s arguments,” notes The Hill.

The Washington Post says environmentalists have expressed dismay that the city chose to take the case before SCOTUS.

“We were disappointed to see San Francisco take this case all the way to the Supreme Court,” said Becky Hammer, a senior attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). “Given the anti-environment trend of the court in recent years, it’s asking for trouble to bring this case before them.”

With the future requirements for NPDES permitting regulations at stake, the case has made for some strange “bedfellows,” with several oil and mining companies filing amicus curia (friend of the court) briefs.

A SCOTUS ruling in the case is expected by June.