Supreme Court rules in favor of San Francisco in EPA NPDES permit case

The U.S. Supreme Court on March 4, 2025, ruled that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) cannot enforce requirements in wastewater permits that don’t specifically detail what a permittee must or must not do.

San Francisco v. EPA resulted in a 5-4 decision resolving a years-long dispute between San Francisco and the EPA.

“Today’s decision represents a major victory for clean water investment throughout the country,” said National Association of Clean Water Agencies (NACWA) CEO Adam Krantz in a statement. “Public clean water utilities work 24/7 to protect human health and the environment and maintain and improve critical infrastructure.”

In 2019 the EPA approved San Francisco’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for the city’s Oceanside combined sewer system and wastewater treatment facility.

San Francisco challenged the EPA’s attempts to fine the city for allegedly violating its NPDES permit for the wastewater treatment facility, which releases stormwater and sewage during rain events.

According to a Georgetown Environmental Law Review article, San Francisco requested judicial review of requirements within the NPDES permit, arguing that the EPA exceeded the authority granted to it by the Clean Water Act (CWA).

The city argued that the language in the permit was not specific which allows the EPA to impose specific limitations on discharged pollutants – not holding individual permitholders responsible for the quality of water into which pollutants are discharged.

“Today’s commonsense decision will help ensure that the Clean Water Act continues to do exactly what Congress intended – keep out nation’s waters clean and healthy through clear, science-based requirements,” Krantz said in a statement.

The ruling will mean that the EPA and state regulators will need to be more specific when issuing permits.

“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,” Krantz said in a statement. “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.

NACWA has been involved in the case since 2020 and led an amicus brief in the case that was joined by public utilities and cited by the Supreme Court in its decision.

Ruling opposition

According to LA Waterkeeper, EPA-issued permits must include specific limitations on the amount of pollutants allowed in the discharges.

It will be up to the EPA and permit writers to determine how detailed the permits will be.

“LA Waterkeeper and our partners have long called for more specific, metric-based permits with clear discharge limitations, rather than the broad 'end-result' permits the EPA has historically relied on," said Executive Director of LA Waterkeeper Bruce Reznik in a statement. "In theory, this ruling calls for more precise regulation that could reduce the amount of effluent and other pollutants released into waterways. But in practice, the ruling ignores the current political reality in which federal environmental agencies are being systematically gutted, leaving already overburdened federal and state regulators struggling to fill gaps. Also, by requiring the EPA and state agencies to set more specific limits on the amount of pollution that can be discharged, the Supreme Court majority wrongfully assumes that regulated dischargers willingly share accurate information with regulators on a timely basis, as necessary to craft specific permit terms. In the short term, accountability for polluted waterways will be hard to come by."

Reznik stated that it will be up to the EPA and state regulators to pen stronger and more enforceable water permits.