Cuyahoga River Round 2, This Time With PFAS – The Supreme Court’s Clean Water Act Decision

Cuyahoga River Round 2, This Time With PFAS – The Supreme Court’s Clean Water Act Decision

The Supreme Court of the US has handed down another decision that burdens the EPA, impacting its authority and oversight. On March 4, 2025, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favour of San Francisco in City and County of San Francisco v Environmental Protection Agency. The Court’s decision found that the EPA “overstepped its authority by imposing unclear ‘narrative’ water quality standards in its National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits”. This ruling has allowed the city of San Francisco to continue releasing treated wastewater into the Pacific Ocean under its existing permit and has potential knock-on effects for other utilities or dischargers – as well as making it harder for the EPA to police sewer discharges.

Additionally, the EPA Administrator stated on March 12, 2025, that it will seek to issue a revised definition of the Clean Water Act meant to “reduce red-tape, cut overall permitting costs, and lower the cost of doing business in communities”.

For a quick history lesson: the Clean Water Act (CWA), enacted in 1972, has been instrumental in regulating pollutant discharges into US waters. Public outcry after the 1969 fire on Ohio’s Cuyahoga River, so densely polluted it caught fire, spurred the introduction of the CWA. The CWA sets guidelines for what constitutes a “water of the United States” and how these waters should be protected. Political influences affected it; Trump's first administration redefined it, excluding many wetlands and streams. Biden's administration then tried to expand these protections, but the Supreme Court blocked it.

The exact ramifications of the EPA’s definition and the latest court ruling are yet to be known. However, the Trump administration’s practice of fast-moving policy shifts has already seen a removal of proposed limits on toxic PFAS chemicals in industrial wastewater. PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) – otherwise known as ‘Forever Chemicals’ – have been the subject of intense global scrutiny, with the EU seeking to ban them in consumer products and lawsuits in the US seeing 3M and Chemours settling for more than $11 billion. States like California, New York, Colorado and Maine are seeking similar bans on the use of PFAS in consumer goods. With this shift at the federal level, we may see more states step up to implement their own regulations and limitations.

What does this mean for manufacturers and software solution vendors? Immediately, not much beyond maybe a delay in budget allocations and priorities within the US. Long-term, however, these political shifts may accelerate a wider draw back from environmental compliance and product compliance standards that have driven the purchase of software systems that help manage PFAS and environmental compliance.