Supreme Court Rules Against EPA’s Broad Sewage Permits

The U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled 5-4 in favor of San Francisco in a case involving the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and its sewage permits under the Clean Water Act (CWA). The court decided that the EPA’s “end-result” water pollution permits were too vague and that the agency had overstepped its authority. The case stemmed from a 2019 permit, where San Francisco was accused of violating rules regarding combined sewer overflow (CSO) events.  CSOs occur when cities with older sewage infrastructure like San Francisco, Chicago, and Detroit (with its proximity to the Rouge River and Detroit River), dump raw sewage into neighboring bodies of water during heavy rainfall to prevent flooding. The city argued that the permit terms were unclear, making it difficult to determine when they violated the rules.

The Supreme Court’s decision prevents the EPA from issuing permits with such broad, speculative language in the future. This could make it harder for permit writers to establish clear regulations. Some experts, like attorney Albert Ettinger, argue that the ruling could lead to more specific permits, which would require more detailed writing and likely result in delays or backlogs in enforcing water protection laws, as many state agencies responsible for permit writing are underfunded.

The ruling is part of a broader trend where the conservative majority of the Court has voted against environmental protections in recent years, following similar decisions that weakened protections for wetlands and environmental agency deference. Industry groups supported San Francisco’s position, while environmental organizations and states like California backed the EPA. The case highlights the challenge of balancing clear regulations with the need for flexibility in environmental laws.

Read the full story on Great Lakes Now.