Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Clean Water Act Litigation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
San Francisco supervisors urge drop of Supreme Court appeal, push SFPUC and city attorney to negotiate with EPA
Summary
The Land Use & Transportation Committee voted to send an amended resolution to the full Board calling on the City Attorney and SFPUC to seek settlement or mediation with the EPA over Oceanside/Bayside permit disputes rather than pursue U.S. Supreme Court review; experts and dozens of residents warned a Supreme Court ruling could undercut the Clean Water Act.
San Francisco supervisors on Monday voted to send an amended resolution to the full Board urging the City Attorney and the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission to resolve their dispute with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency through settlement or mediation rather than through the U.S. Supreme Court.
"As the plaintiff here, the city can file a motion to dismiss its case tomorrow," said Dr. David Owen, associate dean for research and the Henry d. Sunderland professor at the University of California College of Law, San Francisco, who testified at the committee hearing. Owen warned that a Supreme Court appeal risks broad precedent that could weaken national water‑quality protections.
The resolution, sponsored by Supervisor Mirna Melgar, grew out of months of public concern after the city petitioned the Supreme Court over permit language governing combined sewer overflows from the Oceanside Wastewater Treatment Facility and related provisions affecting the Bayside permit. The committee amended the resolution to add additional findings and recommended it as a committee report to the Board with a recorded voice vote of three ayes.
Committee members and expert witnesses repeatedly stressed the distinct limits of the Supreme Court appeal. "Initially, the case before the United States Supreme Court does not challenge the Bayside permit," Owen said, and "if the city wins its appeal ... the city's challenges are not going to go away." He noted the city remains subject to other permit terms and to parallel enforcement proceedings.
Dozens of residents and members of environmental organizations also addressed the committee during an extended public‑comment period. Speakers representing Surfrider Foundation, Sierra Club chapters, Baykeeper and many local groups told supervisors the lawsuit threatens water quality protections used by communities nationwide. "Please do the right thing, drop the lawsuit," said Nina Atkin of the Surfrider Foundation San Francisco chapter.
Deputy City Attorney Sarah Crowley told the committee the City Attorney's Office had participated in mediation at the Ninth Circuit previously and that settlement discussions have continued but have not been successful. "The city and the EPA engaged in voluntary mediation at the Ninth Circuit, but it was unsuccessful," Crowley said, and she confirmed there is not currently a mediation scheduled.
Committee President Aaron Peskin and Vice Chair Dean Preston both voiced concern about the litigation strategy and the political fallout; Preston pressed the City Attorney's Office for clarity about mediation and next steps.
The committee's action sends the amended resolution to the full Board; the hearing record notes that oral argument in the related Supreme Court docket is scheduled for October 16, 2024. The resolution asks the City Attorney and SFPUC to pursue settlement and increased transparency around litigation decisions. The Board will consider the resolution at its next available meeting.
