The gloves are off in the mayor’s race, and it’s just going to get worse. Mayor London Breed, former Mayor Mark Farrell and Daniel Lurie all fought bitterly at the most recent debate, and I just saw a Lurie TV ad pointing to all of the ethics issues facing Farrell. I also got a mailer from Lurie attacking Breed, Farrell, and Peskin, but the attack on Peskin (he once got fined over the type size of a disclaimer in Chinese Language newspaper ads and he once had a drinking problem) are old, old news and probably not terribly effective.
That suggests to me that Breed, Farrell, and Lurie are looking at polls showing a very tight race—and none of them are making much effort at a Ranked-Choice Voting strategy.
The San Francisco Board of Supes will meet with the City Attorney’s Office Tuesday/24 to discuss a lawsuit that city it taking to the US Supreme Court, siding with the National Mining Association and the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers in effort to weaking the Clean Water Act.
The Court will hear arguments in October in the case of San Francisco v. Environmental Protection Agency, and part of the city’s argument hinges on a terrible case the court released last year.
This will be the first time the office of City Attorney David Chiu will brief the supes on the case—and immediately after the closed-door discussion, Sup. Aaron Peskin will introduce a resolution calling on the city to drop the case.
The issue involves San Francisco’s sewage discharges and the rules of the Clean Water Act. The city has a combined storm drain and sewage system, and in times of heavy rain, the city sends some sewage into the Bay and the Pacific Ocean.
The EPA has issued a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permit that allows some sewage overflows—but Chiu argues that the rules aren’t clear enough.
From the Supreme Court filing:
The City’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit generically prohibits San Francisco from causing or contributing to exceedances of water quality standards. Rather than tell San Francisco how much it needs to control its discharges to comply with the Act, the generic prohibitions leave the City vulnerable to enforcement based on whether the Pacific Ocean meets state-adopted water quality standards. … San Francisco has invested billions of dollars in infrastructure to meet the Act’s requirements and stands ready to invest further to reduce pollution if the Act so requires. Generic water quality prohibitions, however, neither set limits on the quantities of pollutants that San Francisco may discharge nor prescribe management practices that the City must implement. As a result, these prohibitions do not provide the City the directives it needs to assess whether it must invest further in controlling its discharges. These blanket requirements instead subject San Francisco to the “crushing consequences” of the CWA’s enforcement machinery without prior notice of what the Act requires. Sackett v. EPA, 598 U.S. 651, 660 (2023)
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the EPA, and now Chiu’s office is appealing. That means San Francisco is asking Donald Trump’s right-wing Supreme Court to weigh in the Clean Water Act and the EPA’s enforcement authority, providing an opportunity for the court to even further damage decades of environmental law and regulations.
A coalition of 32 environmental groups, including Clean Water Action, Sf Baykeeper, Save the Bay, and the Resource Renewal Institute, have written a letter to Mayor Breed urging the city to drop the case:
The arguments raised by the City, if the case proceeds to a decision, risk eliminating EPA’s, States, and citizens’ ability to implement a substantial portion of the Clean Water Act, a pillar of US environmental law for over half a century that protects San Francisco and the entire United States. San Francisco would be in the national spotlight this Fall and Spring, playing a central role in polluters’ and the right wing’s ongoing campaign to eviscerate the nation’s bedrock environmental laws.
It is disheartening to see San Francisco abandon its legacy as an environmental leader and join forces with the National Mining Association, American Gas Association, and the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers to dismantle the Clean Water Act. San Francisco’s view of the Clean Water Act–that permit conditions must always ignore the condition of the receiving waters—is impractical and non-scientific. Water bodies like the Pacific Ocean and the Bay fluctuate over time; agencies require some flexibility to accommodate those fluctuations to protect water quality effectively and efficiently. Limiting the EPA’s ability to protect water quality will not only hinder San Francisco residents’ health and outdoor access but also pose a significant threat to water bodies across the country.
By its actions here, San Francisco will sharply expand polluters’ power to destroy public trust and harm vulnerable communities nationwide. As climate change and the biodiversity crisis wreak havoc on the country, we should look to San Francisco for leadership. We urge you to uphold this responsibility and not contribute to the problem, as the consequences for these communities could be dire. Witnessing San Francisco team up with polluters to cripple the Clean Water Act would permanently stain our City’s reputation as a protector of the public and the environment.
The group plans to pack the meeting Tuesday.
Peskin told me that he and Sup Myrna Melgar will have the resolution ready to go. “Our opposition will be in writing,” he said.
That meeting starts at 2pm.
Mayor Breed has refused to spend some $60 million that the supes allocated for local nonprofits that serve vulnerable communities in San Francisco.
The funding was part of this year’s budget deal. As usual, the supes scrutinized the mayor’s proposal, found some savings, and added back some money the mayor had cut. The Mayor’s Office and Sup. Connie Chan, who heads the Budget and Finance Committee, worked together and agreed to the addbacks; that’s why the board approved the final budget.
Now Breed won’t spend the money, meaning crucial services, like eviction protections, are unfunded, and some nonprofits are looking at laying off staff.
Now Breed’s office is going to have to explain what’s going on.
The Budget and Finance Committee will hold a hearing at Chan’s request Wednesday/25 to discuss the situation. She’s asked Breed’s office and the People’s Budget Coalition, made up of many of the groups that are facing cuts, to come and testify. That meeting starts at 9am.
Full disclosure: Both of my kids are working for the Aaron Peskin for Mayor campaign.
