Sponsored link
Sunday, December 15, 2024

Sponsored link

News + PoliticsEnvironmentSupes pass resolution seeking to avoid a sweeping attack on the Clean...

Supes pass resolution seeking to avoid a sweeping attack on the Clean Water Act

Dorsey tries to say move is an attack on the City Attorney's Office, but that's not the issue—and by 8-2, members agree that the city should settle with the EPA over sewage

-

The Board of Supes passed a resolution this week calling on the city to settle its lawsuit against the Environmental Protection Agency, despite efforts by Sups. Matt Dorsey and Rafael Mandelman to denounce it as an attack on the city attorney.

The resolution seeks to discourage the city from taking to the US Supreme Court a case that could wind up gutting the Clean Water Act.

When it rains too much, the city discharges sewage into the ocean. Wikimedia Images photo.

As Sup. Myrna Melgar, the sponsor of the resolution, noted, this is not an attack on anyone. The resolution doesn’t direct the city attorney to do anything; the board can’t tell the city attorney, an independently elected official, how to proceed. They can’t direct the head of the SP Public Utilities Commission, Dennis Herrera, how to operate, either.

“The resolution only asks to resolve the dispute with the EPA,” Melgar said. “It doesn’t say how.”

The billionaires who are trying to take over the city have turned sewage into toxic politics, saying that the supporters of this resolution want to raise water rates by a factor of ten. “This does not increase rates, nor does it force the PUC to make any infrastructure investments. It does, however, point out the danger of taking this case to this Supreme Court.”

Dorsey didn’t address that risk directly. Instead, he talked about the professionalism of the City Attorney’s Office, where he used to work, saying that the lawyers in that office had provided high-quality service to the supes “and deserve better than this.”

He said: “This is an office that has served this board with professionalism, and grace, and candor, and we’re not paying it back.”

But that’s not the issue.

Preston noted that the city has not held a mediation on this since 2021, and there is no mediation scheduled. “I can’t imagine the EPA wants this US Supreme Court ruling on the Clean Water Act,” he said.

In other words: There must be a way to resolve this. But time is running out: Arguments before the Supreme Court are scheduled for Oct. 16.

Sup. Shamann Walton noted: “This is not about a slap in the fact to the City Attorney’s Office… I do want to say this is 100 percent about no trust in the US Supreme Court.”

In fact, City Attorney David Chiu is the one who turned this into a political issue, and a way to attack Sups. Melgar and Connie Chan.

The resolution passed, 8-2, with Dorsey and Mandelman opposed, and Sup, Ahsha Safai absent.

48 Hills welcomes comments in the form of letters to the editor, which you can submit here. We also invite you to join the conversation on our FacebookTwitter, and Instagram

Tim Redmond
Tim Redmond
Tim Redmond has been a political and investigative reporter in San Francisco for more than 30 years. He spent much of that time as executive editor of the Bay Guardian. He is the founder of 48hills.

Featured

Beyond books: Gifts for lit lovers 2024

Looking for something novel to give your book-fiend friend? Step out of the covers with unique treats, from chocolates to live readings.

‘Jinkx & DeLa Holiday Show’ keeps it fresh for Christmas

Riotous annual blast brings all-new material: 'We don't shy away from light—or dark!' say beloved queens.

Street Sheet turns 35

Paper by and for the unhoused has become a civic treasure—and its editor looks forward to the day when it's no longer needed.

More by this author

Scathing audit shows progressives who questioned SFPD budget were right

Massive overtime waste. Sick-leave scams. Cops working for private companies instead of patrolling the streets. The $821 million police budget has serious problems.

Supes reject Breed policy on towing RVs

Seizing the homes of vulnerable families makes no sense, advocates say—and by a 7-3 vote, board agrees.

Letters we answer: On Luigi and the US healthcare system

Are we looking through a 'single keyhole,' and what does that mean anyway?
Sponsored link
Sponsored link

You might also likeRELATED