Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Environment Epa Litigation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Dozens urge San Francisco supervisors to drop suit against EPA as meeting opens for closed‑session deliberations
Summary
More than 40 public commenters at the Sept. 24 Board of Supervisors meeting urged the city to withdraw a lawsuit against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, warning the appeal could weaken the Clean Water Act and harm public health and coastal ecosystems.
Dozens of residents, environmental scientists and advocacy groups used a one‑minute public‑comment period at the San Francisco Board of Supervisors’ Sept. 24 meeting to call on the city to drop an imminent lawsuit against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Speakers representing the Sierra Club, San Francisco Baykeeper, Climate Change Makers and multiple university researchers urged supervisors to withdraw the city’s appeal of EPA oversight tied to the Oceanside wastewater treatment plant, saying the case could set a damaging precedent with the current U.S. Supreme Court. "We ask you to drop this lawsuit against the EPA," said Scott Webb of the Sierra Club Bay chapter. "If the city wins, we will lose—our national protections could be gutted." (Public commenters listed below.)
The public comment period opened immediately before a rare mid‑meeting closed session on the litigation, which the board said is pending before the U.S. Supreme Court. Dozens of speakers gave brief testimony recounting local pollution events, health impacts and the role of federal standards in protecting recreational waters. Several speakers, including scientists with Ph.D.s in microbiology and environmental chemistry, described personal or observed illnesses they tied to sewage discharges and urged the board to pursue negotiation or settlement rather than appeal.
The comment session featured rapid succession of requests: Arianna Harrison of the Marie Harrison Foundation referenced localized dumping and called for upholding existing laws; Ben Eichenberg of Baykeeper urged the board to "withdraw its lawsuit against the EPA" and protect the Clean Water Act; and multiple speakers warned that a favorable decision for the city at the Supreme Court could severely weaken national water protections.
Why it matters: Commenters framed the dispute as both a local public‑health emergency and a national test case that could reshape enforcement of the Clean Water Act. The board moved immediately into closed session to receive legal advice and discuss the pending litigation, as permitted under state law. The closed session was convened under a motion previously approved on Sept. 17 and is focused on "existing litigation" between the City and County of San Francisco and the EPA (motion M‑24085).
What the board did next: After the public comment period the board entered closed session for deliberations with the city attorney; public comment on the litigation was closed before the session began. No final public action on the lawsuit was taken on the record at that meeting. The board’s closed session deliberations are confidential unless the board votes later to disclose them.
Attribution and sources: Quotes and paraphrases above are drawn from public comment recorded at the Sept. 24 Board of Supervisors meeting; speakers cited themselves and organizations when they addressed the board. The board’s clerk published the agenda item as a closed session convened to receive advice from the city attorney about existing litigation in the matter "City & County of San Francisco v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency" (scheduled pursuant to a motion approved on 09/17/2024).
