this post was submitted on 04 Mar 2025
535 points (99.8% liked)

News

28352 readers
4530 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

In a 5-4 decision, the US Supreme Court weakened the Clean Water Act by limiting the EPA's authority to issue generic water quality standards.

The majority, led by Justice Alito, ruled that the EPA must impose specific pollutant limits instead of broad, "end result" requirements. The city of San Francisco prevailed, challenging the EPA's narrative-based permits for sewage discharges.

Dissenters, led by Justice Barrett, argued the law authorizes stronger measures to protect water supplies.

The case marks the first significant Clean Water Act challenge since Chevron deference was overturned in 2024.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

This cornucopia of corruption is unprecedented. It seems we’re seeing all of his buyers receiving their benefits in real time.

[–] [email protected] 151 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

Shithole country. Literally.

[–] [email protected] 37 points 1 month ago

Its not as if this saves money. It just shifts the expense. Purified water treatment plants are going to have to compensate for increasingly contaminated source water. I'd wager this will negatively impact nitrification. Just pollution for no societal gain. Greed, I assume.

Ugh. I think I've hit my limit for bad news today. Be well, all.

[–] [email protected] 95 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

What do you need clean water for? You can purchase it from Nestle anyway as part of your essentials subscription.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 month ago (2 children)

But I've reached the maximum allotment, and I wanted to bathe this week!

[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Would you like to upgrade to the Essentials+ with ads plan?

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I....would not? Ugh, I have to think about it

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago

Better hurry! This discounted offer only lasts through this weekend!

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

Come on, you're 35, you should be dead already!

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 month ago

Until we find that Nestle is just bottling the same tap water at twice the price. Oops!

[–] [email protected] 71 points 1 month ago (3 children)
[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 month ago

Maybe they'll have the best dysentery? That's not nothin.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 month ago

FINALLY! God it feels like I've been saying it forever but OUR WATER IS TOO CLEAN! Cannot tell you how much I miss sewage and dead animals in my water. Puts hair on your chest! Kids these days barely know what it's like to get a little cholera or typhoid. By the time I was six I had e coli twice, and salmonella. Wouldn't trade it for the world. MAGA!!

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Ask the Californian prison slaves

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago

there's prison slavery happening all over the country. "fun" fact, school districts are encouraged to purchase furniture made by incarcerated people, and can even hire them to do maintenance type jobs (like painting etc).

shit is already fucked.

[–] [email protected] 42 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Let's bring back lead paint.

Let's bring back coal refineries in full swing.

Let's bring back rulings against having warning labels.

Let's just go all the fucking way in how we can truly bastardize this country even further.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

Don't forget good old asbestos!

[–] [email protected] 28 points 1 month ago

Great, so now asshole industrialists can pollute with whatever new-fangled chemicals they want, and if it’s not on the blacklist (good luck navigating the red tape to add to that list btw), they are free of liability and the public can get sick. Wonderful.

[–] [email protected] 27 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Mmm, this Freedom Water tastes amazing

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 month ago

It's what plants crave ⚡

[–] [email protected] 23 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (3 children)

ruled that the EPA must impose specific pollutant limits instead of broad, “end result” requirements.

Any scientists out there who can talk to the specifics of this?

To a layman like me, this seems like six and a half of one, a half a dozen of another.

Is asking for specificity a bad thing, scientifically and environmentally speaking?

~This~ ~comment~ ~is~ ~licensed~ ~under~ ~CC~ ~BY-NC-SA~ ~4.0~

[–] [email protected] 29 points 1 month ago (1 children)

In a 5-4 ruling written by Justice Samuel Alito, the court blocked the EPA from issuing permits that make a permittee responsible for surface water quality, or “end result” permits – a new term coined by the court.

I also don't know, but get really suspicious if Alito needs to invent a "new term" to frame the case with

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago

I also don’t know, but get really suspicious if Alito needs to invent a “new term” to frame the case with

Yeah, there's definitely a " 'WTF?' Factor" going on with that.

I can't wait to hear what the Legal Eagle on YouTube says about that.

~This~ ~comment~ ~is~ ~licensed~ ~under~ ~CC~ ~BY-NC-SA~ ~4.0~

[–] [email protected] 22 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I haven't read the exact statutes, so take what I say with a grain of salt.

Some compounds, like phosphates and nitrates, are well studied, and so experts can put limits in place that they know will result in good outcomes. Unfortunately, there are an infinite number of potential contaminates someone could dump into a body of water, so for anything less well studied, it's really hard to make limits. The EPA apparently just set a backstop that said something along the lines of "whatever you put in the water has to still result in good water quality".

Now that the Supreme Court has shut that down, a polluter can put anything in the water that isn't specifically disallowed. For a (fake) example, maybe Forever Chemical x2357-A is shown to hurt wildlife at concentrations over 2 parts per billion (after lots of expensive, taxpayer funded research), so the EPA rules that they have to keep it below 2 ppb. The company could adjust their process so their waste is Forever Chemical x2357-B instead, and they can release as much as they want.

The EPA basically just gets forced to play whack-a-mole spending lots of money to come up with specific rules to the point that they can't actually do their jobs.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 month ago

From a legal perspective I think it means that the permits are only able to set pre-requisite limits, but any end result can not be used to revoke it. Basically a CYA permit that allows the permitted entity to have oopsies as the end result that do not invalidate the permit. That's my poorly informed take on the legalese.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 1 month ago (1 children)

This decision doesn't sound like its in the best interest of the people. And no corporations are not people. This can only end badly.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago

what makes you think drumpf gives a fuck?

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 month ago

"Let them drink shit."

  • Clarence Thomas probably
[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Will getting cholera make eggs affordable?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

More deaths, less consumers?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago

I guess the invisible hand of the market belongs to Death

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 month ago

The case is City and County of San Francisco v. Environmental Protection Agency. Here are the legal specifics:

https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/city-and-county-of-san-francisco-v-environmental-protection-agency/

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 month ago

Entering Flavor Country

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 month ago (1 children)

If the EPA are the experts wouldn’t it make sense they should set specific requirements for water safety? What am I missing here?

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 month ago

The repeal of chevron deference apparently

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Something something "drain the swamp".

The joke about Republicans letting the likes of Bronzo the Clown take a shit in their mouth if they thought a liberal would have to smell it now became very close to literally true.

"Not having to eat actual shit from our water supply is just a lot of woke bullshit!" -magamorons, probably

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago

Why don't we just drain the swamp right into the drinking water supplies of schools? It's a win-win-win!

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 month ago

Get your RO systems now before they are tariffed.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 month ago

The EPA 100% has a spreadsheet showing which pollutants lead up to those "end results". Hopefully a swath of specific limitations comes out very, very, quickly.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 month ago

Filthy water strengthens the white nation!

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago

Thanks, I hate this.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago

Time to start clogging the pipes

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago

That’s shitty.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

I thought San Francisco were supposed to be good guys? Why are they pulling the EPA in front of the Supreme Court? Just to save some money on their infrastructure at the cost of the public?