Particle.news
Download on the App Store
14 ARTICLES
·
2mo ago

EPA Authority in Water Pollution Permits

In a 5-4 decision, the court ruled the EPA cannot impose broad water quality mandates in permits, requiring more specific pollutant limits instead.

Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett speaks during a panel discussion at the winter meeting of the National Governors Association, Friday, Feb. 23, 2024, in Washington.
The U.S. Supreme Court is seen in Washington, D.C., on March 2, 2025.
The Golden Gate Bridge stands in front of the San Francisco skyline.
Image

Overview

  • The Supreme Court ruled that the EPA cannot enforce general prohibitions against violating water quality standards in pollution permits, requiring specific numeric limits instead.
  • The case arose from San Francisco's challenge to its wastewater permit, which included vague standards holding the city responsible for overall water quality violations.
  • The majority opinion, authored by Justice Samuel Alito, argued that the Clean Water Act does not authorize such broad mandates, emphasizing pre-discharge limitations over end-result requirements.
  • The dissent, led by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, argued that the EPA's approach was consistent with the Clean Water Act and necessary to enforce water quality standards effectively.
  • The ruling is expected to complicate EPA enforcement efforts, as it will require more detailed and resource-intensive permit drafting, potentially impacting water pollution regulation nationwide.