Summary
In a 5-4 decision, the US Supreme Court weakened the Clean Water Act by limiting the EPA’s authority to issue generic water quality standards.
The majority, led by Justice Alito, ruled that the EPA must impose specific pollutant limits instead of broad, “end result” requirements. The city of San Francisco prevailed, challenging the EPA’s narrative-based permits for sewage discharges.
Dissenters, led by Justice Barrett, argued the law authorizes stronger measures to protect water supplies.
The case marks the first significant Clean Water Act challenge since Chevron deference was overturned in 2024.
The case is City and County of San Francisco v. Environmental Protection Agency. Here are the legal specifics:
The EPA 100% has a spreadsheet showing which pollutants lead up to those “end results”. Hopefully a swath of specific limitations comes out very, very, quickly.
What do you need clean water for? You can purchase it from Nestle anyway as part of your essentials subscription.
Until we find that Nestle is just bottling the same tap water at twice the price. Oops!
But I’ve reached the maximum allotment, and I wanted to bathe this week!
Come on, you’re 35, you should be dead already!
I feel happyyyy!!
Would you like to upgrade to the Essentials+ with ads plan?
I…would not? Ugh, I have to think about it
Better hurry! This discounted offer only lasts through this weekend!
Entering Flavor Country
Get your RO systems now before they are tariffed.
ruled that the EPA must impose specific pollutant limits instead of broad, “end result” requirements.
Any scientists out there who can talk to the specifics of this?
To a layman like me, this seems like six and a half of one, a half a dozen of another.
Is asking for specificity a bad thing, scientifically and environmentally speaking?
I haven’t read the exact statues, so take what I say with a grain of salt.
Some compounds, like phosphates and nitrates, are well studied, and so experts can put limits in place that they know will result in good outcomes. Unfortunately, there’s are an infinite number of potential contaminates someone could dump into a body of water, so for anything less well studied, it’s really hard to make limits. The EPA apparently just set a backstop that said something along the lines of “whatever you put in the water has to still result in good water quality”.
Now that the Supreme Court has shut that down, a polluter can put anything in the water that isn’t specifically disallowed. For a (fake) example, maybe Forever Chemical x2357-A is shown to hurt wildlife at concentrations over 2 parts per billion (after lots of expensive, taxpayer funded research), so the EPA rules that they have to keep it below 2 ppb. The company could adjust their process so their waste is Forever Chemical x2357-B instead, and they can release as much as they want.
The EPA basically just gets forced to play whack-a-mole spending lots of money to come up with specific rules to the point that they can’t actually do their jobs.
From a legal perspective I think it means that the permits are only able to set pre-requisite limits, but any end result can not be used to revoke it. Basically a CYA permit that allows the permitted entity to have oopsies as the end result that do not invalidate the permit. That’s my poorly informed take on the legalese.
In a 5-4 ruling written by Justice Samuel Alito, the court blocked the EPA from issuing permits that make a permittee responsible for surface water quality, or “end result” permits – a new term coined by the court.
I also don’t know, but get really suspicious if Alito needs to invent a “new term” to frame the case with
I also don’t know, but get really suspicious if Alito needs to invent a “new term” to frame the case with
Yeah, there’s definitely a " ‘WTF?’ Factor" going on with that.
I can’t wait to hear what the Legal Eagle on YouTube says about that.
Not like it was enforced anyway. The last time they did anything about it here, everyone’s water rates just skyrocketed
yup. drumpf is good at bringing the price of stuff down. Oh wait!
Let’s bring back lead paint.
Let’s bring back coal refineries in full swing.
Let’s bring back rulings against having warning labels.
Let’s just go all the fucking way in how we can truly bastardize this country even further.
Don’t forget good old asbestos!
Will getting cholera make eggs affordable?
More deaths, less consumers?
I guess the invisible hand of the market belongs to Death
This cornucopia of corruption is unprecedented. It seems we’re seeing all of his buyers receiving their benefits in real time.
Yes California has one Sewage Crisis. But what about Second Sewage Crisis?
A 5-4 decision that weakens water protections is a win for polluters, not the public.
🐱
It’s not a win for the polluters. They’re polluting their own water.
“Public” means everybody, it’s not the other team that goes with “private”. It’s everybody.
Thanks, I hate this.
Its ridiculous when the courts are so clearly partisan. What is the point of the justice system anymore?
Time to start clogging the pipes
