this post was submitted on 04 Mar 2025
640 points (99.7% liked)

News

25728 readers
5528 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
[–] WrenFeathers 3 points 11 hours ago

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

[–] [email protected] 3 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

A 5-4 decision that weakens water protections is a win for polluters, not the public.

🐱

[–] jaggedrobotpubes 0 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

It's not a win for the polluters. They're polluting their own water.

"Public" means everybody, it's not the other team that goes with "private". It's everybody.

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

Nice try, but polluters don’t see 'everybody'—just dollar signs and disposable ecosystems.

🐱🐱

[–] TheProtagonist 15 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago) (1 children)
[–] Makhno 4 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

This is a completely separate issue...?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 8 hours ago

It is, however you'd think such a publicized event would have stressed the importance of clean water to anyone that heard about it. Even the people who are racist should understand why they should want their water to be clean.

[–] Maggoty 3 points 13 hours ago

Yes California has one Sewage Crisis. But what about Second Sewage Crisis?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 14 hours ago

Its ridiculous when the courts are so clearly partisan. What is the point of the justice system anymore?

[–] Raiderkev 23 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

"Let them drink shit."

  • Clarence Thomas probably
[–] [email protected] 5 points 17 hours ago

The founding fathers didn't have water treatment so you don't get it either!

[–] [email protected] 6 points 18 hours ago (3 children)

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?

[–] Maggoty 5 points 13 hours ago

San Francisco has been shifting conservative for a while. A bunch of tech millionaires want to turn it into a futuristic dystopia.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 14 hours ago

The city government of San Francisco is fucking broke because they built their entire budget and town around shitty tech startup open offices and nobody ever wanted that so now it all sits empty and decaying.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

Should have seen what they did to their homeless as soon as they were legally allowed to. When you travel far enough, extreme Left and Right both seem to be looping around and into the anus of Authoritarianism.

[–] bitjunkie 3 points 12 hours ago

Implying that "extreme left" in any way applies to establishment Democrats.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 21 hours 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.

[–] teft 161 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (3 children)

Shithole country. Literally.

[–] lolrightythen 44 points 1 day 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.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 44 points 1 day 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.

[–] TheProtagonist 6 points 19 hours ago

Don't forget good old asbestos!

[–] [email protected] 77 points 1 day ago (3 children)
[–] Mog_fanatic 10 points 1 day 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!!

[–] StopTouchingYourPhone 9 points 1 day ago

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

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

Ask the Californian prison slaves

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 101 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

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

[–] ArgentRaven 13 points 1 day ago

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

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 day ago (2 children)

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

[–] AnUnusualRelic 3 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 2 points 15 hours ago

I feel happyyyy!!

[–] [email protected] 19 points 1 day ago (2 children)

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

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] CharlesDarwin 12 points 1 day 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

[–] FooBarrington 4 points 1 day 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] 30 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Maggoty 2 points 13 hours ago

Oh look we changed the formula for Horrible Death Liquid ^tm^ by one molocule. Anyways we'll just throw that in the reservoir behind the elementary school, what could go wrong?

[–] Pacattack57 12 points 1 day ago (2 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?

[–] Maggoty 1 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago)

You're missing that SCOTUS has taken the mask off and is complicit in the destruction of the regulations for the benefit of their elite donors. (Yes I know they don't campaign, yes I know what I said. Watch John Oliver talk about RV's if you need more context.)

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 day ago

The repeal of chevron deference apparently

[–] Eddbopkins 22 points 1 day 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 day ago

what makes you think drumpf gives a fuck?

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

Will getting cholera make eggs affordable?

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] aseriesoftubes 27 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Mmm, this Freedom Water tastes amazing

[–] reddig33 12 points 1 day ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] CosmicCleric 22 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day 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] 32 points 1 day 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

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] evasive_chimpanzee 24 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day 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.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›