The Supreme Court docket justices sounded intently cut up Wednesday on San Francisco’s dispute with the Environmental Safety Company over the right way to cease polluted water from flowing into the Pacific Ocean throughout heavy storms.
At difficulty was a technical dispute over the language utilized in permits issued by EPA.
The case poses the query: Can regulators punish a metropolis if it broadly “contributes” to water air pollution or as an alternative should they focus narrowly on the town’s precise discharges of pollution?
A ruling on the difficulty could sharply restrict the EPA’s energy to implement clean-water requirements.
Attorneys for San Francisco informed the courtroom it was “unfair and unworkable” to carry the town probably chargeable for large fines due to polluted water alongside Pacific seashores close to the town.
This air pollution could have originated different sources across the bay, they mentioned.
“San Francisco can management its personal discharges, not the water high quality situations,” mentioned Tara Sweeney, a deputy metropolis legal professional. “We need to perceive our limitations. This allow doesn’t inform us what we have to do.”
She mentioned Los Angeles has had the identical downside in Southern California. She mentioned a significant metropolis might be held chargeable for polluted ocean water though the pollution could have come from dozens of different municipalities.
The courtroom’s liberals have been fast to disagree.
The regulation “says it’s important to meet water high quality requirements. What could possibly be clearer than that?” requested Justice Elena Kagan.
“You’re being requested to be accountable,” mentioned Justice Sonia Sotomayor.
However Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh mentioned the EPA ought to inform cities extra particularly what they need to do to adjust to the regulation.
“You’re on the hook for tens of hundreds of thousands of {dollars}, and also you don’t know your obligations,” Kavanaugh mentioned, trying on the difficulty from the town’s perspective.
A Justice Division legal professional representing the EPA sharply disagreed.
“San Francisco is aware of what it must do. Its outdated sewer system is failing,” mentioned Frederick Liu, an assistant to the solicitor normal.
Throughout heavy rains, the town’s Oceanside plant can not deal with storm runoff, and sewage and polluted water are discharged into the Pacific.
He agreed the town might face fines of tens of hundreds of thousands {dollars} for discharging pollution in violation of its allow.
The town’s attorneys mentioned the precise quantity could possibly be billions of {dollars}.
The town and county of San Francisco had challenged the EPA’s allow as going past federal regulation, however misplaced within the ninth Circuit in a 2-1 resolution.
The Supreme Court docket will doubtless hand down a choice early subsequent 12 months.
Environmentalists sharply criticized the San Francisco metropolis attorneys for bringing the enchantment.
“The Clear Water Act doesn’t comprise the limitation that San Francisco is asking the courtroom to insert — one that may stop EPA from guaranteeing that polluters don’t threaten public well being and security,” mentioned Sanjay Narayan, counsel for the Sierra Membership.
“That could be a profoundly irresponsible resolution, and a disservice to San Francisco residents and the nation at massive.”