Under Siege: What San Francisco v. EPA Means for Environmental Law

Writing for Project 2025, Republican political strategists described their plan to dismantle the Environmental Protection Agency’s “expansive, costly, and economy-destroying agenda.” One part of their plan succeeded this February. In San Francisco v. EPA, the Supreme Court declared major water quality regulations unlawful, providing a significant win for conservative lawmakers by constraining EPA’s power. To understand this decision, we’ll first analyze the environmental issue, then discuss the Court’s shaky ruling, and finally look at the decision’s broader impact.

EPA limitations addressed a critical environmental issue.

The limitations at bar in San Francisco v. EPA regulate San Francisco’s combined sewer system, in which stormwater (from rain) and wastewater (from toilets) feed into the same pipes. Typically, this water is treated carefully and then fed into a nearby waterway, but during the heaviest rains, sewer systems cannot handle the combined volume of water and instead pump sewage directly into the ocean.

CSOs pose a significant environmental risk because they dump raw sewage into the ocean. This unregulated, untreated sewage often includes bacteria like E coli, salmonella, and hepatitis A, making it a top priority for regulators. However, modernizing city-wide sewer systems is a tall task for Congress, which has instead delegated broad authority to EPA due to the agency’s technical expertise and added manpower.

Today, EPA places three types of limitations on CSOs: effluent limitations, which restrict the numeric amount, rate, and concentration of pollution allowed; narrative limitations, which require water treatment to follow a specific methodological approach like testing or record-keeping; and receiving water limitations, which prohibit pollution that causes a violation of water quality minimums. The exact limitations vary by region, but all three types of limitations are commonplace.

The law at bar in San Francisco v. EPA is §1311(b)(1) of the Clean Water Act of 1972, which, among other provisions, allows EPA to impose “effluent limitations” and “any more stringent limitation, including those necessary to meet water quality standards.” As Justice Amy Coney Barrett outlines in her dissenting opinion, this section intends for EPA to implement effluent limitations to ensure water quality standards, but when these limitations are insufficient, EPA has the authority to impose stricter measures like narrative or receiving water limitations. Congress intended to grant this broad authority because of the extreme health risks being addressed.

Using their authority under the “any more stringent limitation” clause, EPA issued two receiving water limitations for San Francisco to follow in 2019. These limitations a) prevent San Francisco from discharging any pollutant that “contribute[s] to a violation of any applicable water quality standard,” and b) require San Francisco to avoid any treatment or discharge that “create[s] pollution, contamination, or nuisance.’” These particular limitations were broad, containing no narrative or effluent limitations within them. Instead, EPA gave San Francisco freedom to choose what it believed were the best practices to meet water quality standards. This freedom is where the Supreme Court takes issue.

Justice Alito’s ruling lays on shaky foundations.

In his majority opinion, Justice Samuel Alito ruled that “§1311(b)(1)(C) does not authorize EPA to impose” limitations based “on whether receiving waters meet applicable water quality standards.” Instead, EPA may only issue “provisions demanding compliance with ‘best-management practices’ and ‘operational requirements and prohibitions.’” In essence, the Court requires EPA to specify narrative or effluent limitations rather than using broad receiving water limitations.

The Court’s reasoning for this decision is shallow. In their respective opinions, Justice Alito and Justice Amy Coney Barrett use pure textualism to evaluate the law. They trade dictionary definitions from three different dictionaries to determine the meaning of the phrases “limitation” and “necessary to meet” in §1311(b)(1). However, this textualist approach fails to consider the clear congressional intent inherent in the law.

As Justice Elena Kagan wrote in Yates v. U.S. (2015), “‘any’ has an expansive meaning” and typically denotes that “Congress wrote a statute with a wide scope.” When understood in the context of §1311(b)(1)’s stated purpose to “restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters,” the phrase “any more stringent limitation” appears to grant EPA broad statutory powers to place limitations on pollution sources like CSOs. Justice Alito dismisses this intent and injects his interpretation in its place.

Before 2024, Justice Alito’s interpretation would be moot, as the Court was forced to defer to EPA interpretations due to Chevron deference. This standard, first outlined in Chevron v. NRDC (1984), stated that “a court may not substitute its own construction of a statutory provision for a reasonable interpretation made by…an agency.” If applied to San Francisco v. EPA, this standard would require that the Court defer to EPA’s “reasonable interpretation” that §1311(b)(1) permits receiving water limitations. 

However, conservative justices recently replaced Chevron deference in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024), allowing courts to rule on minor interpretations of Congressional statutes like §1311(b)(1). In San Francisco v. EPA, Justice Alito utilizes this power to strengthen the Court’s power over EPA, gutting the agency’s independence. Taken together, Loper Bright and San Francisco v. EPA form a compelling pattern of a Supreme Court destined to limit independent agencies like EPA. This pattern has dangerous consequences–in this case, the proliferation of water pollution and increased risk to human lives.

Justice Alito and Project 2025 attack EPA’s ability to operate.

Ultimately, the Court’s ruling paradoxically holds that less restrictive limitations exceed EPA authority when more restrictive limitations do not. Justice Alito states that to rectify receiving broad water limitations, EPA must specify effluent and narrative limitations to reach those targets. However, these limitations are much more burdensome on both EPA and local governments, as EPA must spend its resources developing specific limitations while local governments lose their freedom to address issues as they desire. Justice Alito fails to explain why these heavy-handed limitations are legal when light-handed limitations are not.

The requirement that EPA specify effluent and narrative limitations burdens EPA’s resources and prevents it from freely governing. As Justice Barrett writes in her dissent, “If the Agency must impose individualized conditions for each permittee under §1311(b)(1)(C),” then EPA’s only option is “for the permit to be delayed or even denied” unless it hires additional staff to craft new limitations. However, the incoming administration has done exactly the opposite, as EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin plans to cut 65% of the agency’s budget in line with DOGE guidance. How can an agency with more court-ordered responsibilities continue to function with less staff? The answer: it cannot.

Yet conservatives rejoice. In place of clean air and water, we have “savings to the American taxpayer,” “improved transparency,” and “economic development,” just as Project 2025 envisioned. Is this future–one of economic prosperity at the expense of the Earth–truly what Americans seek? These developments turn EPA into the exact opposite of what its founders imagined. As EPA’s first administrator, William D. Ruckelshaus, wrote in 1970:

“EPA is an independent agency. It has no obligation to promote agriculture or commerce; only the critical obligation to protect and enhance the environment. It does not have a narrow charter to deal with only one aspect of a deteriorating environment; rather it has a broad responsibility for research, standard-setting, monitoring and enforcement.”

Is it possible to imagine anything further from today’s reality? EPA is no longer independent, with every interpretation of law subject to Supreme Court scrutiny. EPA no longer has a broad responsibility for enforcement, with arbitrary decisions constraining its methods. Instead, a post-Project-2025 EPA prioritizes commerce over the environment–money over human lives–in direct contrast to the agency’s “critical obligation” to protect the environment.

Image Source: Photo by Nic Y/Unsplash