(decided March 4, 2025)
The federal Clean Water Act authorizes the Environmental Protection Agency (the “EPA”) to set “effluent limitations” on discharges into a body-of-water by authorized permittees, for the purpose of maintaining established water quality standards in that body-of-water. 33 U.S.C. Section 1331(b). In this case, the Court ruled 5-4 that that statute did not authorize the EPA to set the pre-established water quality standards by themselves as “effluent limitations.” The Court explained that the term “limitation,” as defined in the Merriam-Webster Unabridged Dictionary, most often refers to a definite rule established by some outside authority.
In dissent, Justices Barrett, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson argued that simply maintaining pre-established water quality standards was a sufficient “effluent limitation” under the Clean Water Act.
Comment: The key word “limitation” in the Clean Water Act is ambiguous, so that both the majority, and the dissent in this case have reasonable arguments as to its meaning. The majority correctly calls for consideration of the Clean Water Act’s entire context to determine the meaning of any one word in that statute. The dissent was silent on that point. The majority’s approach to statutory interpretation is more faithful to the statutory text than the dissent’s.
RECENT RULINGS 