Washington DC - The Supreme Court on Tuesday limited the ability of the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate water pollution in a decision advocates warn is likely to bring dangerous consequences.

The 5-4 ruling in San Francisco v. Environmental Protection Agency saw the court determine the EPA had overstepped its authority under the Clean Water Act by including supposedly vague restrictions in a permit for a wastewater treatment facility in the California city.

The case concerned the discharge of raw sewage into the Pacific Ocean, with the city suing to challenge the EPA's water quality standards.

"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 water in the body of water into which the permittee discharges pollutants," Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the majority opinion.

Crime Louisiana Mardi Gras parade shooting leaves multiple people wounded

"When a permit contains such requirements, a permittee that punctiliously follows every specific requirement in its permit may nevertheless face crushing penalties if the quality of the water in its receiving waters falls below the applicable standards."

Justice Amy Coney Barrett, joining the court's three liberals in dissent, countered: "EPA is required to issue the limitations necessary to ensure that the water quality standards are met."

"So taking a tool away from EPA may make it harder for the agency to issue the permits that municipalities and businesses need in order for their discharges to be lawful," Barrett added.

After the ruling was announced, environmental activists warned of serious impacts of further weakening the EPA's authority to limit pollution.

"Releasing untreated sewage and stormwater into our water puts our public health at risk," California Environmental Voters Executive Director Mike Young said in a press release. "This decision, which can only be explained by prioritizing polluter interests, undermines decades of progress in safeguarding our water, leaving communities, especially those already disproportionately impacted by pollution, more vulnerable than ever."

"This decision will have far-reaching consequences, particularly for low-income and frontline communities that already bear the brunt of the climate crisis and are already more financially vulnerable when they get sick," Young continued.

"The fight for climate justice and a livable future depends on our collective resolve to push for stronger laws, mobilize communities, and demand that our leaders prioritize public health over corporate profits."