American Daddy Trader
  • Politics
  • Business
  • Stock
  • Editor’s Pick
  • Politics
  • Business
  • Stock
  • Editor’s Pick

American Daddy Trader

Editor's Pick

San Francisco takes on the EPA in a case about poop and a $10 billion fine

by admin October 17, 2024
October 17, 2024
San Francisco takes on the EPA in a case about poop and a $10 billion fine

The environmental fight that played out inside the Supreme Court on Wednesday was unusual in many ways: It featured poop, a whopping $10 billion fine and one of the nation’s greenest cities — San Francisco — battling the Environmental Protection Agency over water pollution rules in a case that could reverberate beyond the Bay Area.

During lively oral arguments, the justices appeared divided along ideological lines over a lawsuit brought by San Francisco arguing that EPA rules regulating how much sewage the city can discharge into the Pacific Ocean are so vague it can’t abide by them. The result: The city has wracked up billions in fines and counting.

“We simply want to understand our prohibition limits so we can comply with them,” Tara M. Steeley, the San Francisco deputy city attorney, told the justices.

The question the high court must decide is whether the Clean Water Act allows the EPA to impose generic prohibitions against violating water quality standards or whether the agency has to create specific pollutant limitations that give clearer guidance about when a line is crossed. For instance, San Francisco’s wastewater permit includes 100 pages of detailed rules on effluent limits, but also “narrative” restrictions such as “no discharge of pollutants shall create pollution, contamination, or nuisance” as defined by California’s water code.

Assistant Solicitor General Frederick Liu, arguing on behalf of the federal government, told the justices that the Clean Water Act authorizes the EPA to impose those generic prohibitions and that they offer an important backstop to more technical guidelines to ensure water quality remains high. He also said the EPA would like to give San Francisco specific standards, but the city has stymied those efforts by not providing better data to create them. The city disputed that claim.

“I want to be clear about the sort of information that we’re missing that made it impossible for us to impose anything other than these generic limitations,” Liu said in court.

San Francisco has an older wastewater treatment plant that combines sewage and stormwater. It can overflow during heavy rains, sending the wastewater to outfalls that are located off the coast in the Pacific Ocean. The city says it has spent billions of dollars upgrading the system to limit runoff.

The court’s three liberal justices sharply questioned San Francisco’s attorney, while the conservative majority seemed more skeptical of the EPA’s position.

“What in the statute prevents the agency from saying, in addition to or instead of the highly prescriptive…you can only discharge X amount, we want to set a goal, and we want to tell you that you’re obligated to not contribute to violating that goal?” asked Justice Elena Kagan, a liberal.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., a conservative, said the generic standards were similar to an older system of water pollution regulation that he said was difficult for parties to navigate: “It didn’t tell people in any predictable way what they can and cannot do.”

San Francisco petitioned the Supreme Court to take up the case after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit sided with the EPA.

Some environmental groups had urged San Francisco to drop its lawsuit, warning that the court’s conservative majority could use the case to further limit the EPA’s authority. Court rulings in 2022 and 2023 curbed the agency’s ability to reduce greenhouse gases and protect wetlands from runoff. The San Francisco Board of Supervisors echoed that concern, voting in a non-binding resolution to urge the city to resolve the case quickly to avoid harming water standards nationwide.

The case has “very troubling implications,” said Becky Hammer, a senior attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council.

“We were disappointed to see San Francisco take this case all the way to the Supreme Court,’ Hammer said. “Given the anti-environment trend of the court in recent years, it’s asking for trouble to bring this case before them.”

At the same time, San Francisco found itself with some unlikely allies in the case, including oil and mining groups that filed friend of the court briefs supporting the city’s position.

The court will probably issue a ruling in the case by June, which is usually the final month of the term.

This post appeared first on washingtonpost.com

previous post
In Nevada Senate race, Republican Sam Brown struggles to gain traction
next post
Georgia judge blocks array of rules approved by pro-Trump election board

You may also like

Cornel West announces BLM activist, professor Melina Abdullah...

April 11, 2024

Former Teamsters leader criticizes non-endorsement of Harris for...

September 20, 2024

Some important numbers on Biden’s border problem

April 2, 2024

Updated federal workplace guidelines protect employee gender identity

April 30, 2024

Evaluating the anti-Biden case House Republicans offered on...

February 28, 2024

How a Bill Barr ‘assignment’ led to a...

February 23, 2024

Secret Service response at Trump rally hurt by...

August 3, 2024

Vance calls $500 million federal grant for Michigan...

October 9, 2024

Trump proposes scaled-back platform that softens language on...

July 9, 2024

Peter Navarro to be sentenced for contempt of...

January 25, 2024

    Stay updated with the latest news, exclusive offers, and special promotions. Sign up now and be the first to know! As a member, you'll receive curated content, insider tips, and invitations to exclusive events. Don't miss out on being part of something special.


    By opting in you agree to receive emails from us and our affiliates. Your information is secure and your privacy is protected.

    Recent Posts

    • ‘Maine’s Mamdani’: Maine GOP chief issues warning about new challenger looking to oust Susan Collins

      August 22, 2025
    • Federal judge rules Trump appointee Alina Habba is unlawfully serving as US attorney

      August 22, 2025
    • Pentagon unveils new medal for troops deployed in Trump’s southern border crackdown

      August 22, 2025
    • Zelenskyy seeks ‘strong reaction’ from US if Putin is not ready for bilateral meeting

      August 22, 2025
    • Trump administration wins Supreme Court fight to slash NIH medical research grants tied to DEI, LGBTQ studies

      August 22, 2025

    Archives

    • August 2025
    • July 2025
    • June 2025
    • May 2025
    • April 2025
    • March 2025
    • February 2025
    • January 2025
    • December 2024
    • November 2024
    • October 2024
    • September 2024
    • August 2024
    • July 2024
    • June 2024
    • May 2024
    • April 2024
    • March 2024
    • February 2024
    • January 2024

    Categories

    • Business
    • Editor's Pick
    • Politics
    • Stock
    • Uncategorized
    • About us
    • Contact us
    • Privacy Policy
    • Terms & Conditions

    Copyright © 2025 americandaddytrader.com | All Rights Reserved