US supreme court weakens rules on discharge of raw sewage into water supplies | US supreme court
the US Supreme Court He weakened the rules for the drainage of raw wastewater to water supplies in the rule of 5-4, undermining the clean water law of 1972.
CWA is the main law that governs pollution control and water quality in the country’s waterways.
On Tuesday, the Republican majority court ruled that Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) The boundaries of the public pollution that focus on the body cannot be used to the limits of the clean water law permit law, and they must provide specific restrictions on pollution statements.
The referee is a victory for San FranciscoAnd that challenged insecurity, or “narration”, allows wastewater to issue the Environmental Protection Agency to protect the quality of surface water sources such as rivers and tables that depend on drinking water.
In the ruling of 5-4 written by Judge Samuel Alto, the court prevented the Environmental Protection Agency from permits permits that make the committee responsible for the quality of surface water, or permits “the final result”-a new term formulated by the court.
“The agency has sufficient tools to obtain information required from trips without resorting to the requirements of the final accuracy,” Judge Samuel Alto, who joined a part of the majority opinion, wrote.
San Francisco has issued a permit allowing pollutants to drain from the joint sewage system to the Pacific Ocean. Conditions of the permit include a ban on discharges that contribute to violating the standards of water quality. The permit included a general ban on the effects of water quality, as part of the Environmental Protection Agency’s efforts to stop San Francisco’s wastewater versions in the Pacific Water during rainy storms.
San Francisco has defied these conditions, on the pretext that the Environmental Protection Agency lacks the legal authority to impose it. The American Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circle in July 2023 Support Environmental Protection Agency Authority to issue general boundaries on discharge under the clean water law. San Francisco took the case to Scj.
The case drew the attention of strong business groups including the National Mining Society and the American Chamber of Commerce, which wrote Amicus summaries to support the position of San Francisco. This was the first case in which the regulations of the clean water law wrestled since then The court struck respect Chevron At Loper Bright Enterprises V Raimondo in June 2024, although it was barely mentioned during oral arguments.
“The city is wrong”, according to Judge Amy Cony Barrett, who wrote the opposition opinion, to which the three Democratic judges, Sotomiore, Kagan and Jackson. “The relevant judgment of hygiene water ACT EPA is directed to impose any more striking restrictions necessary to fulfill … or is required to implement any standard water quality standard. “
