San Francisco claims the standard provided in discharge permits is too vague.
The Supreme Court agreed on May 28 to hear San Francisco’s appeal of a federal appeals court ruling that allows the EPA to issue discharge permits that order cities not to pollute water bodies “too much” but do not provide a specific limitation.
The issue is whether the Environmental Protection Agency is allowed to impose generic prohibitions in National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits that subject permit-holders to enforcement for running afoul of water quality standards without identifying the specific limits to which the discharges are supposed to conform.
San Francisco argues the EPA may not develop generic provisions that penalize wastewater discharge permit holders for going beyond water quality standards unless it specifies limits on the discharges.
The petition for certiorari, or review, in City and County of San Francisco v. Environmental Protection Agency, was granted in an unsigned order.
No justices dissented. No reason was provided for the decision. At least four of the nine justices must vote to grant the petition for it to advance to the oral argument stage.
In July 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit affirmed the EPA’s power to stipulate generic limits or “general narrative prohibitions” on discharges under the federal Clean Water Act.
According to its petition dated Jan. 8, San Francisco’s most recent wastewater discharge permit is one of many issued across the country that failed to notify the permit holders what they must do to comply with the Clean Water Act.
The city’s permit states in general terms that San Francisco may not cause or contribute to “exceedances” of water quality standards. Instead of simply advising the city “how much it needs to control its discharges to comply with the Act,” the EPA’s “generic prohibitions leave the City vulnerable to enforcement based on whether the Pacific Ocean meets state-adopted water quality standards.”
