Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-260_jifl.pdf
Page Number: 12.0

8 

COUNTY OF MAUI v. HAWAII WILDLIFE FUND 

Opinion of the Court 

we have control over the water table . . . so we can . . . main-
tai[n] a control over all the sources of pollution, be they dis-
charged directly into any stream or through the ground wa-
ter  table.”  Water  Pollution  Control  Legislation–1971
(Proposed Amendments to Existing Legislation): Hearings 
before the House Committee on Public Works, 92d Cong., 
1st Sess., 230 (1971).  Representative Les Aspin similarly 
pointed  out  that  there  were  “conspicuou[s ]”  references  to 
groundwater in all sections of the bill except the permitting
section at issue here.  Water Pollution Control Legislation–
1971:  Hearings  before  the  House  Committee  on  Public
Works on H. R. 11896 and H. R. 11895, 92d Cong., 1st Sess., 
727 (1972).  The Senate Committee on Public Works “recog-
nize[d] the essential link between ground and surface wa-
ters.”  S. Rep. No. 92–414, p. 73 (1971). 

But  Congress  did  not  accept  these  requests  for  general 
EPA authority over groundwater.  It rejected Representa-
tive Aspin’s amendment that would have extended the per-
mitting provision to groundwater.  Instead, Congress pro-
vided a set of more specific groundwater-related measures 
such as those requiring States to maintain “affirmative con-
trols over the injection or placement in wells” of “any pollu-
tants that may affect ground water.”  Ibid.  These specific
state-related  programs  were,  in  the  words  of  the  Senate
Public Works Committee, “designed to protect ground wa-
ters and eliminate the use of deep well disposal as an un-
controlled alternative to toxic and pollution control.”  Ibid. 
The upshot is that Congress was fully aware of the need to 
address  groundwater  pollution,  but  it  satisfied  that  need
through  a  variety  of  state-specific  controls.    Congress  left 
general groundwater regulatory authority to the States; its
failure to include groundwater in the general EPA permit-
ting provision was deliberate. 

Finally, longstanding regulatory practice undermines the
Ninth Circuit’s broad interpretation of the statute.  EPA it-
self for many years has applied the permitting provision to