Episode 108
Opinion Summary: City and County of San Francisco v. EPA | Date Decided: 3/4/25 | Case No. 23-753
The question presented in this case is: Whether the Clean Water Act allows EPA (or an authorized state) to impose generic prohibitions in National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits that subject permit holders to enforcement for exceedances of water quality standards without identifying specific limits to which their discharges must conform.
The Supreme Court held: Section 1311(b)(1)(C) does not authorize the EPA to include “end result” provisions in NPDES permits. Determining what steps a permittee must take to ensure that water quality standards are met is the EPA’s responsibility, and Congress has given it the tools needed to make that determination.
Transcript
The question presented in this case is whether the Clean Water act allows EPA or an authorized state to impose generic prohibitions in National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NPDIS permits that subject permit holders to enforcement for exceedances of water quality standards without identifying specific limits to which their discharges must conform.
Speaker A:Justice Alito delivered the opinion of the Court in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas and Kavanaugh joined.
Speaker A:Justice Gorsuch joined as to all but part two.
Speaker A:Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Barrett, and Jackson joined as to Part 2.
Speaker A:Justice Barrett filed an opinion dissenting in part, in which Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson joined.
Speaker A:Please note that this summary is read by an automated voice.
Speaker B:Justice Alito's majority opinion under the Clean Water Act.
Speaker B: USC Section: Speaker B:The Environmental Protection Agency and authorized state agencies issue permits that impose requirements on entities that wish to discharge pollutants into the waters of the United States.
Speaker B:A critical component of the CWA regulatory scheme is the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, which makes it unlawful to discharge pollutants into covered bodies of water unless authorized by permit.
Speaker B:EPAV California XREL State Water Resources Control Board, 426 U.S.
Speaker B:200, 205.
Speaker B:These permits typically include effluent limitations on discharges that restrict the quantities, rates, and concentrations of chemical, physical, biological, and other constituents.
Speaker B: Section: Speaker B: Sections: Speaker B:This case involves a challenge to end result requirements permit provisions that do not spell out what a permittee must do or refrain from doing, but instead make a permittee responsible for the quality of the water in the body of water into which the permittee discharges pollutants.
Speaker B:The City of San Francisco operates two combined wastewater treatment facilities that process both wastewater and stormwater.
Speaker B:Combined Sewer Overflow control policy during periods of heavy precipitation, the combination of wastewater and stormwater may exceed the facility's capacity and the result may be the discharge of untreated water, including raw sewage, into the Pacific Ocean or the San Francisco Bay.
Speaker B: In: Speaker B: d without controversy, but in: Speaker B: ndard for receiving waters at: Speaker B: California water code section: Speaker B:Internal quotation marks omitted San Francisco argued that the end result requirements exceed EPA's statutory authority, but the Ninth Circuit denied the city's petition for review.
Speaker B: The court held that section: Speaker B: Held section: Speaker B:Determining what steps a permittee must take to ensure that water quality standards are Met is the EPA's responsibility, and Congress has given it the tools needed to make that determination.
Speaker B:Pages 7 to 19A.
Speaker B: all limitations under section: Speaker B: While sections: Speaker B:This distinction shows that Congress intentionally authorized limitations beyond effluent limitations because it is generally presumed that Congress acts intentionally and purposely in the disparate inclusion or exclusion of language in a statute.
Speaker B: US: Speaker B: her limitations under Section: Speaker B:Moreover, San Francisco's interpretation would either invalidate widely accepted narrative permit provisions or require an improbably broad reading of effluent limitation.
Speaker B:Pages 7 to 9B.
Speaker B: Section: Speaker B:The provisions, text, structure, and context support this interpretation.
Speaker B:Pages 9 to 19 1.
Speaker B: mplement, and meet in section: Speaker B:A limitation is a restriction imposed from without, not an end result requirement, leaving permittees to determine necessary steps.
Speaker B: New International Dictionary: Speaker B:To implement standards requires concrete measures not simply mandating achievement of results.
Speaker B:Id.
Speaker B: At: Speaker B:A limitation that is necessary to meet an objective is most naturally understood to mean a provision that sets out actions that must be taken to achieve the objective.
Speaker B: the pre: Speaker B:See Federal Water Pollution control Act, Chapter 7, 58 Sections 1.2d.
Speaker B:1.2d.
Speaker B:4, 2d 7, 62 Stat.
Speaker B: ,: Speaker B: s when overhauling the law in: Speaker B:Instead, the CWA imposes direct restrictions on polluters rather than working backward from pollution to assign responsibility.
Speaker B:EPA, 426 U.S.
Speaker B:at 204.
Speaker B:The government's interpretation would undo what Congress plainly sought to achieve when it scrapped the WPCA's backward looking approach.
Speaker B: to: Speaker B:First, end result requirements would negate the CWA's permit shield protecting compliant permittees from liability.
Speaker B:Second, EPA's interpretation provides no mechanism for fairly allocating responsibility among multiple dischargers contributing to water quality violations.
Speaker B:Pages 14 to 16 the agency has adequate tools to obtain needed information from permittees without resorting to end result requirements.
Speaker B:Its reliance on the combined sewer overflow policy is misplaced, as that policy authorizes narrative limitations but not end result requirements, and concerns about disrupting general permits are unfounded given that narrative limitations remain available.
Speaker B: to: Speaker C:Remanded Justice Barrett, Opinion Dissenting in Part I join Part two of its opinion, which rightly rejects the City's primary argument.
Speaker C:In Part three.
Speaker C:However, the Court embraces an equally weak theory that the permit's restrictions are not limitations, as that word is ordinarily used.
Speaker C:The Court's analysis is contrary to the text, so I respectfully dissent in part.
Speaker C: he term limitation in section: Speaker C:A limitation can encompass conditions stated at varying levels of generality, including end result requirements.
Speaker C:Just as a college may condition a scholarship on maintaining a minimum gpa or a homeowner may condition payment on satisfaction of industry standards, EPA may condition permit authorization on compliance with water quality standards.
Speaker C: uired to implement in section: Speaker C:Rather, they indicate the limitations must ensure compliance with water quality standards.
Speaker C:The receiving water limitations implement the standards both by carrying out their objectives and by giving them practical effect through enforceability.
Speaker C: mitations would revive the pre: Speaker C:The Clean Water Act's shift from the prior regime involved two key ones making all discharges presumptively unlawful unless authorized by permit and two replacing ineffective ex post enforcement with prospective permit requirements.
Speaker C:Receiving water limitations fit seamlessly within this new framework as prospective conditions supplementing technology based limits.
Speaker C:The Court's concerns about fairness to permittees with multiple dischargers or unclear compliance standards are better addressed through arbitrary and capricious challenges to specific permit conditions rather than categorical prohibition.
Speaker C: ermit issuance, since section: Speaker A:Case Implications the court's rejection of EPA's authority to include end result water quality limitations in NPDES permits may significantly reshape how the Agency regulates water pollution, particularly for combined sewer systems and general permits.
Speaker A:EPA might need to develop more specific prescriptive permit conditions for each discharge scenario, potentially leading to longer permit processing times and increased administrative burden.
Speaker A:This could particularly affect municipalities operating combined sewer systems, who may face delays in permit renewals while EPA develops detailed technical requirements, as well as smaller businesses that previously relied on general permits with flexible compliance approaches.
Speaker A:The ruling might also prompt EPA to more frequently deny permits when it lacks sufficient information to develop specific limitations, potentially forcing some operators to cease discharges until they can provide more detailed technical data about their operations.
Speaker A:While the Court suggests EPA has adequate tools to protect water quality through specific limitations, the practical challenge of developing tailored requirements for numerous diverse discharge scenarios could strain agency resources and potentially result in a more cumbersome permitting process that may inadvertently reduce environmental protection in some instances.
