Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Supreme Court hears challenge to EPA’s use of 'generic prohibitions' in San Francisco water permit
Summary
At oral argument in City & County of San Francisco v. Environmental Protection Agency, counsel for San Francisco argued that EPA’s permit conditions exceed the Clean Water Act because they impose indeterminate 'generic prohibitions' based on receiving-water conditions; the government countered that §301(b)(1)(C) allows such limitations when tailored effluent limits cannot be set.
The U.S. Supreme Court heard argument in City and County of San Francisco v. Environmental Protection Agency over whether the Clean Water Act authorizes the Environmental Protection Agency to place so-called "generic prohibitions" in National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits.
Representing San Francisco, counsel (identified in the argument as Miss Steely) told the Court the disputed permit provision improperly converts state water quality standards — which set goals for a water body — into vague, enforceable obligations. "What at bottom is the problem is that permit holders don't know what they need to do to comply," Steely said, pressing that the generic prohibitions "don't tell us what an addition that we need to do," and therefore undermine the statutory permit-shield meant to give permittees advance notice of their obligations.
The government, arguing for the EPA through counsel identified as…
Already have an account? Log in
Subscribe to keep reading
Unlock the rest of this article — and every article on Citizen Portal.
- Unlimited articles
- AI-powered breakdowns of topics, speakers, decisions, and budgets
- Instant alerts when your location has a new meeting
- Follow topics and more locations
- 1,000 AI Insights / month, plus AI Chat