Tag:1972 Clean Water Act
Supreme Court Limits EPA’s Authority in San Francisco v. EPA: A Blow to Clean Water Protections?
In a landmark decision issued on March 4, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in City and County of San Francisco v. Environmental Protection Agency that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) cannot impose certain types of permit requirements on entities discharging pollutants into U.S. waters. The case, which centered on the Clean Water Act (CWA), has significant implications for how the federal government regulates water pollution and protects water quality. The decision, which saw a 5-4 vote, limits the EPA’s ability to enforce “end-result” requirements in permits, raising concerns about the future of water quality standards and environmental protection.
The Future of Clean Water Act Regulations Under the Future Trump Administration
A second Trump administration is sure to challenge a variety of clean water and drinking water regulations, as evidenced by various policies proposed by the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025. President-elect Donald Trump has distanced himself politically from the project but it remains relevant as he continues to surround himself with many of its authors. Many water lawyers and environmental advocates thus expect a second Trump administration to continue the federal water deregulation efforts seen in his first administration. Specifically, President-elect Trump will likely challenge and potentially repeal both the Biden Administration’s “waters of the US” (WOTUS) rule and its Section 401 state certification rule. These moves are likely to be compounded by other ecological regulation rollbacks and further exacerbate an already worsening climate crisis in the United States.
Property Rights and the Clean Water Act: The Potential Impacts of SCOTUS’ Decision
On Monday, October 3, the Supreme Court began its new term by hearing a case concerning the rights of property owners and the interests of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Clean Water Act. When Michael and Chantell Sackett purchased land in Idaho in 2004, they did so with the intention of building a home on the property. Their plans were quashed when the EPA stepped in and declared that the land the couple purchased constituted a wetland, subject to regulation under the EPA’s Clean Water Act because the land is located 300 feet from a large lake. The Court is now faced with the question; how far can the government regulate water in the United States? Additionally, what counts as ‘waters of the United States”? Although the Court is not expected to make a decision regarding this case until June of 2023, the repercussions of the court siding with the Sacketts could be detrimental.
The Clean Water Act: The Broadening of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permitting Program to Regulate Indirect Discharge Through Groundwater
On January 14, 2021, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) issued a Guidance Memorandum (hereinafter “Memo”) addressing the recent decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case County of Maui v. Hawai’i Wildlife Foundation, 140 S. Ct. 1462 (2020) regarding the regulation of water pollution under the Clean Water Act (CWA or “the Act”). The Memo outlined how the Court’s recent ruling in the County of Maui applies to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) permit program created under Section 402 of the Clean Water Act (hereinafter “Section 402”). The intent of the EPA in publishing the Memo is to help clarify the effect of the Court’s ruling in County of Maui for owners and operators of facilities subject to the regulation of the CWA, the primary regulatory framework for governing water pollution in the United States. The ruling in County of Maui expands the types of discharge that are subject to the CWA’s regulatory permit program and illuminates the steps required of facility owners and operators to comply with that framework.
Trump Tower Sued for Non-Compliance with Clean Water Act
Trump Tower is one of many buildings along the Chicago River that uses river water for its cooling systems. Trump Tower is the second largest intake system from the river. Illinois Attorney General, Madigan, filed a lawsuit against the property to ensure that such a large quantity user is not allowed to continue to violate the law. As the value of riverfront property rise, and development continues, enforcement of these types of permits is likely to increase.
Waters of the United States
The Obama administration’s “Clean Water Rule” was designed to control pollution in approximately 60% of the country’s bodies of water. The Rule primarily extended current federal regulations to smaller bodies of water, requiring that pollution of rivers and wetlands be held to the same environmental penalties as larger bodies of water. However, the Trump administration has suspended enforcement of the regulation for two years. During that time, they will re-consider the definition of “waters of the United States.” The Trump administration intends to release a new version this year.