In one of the first U.S. Supreme Court cases argued in the 2024-2025 session earlier this month, reactions were mixed among the justices tasked with deciding whether the National Waste Disposal System permits Pollutant discharges may be enforced under the federal Clean Water Act if they include , rather than specific wastewater discharge mandates.

The case pits municipal water utilities, business and construction groups against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The city and county of San Francisco seek high court review after federal ruling. That city’s appeals court rejected the utility commission’s argument that the language in its new permit was so vague that the city risked sanctions if it didn’t meet the requirements.

“We just want to understand our ban limits so we can meet them,” said Tara M. Steeley, an assistant city attorney, who said billions of dollars in upgrades have been made to its aging wastewater treatment plant. from Oceanside. Amanda Aspatore, general counsel for the National Association of Clean Water Agencies, which filed a brief in support of the utility, says federal permits must provide clear guidance on what can be safely discharged into U.S. waters. The major trade groups, the American Petroleum Institute and the American Chemistry Council, are also in favor of this project.

U.S. Justice Department Assistant Attorney General Frederick Liu, representing the EPA, countered that the lack of details on the permit filing “made it impossible…to impose anything other than generic limitations.” . About 14 states, including California, filed briefs last month supporting the agency.

According to SCOTUSblog, the justices are divided along expected political lines, but unanimity is not clear among conservative justices either. Environmental advocates worry about the implications for state discharge rules if the court upholds the city, with the Natural Resources Defense Council noting “very troubling implications.”

Days before the Oct. 17 proceedings, San Francisco officials approved, 8-2, a nonbinding resolution urging city officials to resolve the dispute before the high court’s decision could “substantially harm the quality of water throughout the country. The judges could rule as early as the first quarter.

But in an unexpected action in a separate case, Davis Polk lawyers say, the Supreme Court on Oct. 16 rejected a plea from utilities, independent power producers and states to suspend the power plant rule from the EPA that mandates emissions controls and was finalized in May for coal-fired power plants and new gas-fired plants while a lower court considers opponents’ broader legal challenge. This action follows two similar actions filed by the court this month over EPA rules.

“Given decisions in recent years that undermine protections, the majority’s refusal … to block this vital rule is a victory for common sense,” said Meredith Hankins, senior counsel for the NRDC. The lawsuit now returns to the Washington, D.C., appeals court for a decision.

But the outcome of the November 5 election could also further affect enforcement, if Republican Donald Trump wins his presidential bid.