In a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled to weaken the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) ability to regulate water pollution, marking a significant setback for environmental protections under the Clean Water Act (CWA). The ruling blocks the EPA from enforcing broad water quality limits through “end result” permits, which require cities and businesses to ensure discharged water meets pollution standards.
The case centered on San Francisco’s wastewater system, which violated permit regulations by allowing untreated sewage and stormwater to overflow into the Pacific Ocean. Instead of tightening enforcement, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority sided with the city, stripping the EPA of a key regulatory tool used to control pollution across U.S. waterways.
Environmental groups warn that the decision jeopardizes water quality nationwide, making it easier for polluters to discharge waste into rivers, lakes, and coastal waters while placing more strain on underfunded regulatory agencies.
The case stemmed from San Francisco’s legal battle with the EPA after the agency found the city in violation of its wastewater discharge permit. The city sued the EPA, arguing that its water quality standards were too vague and that it was impossible to determine when pollution limits had been crossed.
The Biden administration defended the EPA’s regulations, stating that broad pollution limits serve as crucial safeguards alongside specific numerical limits. Officials also accused San Francisco of failing to provide full transparency on its wastewater discharge, though the city denied the claim.
Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the conservative majority, ruled that the EPA cannot impose general “end result” permits that hold polluters responsible for meeting water quality standards. Instead, the agency must rely on more specific, quantifiable permit conditions, making enforcement significantly more complex.
“The agency has adequate tools to obtain needed information from permittees without resorting to end-result requirements,” Alito wrote in the majority opinion.
In dissent, Justice Amy Coney Barrett criticized the ruling, stating that the Clean Water Act clearly grants the EPA the power to impose stricter pollution limits when necessary.
“The relevant provision of the Clean Water Act directs EPA to impose any more stringent limitation that is necessary to meet… or required to implement any applicable water quality standard,” Barrett wrote.
The ruling could have far-reaching environmental and public health implications. Many major U.S. cities, including Boston, New York, and Washington, D.C., rely on strict pollution controls to protect their water sources. With enforcement weakened, raw sewage and industrial waste could increasingly enter public waterways.
San Francisco’s aging water treatment plant, which serves 250,000 residents, already struggles to handle sewage and stormwater overflow during heavy rains. The system’s failure can send untreated waste—including human feces and household contaminants—directly into the Pacific Ocean.
Environmental groups warn that similar challenges exist across the country, where deteriorating water infrastructure could lead to more widespread pollution if regulatory oversight is reduced.
Weaker pollution controls could also lead to contaminated drinking water, increasing risks of disease outbreaks, bacterial infections, and exposure to toxic substances.
• Low-income communities and marginalized populations will be disproportionately affected, as many rely on surface water sources that require stronger protections.
• Indigenous communities and rural areas with limited water treatment infrastructure may face heightened health risks due to unregulated pollution.
Becky Hammer, senior attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council, warned that the Supreme Court’s ruling makes enforcement of clean water standards significantly harder.
“This decision is going to make the job of EPA and other permitting agencies much harder, because the type of limits the court says have to be used are much harder to identify and calculate,” she said.
San Francisco’s case received support from major corporate lobbying groups, including the National Mining Association and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which have long fought to weaken pollution standards. Their legal arguments reflect a broader effort by industry groups to limit federal environmental regulations.
This ruling follows a series of decisions by the conservative supermajority to strip regulatory power from federal agencies, including:
• West Virginia v. EPA (2022)—Limited the EPA’s ability to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.
• Sackett v. EPA (2023)—Weakened federal protections for wetlands under the Clean Water Act.
Sam Sankar, senior vice president for programs at Earthjustice, highlighted the broader trend of judicial rollbacks on environmental protections.
“The majority is saying EPA can still protect water quality if it invests more staff time in issuing each permit. I guess they haven’t heard that Trump is gutting the agency,” Sankar said.
During Donald Trump’s presidency, his administration rolled back key clean water protections, making it easier for cities and businesses to dump raw sewage into U.S. waterways. Trump’s policies included:
• Reducing federal oversight of industrial water pollution.
• Cutting EPA staff and funding, leaving the agency under-resourced.
• Weakening enforcement of the Clean Water Act, allowing higher pollution levels in rivers and lakes.
The Biden administration attempted to reverse many of these rollbacks, but conservative legal challenges and ongoing Republican opposition have hindered efforts to restore stricter protections.
In the wake of the ruling, environmental advocates and Democratic lawmakers are exploring legislative and legal pathways to restore EPA enforcement power.
Some states may enact stricter local water pollution laws to fill the regulatory gap, though this could create a patchwork of uneven protections across the country.
“The city is wrong,” Barrett stated in her dissent, emphasizing that the Clean Water Act explicitly grants the EPA authority to impose stricter pollution limits when necessary.
With 2024 elections approaching, environmental groups warn that the ruling could become a major campaign issue, particularly in regions vulnerable to water pollution.
• Climate and public health advocates are urging voters to oppose candidates supporting deregulation.
• Polling suggests that a majority of Americans favor stronger environmental protections, despite industry lobbying against them.
The Supreme Court’s ruling weakens the EPA’s ability to enforce water pollution standards, benefiting corporate interests at the expense of public health and environmental safety. With enforcement tools stripped away, major cities, businesses, and communities near waterways will face heightened pollution risks.
Follow Source Water Protection to see how they are working to protect sources of drinking water is an effective way to reduce risks to public health.
COMMENTS