This is not a joke. The Feds want to close down the water needed by San Fran on the basis of the pollutants in the ocean—which is totally uncontrollable.
““Rather than tell San Francisco how much it needs to control its discharges to comply with the [Clean Water] Act, the generic prohibitions leave the city vulnerable to enforcement based on whether the Pacific Ocean meets state-adopted water quality standards,” Andrew Silton, an attorney with Beveridge & Diamond representing San Francisco, wrote in the city’s petition.
This could add to the quickening of the San Fran DOOM LOOP. No consistent water means businesses and families will need to leave.
EPA water pollution rules in San Francisco will face Supreme Court scrutiny
The high court took up San Francisco’s bid to challenge how the government regulates water pollution.
KELSEY REICHMANN, Courthousenews, 5/28/24 https://www.courthousenews.com/epa-water-pollution-rules-in-san-francisco-will-face-supreme-court-scrutiny/
WASHINGTON (CN) — The Supreme Court agreed on Tuesday to review water pollution regulations in San Francisco, taking on another challenge to the Environmental Protection Agency’s authority to regulate pollutants.
San Francisco objects to a permitting requirement for sewer water overflows that the city claims is generic and opens it up to fines and litigation.
“Rather than tell San Francisco how much it needs to control its discharges to comply with the [Clean Water] Act, the generic prohibitions leave the city vulnerable to enforcement based on whether the Pacific Ocean meets state-adopted water quality standards,” Andrew Silton, an attorney with Beveridge & Diamond representing San Francisco, wrote in the city’s petition.
The city said the EPA’s generic standards move the goalposts after it spent billions of dollars on water infrastructure upgrades. A media representative from San Francisco’s attorney’s office said the court’s review was needed to bring clarity and stability to this area of the law.
“We simply want to know in advance what requirements apply to us, and we want the EPA to fulfill its duty under the Clean Water Act to determine those requirements,” Jen Kwart, director of communications and media relations, wrote in a statement. “That is fair.”
The EPA issues permits under a program called the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, allowing the release of certain pollutants as an exception to the Clean Water Act.
In 2019, the EPA and California published permit requirements for the Oceanside water system, which collects wastewater from 250,000 residents in western San Francisco and flows directly into the Pacific Ocean at several junctions — including near the shoreline and its public beaches.
Under the rules, San Francisco may not release any materials into the ocean that would violate water quality standards or create pollution — a framework the city argues is too vague and doesn’t quantify which pollutants the city would need to control, instead using “narrative” limitations that violate the Clean Water Act.
The Environmental Appeals Board rejected the city’s complaint, finding the EPA’s standards to be clear. The Ninth Circuit refused to review the decision on appeal.
“Without guidance from this court, EPA and states will continue to issue NPDES permits that make it virtually impossible for permittees to determine whether they need to implement additional pollution controls to comply with the Act,” San Francisco’s Silton wrote.
The EPA urged the court to decline the city’s petition and says it was well within its authority to issue narrative limitations. While the permit rules didn’t put a number to pollution limits, the EPA says it still made clear which standards to follow.
“The permit itself makes clear what those applicable water quality standards are,” U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar wrote in the government’s brief. “Attachment F to the permit — which sets forth the ‘legal’ basis for the permit’s ‘requirements’ specifically identifies the Basin Plan, the Ocean Plan, and State Water Board Order No. 79-16 as the ‘applicable’ state water quality standards.”
The EPA has faced increased scrutiny from the Supreme Court over the last few terms. In the last two terms, the justices issued a major ruling striking down emissions regulations for coal plants and voted to limit the EPA’s authority to regulate wetlands. The court is still considering another case that could limit government regulations on cross-state air pollution.
The Supreme Court did not explain its decision to take up the petition and there were no noted dissents. The justices will hear the case next term.
