The National Association of Clean Water Agencies (NACWA), which represents public wastewater and stormwater agencies of all sizes nationwide, said it supports the recent decision by the U.S. Supreme Court that will strike down “vague” language in Clean Water Act permits.
The Supreme Court ruling of mention was the Clean Water Act case, City and County of San Francisco v. EPA. The case challenged the ability of EPA and states with delegated Clean Water Act programs to impose what the industry called “vague” narrative standards in discharge permits issued for sewer overflows.
In July 2024, NACWA led an amicus brief in support of an appeal by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) to the Supreme Court. Nineteen utilities representing major U.S. cities and eight state and regional clean water associations joined NACWA in asking the court to strike down vague language in discharge permits. The municipalities argued that EPA’s inclusion of narrative standards in permits go beyond what is allowed under the Clean Water Act and that such standards open up wastewater systems to violations and fines based on non-specific effluent discharge limits.
NACWA applauded the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision against EPA, calling it common sense and said it will help make Clean Water Act permits more transparent.
Examining City and County of San Francisco v. EPA & Legal Impacts on Clean Water Act Enforcement
“[This] decision represents a major victory for clean water investment throughout the country,” NACWA CEO Adam Krantz said in a statement. “Public clean water utilities work 24/7 to protect human health and the environment and maintain and improve critical infrastructure. [This] commonsense decision will help ensure that the Clean Water Act continues to do exactly what Congress intended – keep our nation’s waters clean and healthy through the imposition of clear, science-based requirements.
“When Clean Water Act permits are transparent and implementable, utilities can invest public dollars in projects that protect water quality instead of guessing what those projects should be.”
Some reports are suggesting the ruling could have negative impacts on the water quality of the Pacific Ocean around San Francisco and water bodies around the country since the decision, in essence, modifies the power of the Clean Water Act. But NACWA and Krantz said otherwise, explaining that the decision is more about the language in the permits rather than something that could negatively affect water quality in the future.
“As the Supreme Court said at the outset of the decision, the language objected to by San Francisco and public clean water utilities around the country is not necessary to protect water quality,” Krantz said. “To the contrary, the permitting certainty provided by the decision will help utilities more efficiently and effectively improve water quality and protect public health.
“NACWA is pleased to have led an amicus brief in this case that was joined by public utilities from across the nation and was cited by the Court in its decision.”
NACWA has been involved in the case since it began in 2020.
Sources: NACWA, Holland and Hart
Leave a Reply