18622_Authority_August_Web

municipalauthorities.org | 53 Since the Supreme Court’s decision in Loper Bright , the case has been cited in numerous decisions, and practitioners should closely monitor how courts address the deference issue now that Loper Bright has replaced Chevron as the standard for deference in federal courts. City and County of San Francisco v. Environmental Protection Agency In March, 2025, the United States Supreme Court issued a decision in a much anticipated case involving the conditions included in a Clean Water Act National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) Permit. This case was brought against EPA by the City and County of San Francisco, and involved NPDES permit requirements that do not provide specific effluent limitations (e.g. restrictions on the quantities, rates, and concentrations of chemical, physical, biological, and other constituents), but rather hold the NPDES permittee responsible for the quality of the receiving water to which the permittee discharges pollutants. The Supreme Court noted that such permit requirements were considered impermissible “end- result” permit conditions. By way of example, a permit requirement that a permittee’s discharge not cause or contribute to a violation of water quality standards would be an “end- result” condition that the Supreme Court found is inconsistent with the Clean Water Act. Specifically, the Supreme Court clarified that EPA may not enforce a permit requirement that fails to “spell out what a permittee must do or refrain from doing,” and EPA must not include such “end-result” conditions in NPDES permits. In other words, the Clean Water Act does not authorize NPDES permit requirements that condition compliance on the quality of the receiving water. Rather, it is EPA that must determine what a permittee must do to ensure that water quality standards are met. The import of the Supreme Court’s decision in this case is that it should provide more certainty for NPDES permittees in understanding their specific requirements to ensure compliance with the Clean Water Act. Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County In yet another significant 2025 decision of the United States Supreme Court, the Court reviewed the issue of judicial review under the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”). NEPA is a statute that requires federal agencies to assess the environmental impact of their proposed actions prior to making decisions regarding such actions. The actions subject to NEPA are broad and include, among other things, highway construction projects. In this case, the Seven County Infrastructure Coalition applied to the U.S. Surface Transportation Board (“Board”) for approval to construct a nearly 90-mile railroad line between an oil rich basin in Utah to the national freight railway network, which facilitates the delivery of crude oil to Gulf Coast refineries. As part of its review under NEPA, the Board prepared an environmental impact statement (“EIS”) addressing the effects of the railway project. The Board’s EIS noted potential environmental effects of both upstream oil drilling in the aforementioned basin and increased downstream crude oil refining. However, the Board did not fully evaluate these potential environmental effects. As a result, the Board’s actions were challenged and the D.C. Circuit held that the Board’s EIS should have analyzed the Overview article continued from page 23. ...the Clean Water Act does not authorize NPDES permit requirements that condition compliance on the quality of the receiving water. Rather, it is EPA that must determine what a permittee must do to ensure that water quality standards are met.