City and County of San Francisco v. EPA

Last updated

City and County of San Francisco v. EPA
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Full case nameCity and County of San Francisco, California v. Environmental Protection Agency
Docket no. 23-753
Case history
PriorPetion for review denied, City and County of San Francisco v. EPA; 75 F.4th 1074 (2023), United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Questions presented
Does the Clean Water Act allow the Environmental Protection Agency (or an authorized state) to impose generic prohibitions in National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits that subject permit-holders to enforcement for violating water quality standards without identifying specific limits to which their discharges must conform?

City and County of San Francisco v. Environmental Protection Agency is a pending United States Supreme Court case about whether the Clean Water Act allows the Environmental Protection Agency (or an authorized state) to impose generic prohibitions in National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits that subject permit-holders to enforcement for violating water quality standards without identifying specific limits to which their discharges must conform. [1] [2]

Contents

Background

San Francisco has a combined sewage system that collects both sewage and stormwater runoff. When the system exceed its capacity during heavy rains, the combined sewer overflows (CSOs) discharge pollutants into the Pacific Ocean.

The Clean Water Act requires cities to acquire a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) for such discharges. The city of San Francisco, has implemented a CSO plan since the late 1960s and built current CSO control facilities in 1997. [3] [ failed verification ]

In 2019, the Environmental Protection Agency and the California Regional Water Quality Control Board issued a new National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit for San Francisco's Oceanside treatment facility. San Francisco filed a petition for review by the Environmental Appeals Board, arguing that these provisions were inconsistent under the Clean Water Act and EPA regulations, but the board denied the petition. San Francisco then filed a petition for review by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, but the court also rejected San Francisco's petition, holding that Clean Water Act authorizes EPA to include in the Oceanside NPDES permit the challenged provisions, and that EPA's decision to do so was rationally connected to evidence in the administrative record. [4] [ failed verification ]

Supreme Court

The Supreme Court granted agreed to hear the case by writ of certiorari . The case is set to be heard during the 2024–2025 term. [5] [ failed verification ]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Clean Water Act</span> 1972 U.S. federal law regulating water pollution

The Clean Water Act (CWA) is the primary federal law in the United States governing water pollution. Its objective is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation's waters; recognizing the responsibilities of the states in addressing pollution and providing assistance to states to do so, including funding for publicly owned treatment works for the improvement of wastewater treatment; and maintaining the integrity of wetlands.

Sewage disposal regulation and administration describes the governance of sewage treatment and disposal.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Concentrated animal feeding operation</span> Type of American intensive animal farming

In animal husbandry, a concentrated animal feeding operation (CAFO), as defined by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), is an intensive animal feeding operation (AFO) in which over 1,000 animal units are confined for over 45 days a year. An animal unit is the equivalent of 1,000 pounds of "live" animal weight. A thousand animal units equates to 700 dairy cows, 1,000 meat cows, 2,500 pigs weighing more than 55 pounds (25 kg), 10,000 pigs weighing under 55 pounds, 10,000 sheep, 55,000 turkeys, 125,000 chickens, or 82,000 egg laying hens or pullets.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Effluent</span> Liquid waste or sewage discharged into a river or the sea

Effluent is wastewater from sewers or industrial outfalls that flows directly into surface waters, either untreated or after being treated at a facility. The term has slightly different meanings in certain contexts, and may contain various pollutants depending on the source.

Effluent Guidelines are U.S. national standards for wastewater discharges to surface waters and publicly owned treatment works (POTW). The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issues Effluent Guideline regulations for categories of industrial sources of water pollution under Title III of the Clean Water Act (CWA). The standards are technology-based, i.e. they are based on the performance of treatment and control technologies. Effluent Guidelines are not based on risk or impacts of pollutants upon receiving waters.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Combined sewer</span> Sewage collection system of pipes and tunnels designed to also collect surface runoff

A combined sewer is a type of gravity sewer with a system of pipes, tunnels, pump stations etc. to transport sewage and urban runoff together to a sewage treatment plant or disposal site. This means that during rain events, the sewage gets diluted, resulting in higher flowrates at the treatment site. Uncontaminated stormwater simply dilutes sewage, but runoff may dissolve or suspend virtually anything it contacts on roofs, streets, and storage yards. As rainfall travels over roofs and the ground, it may pick up various contaminants including soil particles and other sediment, heavy metals, organic compounds, animal waste, and oil and grease. Combined sewers may also receive dry weather drainage from landscape irrigation, construction dewatering, and washing buildings and sidewalks.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Refuse Act</span> United States federal statute

The Refuse Act is a United States federal statute governing use of waterways. The Act, a section of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, prohibited "dumping of refuse" into navigable waters, except by permit.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Cruise ship pollution in the United States</span> Pollution of cruise ships in the United States

Cruise ships carrying several thousand passengers and crew have been compared to “floating cities,” and the volume of wastes that they produce is comparably large, consisting of sewage; wastewater from sinks, showers, and galleys (graywater); hazardous wastes; solid waste; oily bilge water; ballast water; and air pollution. The waste streams generated by cruise ships are governed by a number of international protocols and U.S. domestic laws, regulations, and standards, but there is no single law or rule. Some cruise ship waste streams appear to be well regulated, such as solid wastes and bilge water. But there is overlap of some areas, and there are gaps in others.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ballast water regulation in the United States</span>

Ballast water discharge typically contains a variety of biological materials, including plants, animals, viruses, and bacteria. These materials often include non-native, nuisance, exotic species that can cause extensive ecological and economic damage to aquatic ecosystems. Ballast water discharges are believed to be the leading source of invasive species in U.S. marine waters, thus posing public health and environmental risks, as well as significant economic cost to industries such as water and power utilities, commercial and recreational fisheries, agriculture, and tourism. Studies suggest that the economic cost just from introduction of pest mollusks to U.S. aquatic ecosystems is more than $6 billion per year.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Regulation of ship pollution in the United States</span>

In the United States, several federal agencies and laws have some jurisdiction over pollution from ships in U.S. waters. States and local government agencies also have responsibilities for ship-related pollution in some situations.

A Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) is a United States regulatory term for a periodic water pollution report prepared by industries, municipalities and other facilities discharging to surface waters. The facilities collect wastewater samples, conduct chemical and/or biological tests of the samples, and submit reports to a state agency or the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). All point source dischargers to ”Waters of the U.S.” must obtain a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the appropriate agency, and many permittees are required to file DMRs.

An effluent limitation is a United States Clean Water Act standard of performance reflecting a specified level of discharge reduction achievable by the best available technology or related standards for various sources of water pollution. These sources include all industries, businesses, municipal sewage treatment plants and storm sewer systems, and other facilities that discharge to surface waters. Effluent limitations are implemented in discharge permits issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and state agencies, through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Publicly owned treatment works</span>

A publicly owned treatment works (POTW) is a term used in the United States for a sewage treatment plant owned, and usually operated, by a government agency. In the U.S., POTWs are typically owned by local government agencies, and are usually designed to treat domestic sewage and not industrial wastewater.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Water quality law</span>

Water quality laws govern the protection of water resources for human health and the environment. Water quality laws are legal standards or requirements governing water quality, that is, the concentrations of water pollutants in some regulated volume of water. Such standards are generally expressed as levels of a specific water pollutants that are deemed acceptable in the water volume, and are generally designed relative to the water's intended use - whether for human consumption, industrial or domestic use, recreation, or as aquatic habitat. Additionally, these laws provide regulations on the alteration of the chemical, physical, radiological, and biological characteristics of water resources. Regulatory efforts may include identifying and categorizing water pollutants, dictating acceptable pollutant concentrations in water resources, and limiting pollutant discharges from effluent sources. Regulatory areas include sewage treatment and disposal, industrial and agricultural waste water management, and control of surface runoff from construction sites and urban environments. Water quality laws provides the foundation for regulations in water standards, monitoring, required inspections and permits, and enforcement. These laws may be modified to meet current needs and priorities.

Entergy Corp. v. Riverkeeper, Inc., 556 U.S. 208 (2009), is a decision by the United States Supreme Court that reviewed the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) interpretation of the Clean Water Act regulations with regard to cooling water intakes for power plants. Existing facilities are mandated to use the "Best Technology Available" to "minimize the adverse environmental impact." The issue was whether the agency may use a cost–benefit analysis (CBA) in choosing the Best Available Technology or (BAT) to meet the National Performance Standards (NPS).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States regulation of point source water pollution</span>

Point source water pollution comes from discrete conveyances and alters the chemical, biological, and physical characteristics of water. In the United States, it is largely regulated by the Clean Water Act (CWA). Among other things, the Act requires dischargers to obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit to legally discharge pollutants into a water body. However, point source pollution remains an issue in some water bodies, due to some limitations of the Act. Consequently, other regulatory approaches have emerged, such as water quality trading and voluntary community-level efforts.

Los Angeles County Flood Control District v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 568 U.S. 78 (2013), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Natural Resources Defense Council and Santa Monica Baykeeper challenged the Los Angeles County Flood Control District (District) for violating the terms of its National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit as shown in water quality measurements from monitoring stations within the Los Angeles and San Gabriel Rivers. The Supreme Court, by a unanimous 9-0 vote, reversed and remanded the Ninth Circuit's ruling on the grounds that the flow of water from an improved portion of a navigable waterway into an unimproved portion of the same waterway does not qualify as a "discharge of a pollutant" under the Clean Water Act.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act of 2013</span> US proposal about pesticide laws

The Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act of 2013 is a bill that would prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and states authorized to issue a permit under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) from requiring a permit for some discharges of pesticides authorized for use under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). The bill would clarify the law so that people did not have to get two permits in order to use the same pesticide.

Industrial stormwater is runoff from precipitation that lands on industrial sites. This runoff is often polluted by materials that are handled or stored on the sites, and the facilities are subject to regulations to control the discharges.

County of Maui v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund, No. 18-260, 590 U.S. ___ (2020), was a United States Supreme Court case involving pollution discharges under the Clean Water Act (CWA). The case asked whether the Clean Water Act requires a permit when pollutants that originate from a non-point source can be traced to reach navigable waters through mechanisms such as groundwater transport. In a 6–3 decision, the Court ruled that such non-point discharges require a permit when they are the "functional equivalent of a direct discharge", a new test defined by the ruling. The decision vacated the ruling of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and remanded the case with instructions to apply the new standard to the lower courts with cooperation of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

References

  1. "SCOTUS to Review EPA Wastewater Rules". EHS Daily Advisor. 25 June 2024. Archived from the original on 14 July 2024. Retrieved 14 July 2024.
  2. "Supreme Court takes up San Francisco's challenge over water pollutant limits - Washington Times". The Washington Times . Archived from the original on 15 July 2024. Retrieved 15 July 2024.
  3. "High Court to Weigh Whether EPA Must Define 'Too Much' Pollution". news.bloomberglaw.com. Archived from the original on 4 August 2024. Retrieved 15 July 2024.
  4. Budryk, Zack (28 May 2024). "Supreme Court to consider challenge to Clean Water Act's San Francisco Rules". The Hill. Archived from the original on 15 July 2024. Retrieved 15 July 2024.
  5. "Supreme Court to Hear Clean Water Act Third Case in Four Years". natlawreview.com. Archived from the original on 15 July 2024. Retrieved 15 July 2024.