San Francisco vs. EPA
In honor of Earth Day, Audrey will explain the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling on City of San Francisco vs. Environmental Protection Agency, and the effects that it will have on enforcing the Clean Water Act.
Embedded Files
City of San Francisco vs. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Agency
City of San Francisco vs. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Agency
By: Audrey Roetling
By: Audrey Roetling
On Mar. 4, 2025, the United States Supreme Court made the decision for the case City of San Francisco vs. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), ruling 5-4, in favor of the City of San Francisco. This decision will ultimately restrict the EPA’s authority in enforcing the Clean Water Act and imposing “end to result” water quality standards in the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits.
The EPA attempted to fine San Francisco for violating the NPDES permits by exceeding how much sewage had been released into city waters, having wastewater facilities that do not follow federal standards, and allowing illegal sewage overflows into the Pacific Ocean. San Francisco's sewage system collects both sewage and rainwater so, during rainstorms, the system overflows-- releasing raw sewage into the Pacific Bay Area. In 2019, a new NPDES permit was issued for San Francisco by the EPA and California Regional Water Control Board. This would require San Francisco to follow “end to result” requirements, which call for water being discharged into public lands to be clean or maintained. The new permit also calls for San Francisco to update its combined sewage overflow (CSO) plans.
However, San Francisco believed that this permit did not follow the regulations in the Clean Water Act and claimed that the narrative prohibitions of the “end to result” requirement were too broad by not having a numerical requirement for sewage discharge maintenance. San Francisco's administrative appeal was denied by the EPA's Environmental Appeals Board. Then, San Francisco's request was denied by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, holding that the Clean Water Act reasonably included the NPDES permits for water quality. The case was then appealed to the United States Supreme Court, who accepted it.
When a case reaches the United States Supreme Court, the ruling affects how the law is interpreted across the United States of America. The main questions being addressed in this case included:
Did San Francisco violate the Clean Water Act?
Does the Clean Water Act allow the EPA to impose broad “end to result” water quality requirements in NPDES permits?
In a split, 5-4 decision, authored by Justice Samuel Alito, the United States Supreme Court ruled that San Francisco did not violate the Clean Water Act, since the EPA was deemed to not have the authority to enforce broad “end to result” provisions. According to the San Francisco Water Power Sewer, “The EPA has the tools at its disposal to ensure water quality. But it’s not lawful to punish permit holders for end-result water quality of a shared body of water, where many other factors affect water quality.” A dissenting opinion was authorized by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, to which three other justices complied. According to CBS News, Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote in her dissenting opinion: “Limits on discharges sometimes still don't ensure water quality standards are met” and "discharges from components of San Francisco's sewer system have allegedly led to serious breaches of the water quality standards, such as 'discoloration, scum, and floating material, including toilet paper, in Mission Creek.” It was obvious that San Francisco's sewage system was polluting the San Francisco Bay and Pacific area greatly; however, since the Pacific Ocean, has other polluters, the Court will not hold San Francisco solely responsible. This means the EPA cannot force permit holders such as, San Francisco, to change their unsanitary systems that are leading to water pollution, without taking into account other polluters, and proving that the permit holder is the main source of pollution. Cities will no longer be able to be held accountable for "end to result" standards when releasing pollutants in their areas, which makes it easier to tackle clean water maintenance systematically and from the source.
As a result of this ruling, the EPA will have to establish specific, numerical requirements for sewage discharge rather than hold NPDES permit holders accountable for general water quality concerns. For example, a city such as San Francisco will no longer be held responsible for the pollution of the San Francisco Bay Area and Pacific Ocean, but all potential sources will be accounted for water quality levels, which makes it much harder to hold cities and other permit holders accountable for violations. Now, when the EPA tries to hold NPDES permit holders individually accountable for water quality, permit holders can challenge in court that the records show the overall toxicity of the water pollution is from multiple sources. This will potentially lead to more sewage and rainwater discharge, along with damaging other clean water efforts, now that the EPA is no longer authorized to execute "end to result" provisions for water waste discharge permits in the Clean Water Act.
Page updated
Report abuse