Full-Service Law Firm solving complex challenges through bold thinking, precise execution, and shared purpose.

Full Service Law Firm | Michael Best & Friedrich LLP

Specializing in the Intersection of Business &amp; Government

Meet our team of trusted advisors, strategic thinkers, and community builders dedicated to client success.

Learn about our full-service legal and business solutions, designed to address complex challenges for leading organizations across industries.

Access thought leadership, news, and resources to stay informed about the latest trends, legal developments, and industry innovations.

Discover how partnership, bold thinking, and precise execution drive results for clients nationwide.

Explore how our national reach and local expertise support clients across the United States and beyond.

Grow at a firm designed to bring out your best.

<p>On March 4, 2025, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision (linked below) in the City and County of San Francisco v. EPA case holding that NPDES permit conditions the Court characterized as “end-result” requirements exceed USEPA's authority under the Clean Water Act (CWA).  Writing for the 5-4 majority, Justice Alito interpreted Sec. 1311(b)(1)(C) of the Act and concluded that two conditions of the NPDES permit covering the City's discharge from a combined sewer treatment plant were problematic under the Court's interpretation of the CWA. The invalidated conditions prohibit discharges that (i) contribute to a violation of a water quality standard or (ii) create “pollution, contamination, or nuisances” as defined by California state law.  Among other things, the Court was troubled by the significant enforcement risk permittees face (in particular in the context of multiple dischargers to the same receiving waters) in the application of such vague compliance conditions. </p><p>Permittees should review the language of their permits for such “end-result” requirements and evaluate their validity in light of this decision, mindful that state law could govern the analysis in those states with delegated permitting authority and supplemental state statutory authority.  </p><input type='hidden' id='passle-remote-hosting-tracking-shortcode' value='102k2qz'/><blockquote class="wp-block-quote passle-quote has-cite-link"><p>&quot;Instead, this case involves provisions that do not spell out what a permittee must do or refrain from doing; rather, they make a permittee responsible for the quality of the body of water into which the permittee discharges pollutants.&quot;</p><cite><a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-753_f2bh.pdf" aria-label="www.supremecourt.gov/..." title="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-753_f2bh.pdf" target="_blank">www.supremecourt.gov/...</a></cite></blockquote><div class="passle-featured-image passle-featured-image-position-bottom"><img src="https://images.passle.net/fit-in/400x400/filters:crop(0,375,1992,1119)/Passle/5f6edd8e8cb62a0bec3e5fd2/SearchServiceImages/2025-03-04-19-46-00-179-67c75878af5fb4d428e9478f.jpg" alt="Featured Image" /></div>

SCOTUS Vacates “End-Result” Requirements from NPDES Permits

Related People

Related Capabilities

You may also be interested in these

Hello AI, Goodbye IP.

Two Michael Best Attorneys Recognized in Chambers High Net Worth 2026 Guide

Nineteen Attorneys Named to Wisconsin Legal 250 List for 2026