In a landmark decision, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in favor of San Francisco in City and County of San Francisco v. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), a case that will have significant implications for cities nationwide, including those in Georgia. The ruling rejected the EPA’s attempt to impose broad “end-result” requirements on water pollution permits, restoring regulatory clarity and protects cities from unfair liability.
San Francisco, like many cities, operates wastewater treatment plants that handle both sewage and stormwater. Also like many cities, its system can overflow during heavy rainfall, sometimes releasing untreated water. Historically, the city complied with federal pollution limits under the Clean Water Act by meeting specific permit conditions set by the EPA.
In 2019, the EPA renewed the city’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit with new conditions holding the city responsible for overall water quality, even beyond its own discharges. Essentially, this meant that even if the city followed all the prescribed measures, it could still be fined if the water quality did not meet the EPA’s standards. The city challenged this requirement, arguing that the EPA had exceeded its authority under the Clean Water Act. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the EPA, but the Supreme Court disagreed, ruling that the agency cannot impose such sweeping, undefined requirements on cities.
The Court ruled that the EPA’s new requirements were unlawful, emphasizing that:
- The Clean Water Act mandates specific restrictions on discharges, not vague obligations to improve overall water quality.
- The EPA has the responsibility to set clear compliance steps for permit holders, rather than holding them accountable for broader environmental outcomes that may be influenced by multiple sources.
- Cities and permit holders are protected by the Clean Water Act’s “permit shield” provision, which ensures they are not penalized as long as they follow the terms of their permits.
- Congress had deliberately moved away from a “backward-looking” approach (assigning blame for poor water quality after the fact) when it revamped the Clean Water Act in 1972. The EPA’s “end-result” requirements were an attempt to revive that outdated method.
Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority, explained that the EPA has ample tools to enforce water quality standards without resorting to overly broad permit conditions. The ruling ensures that cities are only responsible for their own actions not for pollution from unknown or multiple sources –and sets a precedent that will benefit cities across the country. Many waterways receive pollution from multiple sources, including industries, agriculture, and stormwater runoff. Holding one permit holder responsible for the entire water body’s quality was unfair and impractical. The ruling ensures that cities will not face crippling penalties for pollution they did not cause.
The decision reinforces the need for specific, actionable compliance steps in permits. Cities now have clearer guidelines on what is required to stay in compliance with the law, helping them plan infrastructure upgrades and budget their resources effectively.
Unclear or unpredictable regulatory requirements often force cities to spend millions on unnecessary or ineffective measures. With clearer guidelines, municipalities can invest in targeted improvements that actually reduce pollution rather than scrambling to meet vague standards.
This ruling sends a strong message to federal agencies that they must operate within the limits of their statutory authority. The EPA can still regulate water pollution, but it must do so in a way that aligns with the Clean Water Act’s framework, ensuring fairness for regulated entities.
Cities with combined sewer systems often struggle with stormwater overflows. Had the Supreme Court upheld the EPA’s end-result requirement, these cities could have faced billions in potential fines. Now, they have assurance that as long as they follow their NPEDS permits, they won’t be arbitrarily penalized.
Moving forward, the EPA will have to revise its permitting approach to ensure it aligns with this ruling. Cities and wastewater agencies will likely push for permit renewals that follow clear compliance guidelines rather than broad mandates. Environmental groups may look for alternative ways to hold polluters accountable, but they will need to do so within the legal framework set by the Supreme Court.
In the long run, this decision ensures that water quality regulations are enforceable, fair, and practical. Cities will still be required to prevent pollution, but they won’t be forced to shoulder responsibility for factors beyond their control.
This is a significant victory for local governments, providing much-needed regulatory certainty. It reinforces the principle that environmental laws must be applied in a way that is fair, predictable, and within the scope of congressional intent. For cities, this means a clearer path toward compliance—and for residents, it means smarter, more effective water management policies.
As cities across the country continue to address water pollution challenges, this case will serve as a guiding precedent.