Washington – The conservative majority of the Supreme Court ruled for San Francisco On Tuesday, the power of the environmental authorities limited the unloading of the sea from dirty rainwater.
It was a regulatory dispute over the approval standards used by the Environmental Protection Agency.
Storm drains from coastal cities can pollute bays and the ocean, but the officials of San Francisco argued that they should not be blamed for the pollution of the sea, unless it came from their sewage treatment plants.
Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. agreed with civil servants from the city and the district of San Francisco and the district and said that a permission of the “end result” was unfair.
Even a city that “follows every specific requirement in your approval on time San Francisco against EPA.
He said the EPA retains sufficient authority to prevent water pollution.
“If the EPA does its job, our participation should not have a negative impact on water quality,” he wrote.
Judge Amy Coney Barrett talked and found that the law empowered the EPA to enforce “any restriction” that is necessary to protect clean water.
The three liberals of the court – the Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson – agreed to their contradiction.
The Sierra Club said the judgment “hinders the authority of the EPA to protect America's water.”
Sanjay Narayan, his main consultant of the appointment, said the decision ignores “the basic reality, such as waters and water pollution (work) (work) (work) the ability of the EPA, the Clean Water Act, a basic environment law to get under control in the past 50 years.”
Washington's lawyer, Kevin Minoli, a former deputy General Counsel at EPA, said the decision would probably affect many cities across the country.
“It is quite common to have an approval provision that forbids everything that” contributes to “the water,” he said, quoting one of the controversial provisions that the court ejected.
Two years ago, the conservative majority of the court limited the EPA authority to protect wetlands.
“The Court continues to contain the protection of the Clean Water Act,” said Becky Hammer, a senior lawyer for freshwater ecosystems at the Defense Council of Natural Resources.
“This decision does not change the fact that the EPA must ensure that the permits of water pollution are strong enough to keep our water clean. The decision takes away one of the available tools for what makes the work of the EPA much more difficult, ”said Hammer.
Hammer and other environmental representatives found that groups that represent environmental industries – such as the National Mining Assn. And the American Petroleum Institute – in the San Francisco side in the case.
As a result of the judgment, Hammer said:
The national assn. From clear water authorities that represent public wastewater and rainwater authorities, the decision welcomed as a “Merounding sense of common sense will help to continue to do so exactly what the congress has intended. Keep the waters of our country cleanly and healthy by imposing clear, scientific requirements. ”
Adam Krantz, his managing director, said that if “permits are transparent and implementable, supply companies can invest public dollars in projects that protect water quality instead of guessing what these projects should be.”