Source: https://elr.info/sites/default/files/articles/16.10338.htm
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 17:07:18+00:00

Document:
Editors' Summary: On June 19, 1986, President Reagan signed the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1986 into law. Among the many changes made by the Amendments, three stand out. First, EPA must issue drinking water standards for a significantly increased number of contaminants. Second, the Amendments strengthen the Act's enforcement provisions by giving EPA authority to issue administrative orders and by the addition of language providing that EPA "shall" take enforcement action in certain situations. Third, the Amendments establish two new groundwater protection programs. The author reviews these changes and some of the issues that EPA will face in implementing the Amendments, and concludes that the Safe Drinking Water Act will assume a more prominent role among the environmental protection statutes.
Mr. Gray is an attorney in the Washington D.C. office of Hunton & Williams. From July 1983 to September 1986 he worked for the Office of General Counsel at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency where he counseled the Agency on Safe Drinking Water Act matters. The views are solely those of the author.
The SDWA is now a stronger statute from an environmental perspective and imposes a significant number of new burdens on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). With over 30 new deadlines for Agency action and more requirements in the offing for public water systems and underground injectors, the SDWA will be a tougher act to follow.
Although the Amendments make many changes in the law, three clearly stand out as most important and flow from Congress' deepest concerns over implementation of the Act. First, Congress believed more NPDWRs were desirable and amended the Act to require significantly more [16 ELR 10339] drinking-water standards (including two treatment techniques). Congress also generally restricted variances and exemptions. Second, to strengthen EPA's enforcement, the Act was changed to authorize new administrative orders and now provides that under certain circumstances, EPA "shall" take enforcement action. Third, Congress sought to further protect drinking-water aquifers through two new groundwater protection programs. These three areas — standard setting and compliance, enforcement, and groundwater protection — will be the most important and controversial for EPA, the states and public water systems, and other industries. This article discusses these changes and some of the fundamental legal and policy issues that will have to be resolved in implementing the Amendments.
EPA is now required to regulate no less than 83 contaminants by June 19, 1986.19 The 83 contaminants are identified in several EPA Advance Notices of Proposed Rulemaking referred to in the Amendments.20 However, of the 23 contaminants now covered by the primary regulations, 22 are included in the 83 identified contaminants which EPA must regulate.21 As a result, EPA need regulate only 61 new drinking-water contaminants within three years to meet this requirement. EPA may substitute up to 7 contaminants for the 83 listed contaminants if it finds that regulating a substitute is more likely to be protective of public health.22 EPA also is directed to develop NPDWRs implementing two treatment techniques — filtration23 and disinfection24 — on public water systems. These will be the first treatment techniques under the Act.
The standard for listing has two components. First, EPA must consider contaminants that are "known or anticipated to occur" in public water systems. This is also the occurrence standard imposed by the Act for contaminants that must be regulated under NPDWRs.29 Second, EPA is to consider those contaminants that "may require regulation."30 In interpreting this second phrase, EPA will likely look to contaminants that may have an adverse effect on human health and the significance of the health risks in drinking water.
EPA is to publish the priority list every three years, but the statute does not specify a date after which the priority list need not be published and there is no legislative history addressing whether Congress intended this requirement to continue indefinitely. It is arguably consistent with the goals of the Act to publish the priority list and regulations only as long as EPA finds contaminants that justify regulation under NPDWRs.
In preparing the lists, EPA is to look to, among other sources, hazardous substances under CERCLA and registered pesticides under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).31 EPA can be expected to select contaminants that appear most frequently in drinking water and groundwater, and for which there is adequate toxicological information from which to postulate potential adverse health effects. Pesticides and hazardous substances under CERCLA, including hazardous waste under RCRA, would often meet these requirements and would probably be included on the lists even without Congress' suggestion.
The more significant of these changes is probably the deletion of general availability: EPA need not show that the best technology is generally available, only that it is available. This could encourage the Agency to select technologies that are not as widely affordable for public water systems.
Public water systems that cannot comply with national primary drinking water standards because their raw water sources are highly contaminated or because of compelling factors may be eligible for a variance43 or exemption.44 Although the fundamental criteria for granting variances and exemptions have not been changed significantly, additional restrictions have been placed on systems that receive them.
The variance technology identified to date has been based on availability to large systems. This is true for trihalomethanes and fluoride (for which technologies are explicitly identified in the Code of Federal Regulations), as well as for the other contaminants under the Interim Regulations (for which EPA states technologies were identified in the background documents to the 1975 Interim Regulations rulemaking).50 As noted, § 1415 BAT may vary depending on the listed factors, including system size and number of persons served.51 It will be intriguing to see whether EPA selects the same BAT for large systems under both § 1412 and § 1415. Because the amendment authorizing EPA to vary BAT was specifically added to allow the Administrator to select different BAT for smaller systems, the Agency may well use this authority to choose different BAT for these systems.
It is clear that Congress desires more enforcement action by EPA. In response, the Agency expects to issue compliance orders and take more civil actions and is beginning to pressure states to reduce the number of violations.
The resolution of two major issues will have an important impact on the administration of EPA's enforcement program. The first is whether Congress has made EPA enforcement mandatory or unremedied violations. The second issue addresses the procedures required for enacting administrative penalties for underground injection violations.
The question of whether EPA must take enforcement action against violations unremedied by states with primary enforcement responsibility arises for both UIC and PWS programs. In assessing whether Congress has imposed mandatory enforcement on the Agency and its likely impact, it is useful to understand how the Amendments change the conditions under which enforcement may be taken.
Under the Act, enforcement provisions are triggered whenever the EPA "finds" a violation.59 A "finding" normally implies both knowledge and a pronouncement. In many cases, EPA will have knowledge of violations, because violations must be reported to the states who must in turn report these violations and state enforcement action (or lack thereof) to the Agency.60 Thus, a question arises whether EPA has the discretion to select the violations of which it is aware for a "finding." Nothing in the SDWA or legislative history suggests that EPA must make a finding for every violation it discovers.
In making a finding, the EPA is to notify the state and the suspected violator.61 After 30 days, where states have primary enforcement authority, EPA is to determine whether the state has commenced "appropriate enforcement action."62 EPA has yet to announce what it considers appropriate enforcement action in given cases. For relatively minor violations, one could argue that formal enforcement is not appropriate given other, higher priority violations and limited state resources. In any event, after notice, appropriate state enforcement action would often include information gathering to determine whether there is still a violation and if so, whether steps are being taken to correct the violation. There is no statutory deadline by which EPA must decide whether appropriate enforcement action has been taken.
The question not answered by the statute is what specific procedures must be followed in issuing administrative orders. The easy answer is that the UIC orders must be issued allowing for constitutional protections. The harder task is determining what minimum procedural protections are required by constitutional due process mandates.
EPA now plans to promulgate regulations establishing procedures for issuing UIC administrative orders. These procedures should address such questions as right to a disinterested decisionmaker, opportunity for cross-examination, and which other formalities of adjudicatory hearings should be available. Attorneys representing underground injectors likely will take a keen interest in these procedures.
There are two new programs established to protect groundwater resources under the Amendments. Under one program, states are to develop wellhead protection programs to prevent contamination of groundwater supplying public water systems. There is also a grant program for state and local programs for protecting critical aquifer protection areas of sole source aquifers.
Within three years of enactment, states are to submit to EPA a program to protect wellhead areas from contaminants that may have any adverse effect on health.73 Wellhead protection areas are defined as the surface and subsurface area that may be contaminated surrounding a water well or wellfield supplying a public water system.74 States are to determine the extent of the wellhead protection areas with the assistance of EPA guidance.75 Significantly, if a state does not submit a program, no federal program is imposed.
However, there is a tension between the statute's broad goals and ambitious expectations for aggressive state programs and the flexibility that is to be accorded states in determining what type of program, if any, to adopt. For example, the definition of the wellhead protection area — crucial to the whole scheme — is to be "determined by the state."93 States "may use" EPA technical guidance in making such determinations.94 Ultimately, states will shape the final nationwide wellhead protection scheme. States that wish to aggressively protect groundwater could implement measures to control sources of groundwater contamination and may affect siting of new facilities or expansion of existing facilities. On the other hand, many state programs may be minimum education or assistance programs.
In any event, states face daunting tasks in identifying wellhead protection areas and defining the hydrogeology [16 ELR 10344] for each wellhead and all man-made sources of contaminants.95 Many states will have thousands of wellhead areas; hydrogeology is a complicated science; and identifying all man-made sources of contaminants may be exceptionally time consuming. These activities are also resource intensive.
States may well be concerned about financial assistance from the Agency. EPA is authorized to make grants of 50-90 percent of the costs incurred by a state in developing and implementing the state programs96 The Agency probably will have to establish criteria for determining the percent of the grant allowed. In addition, EPA may have to determine how grants will be allocated among the states. This allocation could be based on the projected number of wellhead areas, the population using groundwater, vulnerability to contamination, or other related criteria. States will have a clear interest in any EPA criteria for grant allocation.
The state wellhead protection programs adopted by Congress were a compromise designed to capitalize on state and local land use authorities and replaced the more aggressive federal program that was initially passed by the House. There is a concern that the state programs, if unsuccessful, may provide ammunition to those who favor stricter schemes with a stronger federal role.
This demonstration program was enacted primarily as a grant program to assist states and localities in protecting designated sole source aquifers from significant contamination. A nationwide program was not envisioned. But like the wellhead protection program, the aquifer demonstration program provisions allow a minimum state and local scheme which EPA may approve and then fund. And, as discussed below, there may be overlap in the scope and activities of the two programs.
Demonstration programs are to protect critical aquifer protection areas located within sole or principal source aquifers.97 Under EPA regulations, sole or principal source is defined broadly. Although to date only 21 aquifers have been designated (and almost as many proposed) as sole source aquifers, the possibility of grants may be expected to encourage more applications.
If a CAPA program is approved, EPA may provide grants of up to 50 percent of the costs of implementing the plan, up to $4 million per aquifer per year.108 The possibility of approved but unfunded demonstration programs is not an appetizing thought to either EPA or potential applicants. EPA may have to devise an allocation scheme to distribute grants as fairly as possible among worthy applicants.
The relationship between the wellhead protection program and the CAPA demonstration program is an issue for EPA and states that will be addressed in both programs. They have many common elements including hydrogeologic mapping and assessment of sources of contamination, plans for protection of the aquifer, and minimum federal criteria and application review. Could a state demonstration program also serve as a wellhead protection program? There is likely to be direct overlap between any defined critical aquifer protection area and the wellhead protection areas. Alternatively, a demonstration might be the first step in developing a wellhead protection program.
The Amendments have already provoked major activity by EPA's Offices of Drinking Water and Groundwater Programs as they gear up for the many rulemakings that must be completed under tight deadlines. The Office of Drinking Water, in particular, will face challenges as it more than triples the number of NPDWRs in the next three years. The large majority of these NPDWRs will establish MCLs which may be used as groundwater protection standards under RCRA or FIFRA or as groundwater cleanup standards under CERCLA. They will therefore be of interest to practitioners who follow these statutes. Manufacturers and processors of chemicals that may be covered by MCLs will also have an interest in watching the Federal Register for SDWA notices. Obviously, public water systems also will face new requirements for monitoring and controlling for additional drinking-water contaminants.
It is difficult to predict the impact of the two new groundwater authorities. It is possible that they will mushroom into major programs aggressively controlling activities in wellhead protection areas and CAPAs. More likely, the programs will be local in scope and highly varied in impact. For better or worse, they may be used to implement the growing "not-in-my-backyard" movement.
Although often overshadowed by other environmental legislation, the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1986 will make the SDWA more prominent. The actions by the EPA over the next several years in implementing the Amendments will redefine the Act's significance in the field of environmental law.
1. 42 U.S.C. §§ 300f-300j-11, ELR STAT. 41101.
2. PUB. L. NO. 99-339, 22 WEEKLY COMP. PRES. DOC. 831 (June 19, 1986).
3. Public water systems are defined in SDWA § 1401(4) as systems that serve at least 15 service connections (where one home is one service connection) or regularly serve at least 25 persons. 42 U.S.C. 300f(4), ELR STAT. 41103.
4. SDWA § 1401(1), 42 U.S.C. § 300f(1), ELR STAT. 41103.
5. See 50 Fed. Reg. 46902, 46918 (1985).
6. 40 C.F.R. § 1411, subparts B & G.
7. SDWA § 1415, 42 U.S.C. § 300g-4, ELR STAT. 41106.
8. SDWA § 1416, 42 U.S.C. § 300g-5, ELR STAT. 41107.
9. SDWA § 1413, 42 U.S.C. § 300g-2, ELR STAT. 41105.
10. 42 U.S.C. §§ 6901-6987, ELR STAT. 42001.
11. 40 C.F.R. § 264.94(a)(2).
12. 42 U.S.C. §§ 9601-9657, ELR STAT. 41941; 40 C.F.R. § 300.68, ELR REG. 47461.
13. The Senate and House conferees reached an agreement on the CERCLA reauthorization bill on October 2, 1986. President Reagan has threatened to veto the bill.
14. 132 CONG. REC. H7069 (daily ed. Sept. 17, 1986).
15. 33 U.S.C. §§ 1251-1376, ELR STAT. 42101.
16. SDWA § 1421, 42 U.S.C. § 300h, ELR STAT. 41109.
17. 40 C.F.R. §§ 144-146.
18. SDWA § 1421, 42 U.S.C. § 300h, ELR STAT. 41109.
19. SDWA § 1412(b)(1), 42 U.S.C. § 300g-1(b)(1), ELR STAT. 41103.
20. H.R. CONF. REP. NO. 575, 99th Cong., 2d Sess., at 29-30 (1986), reprinted in 132 CONG. REC. H2333 (daily ed. May 5, 1986) [hereinafter CONF. REP.].
21. The category trihalomethanes is among the 83 listed contaminants.
22. SDWA § 1412(b)(2), 42 U.S.C. § 300g-1(b)(2), ELR STAT. 41104.
23. SDWA § 1412(b)(7)(C), 42 U.S.C. § 300g-1(b)(7)(C), ELR STAT. 41104.
24. SDWA § 1412(b)(8), 42 U.S.C. § 300g-1(b)(8), ELR STAT. 41104.
25. SDWA § 1412(b)(7)(C)(i), (ii), 42 U.S.C. § 300g-1(b)(7)(C)(i), (ii), ELR STAT. 41104.
26. SDWA § 1412(b)(7)(C)(ii), 42 U.S.C. § 300g-1(b)(7)(C)(ii), ELR STAT. 41104.
27. SDWA § 1412(b)(3)(A)-(D), 42 U.S.C. § 300g-1(b)(3)(A)-(D), ELR STAT. 41104.
28. SDWA § 1412(b)(3)(C), (D), 42 U.S.C. § 300g-1(b)(3)(C), (D), ELR STAT. 41104.
29. SDWA § 1412(b)(3)(A), 42 U.S.C. § 300g-1(b)(3)(A), ELR STAT. 41104.
31. 7 U.S.C. §§ 136-136y, ELR STAT. 42301.
32. Before amendment, the Act provided that the Administrator "shall by rule establish recommended maximum contaminant levels for each contaminant which, in his judgment … may have any adverse effect on the health of persons." SDWA § 1412(b)(1)(B), amended by SDWA § 1412(b)(3)(A). It provided that for each RMCL, EPA "shall publish proposed [NPDWRs]" and "shall promulgate such … regulations …." SDWA § 1412(b)(2), amended by SDWA § 1412(b)(3)(A). It now provides that the Administrator "shall publish maximum contaminant level goals and promulgate [national primary drinking water] regulations for each contaminant … which, in the judgment of the Administrator, may have any adverse effect on the health of persons …." SDWA § 1412(b)(3)(A).
33. SDWA § 1412(b)(3)(A), 42 U.S.C. § 300g-1(b)(3)(A), ELR STAT. 41104.
34. For example, in its final rule promulgating RMCLs for volatile organic chemicals, EPA looked to whether the contaminant had occurred in drinking-water or whether there was a significant potential for drinking-water contamination. 50 Fed. Reg. 46880, 46883 (1985). See also 50 Fed. Reg. 46936, 46942-43 (1985) for a proposal of RMCLs for organics, inorganics, and microbials and a more detailed discussion of types of occurrence data and their significance.
35. SDWA § 1412(b)(5), 42 U.S.C. § 300g-1(b)(5), ELR STAT. 41104.
36. S. REP. NO. 56, 99th Cong., 1st Sess., at 6 (1985) [hereinafter S. REP.].
37. H.R. REP. NO. 168, 99th Cong., 1st Sess. (1985) [hereinafter H.R. REP.].
38. SDWA § 1412(b)(5), 42 U.S.C. § 300g-1(b)(5), ELR STAT. 41104.
39. The Conference Report makes clear that the Agency is to select a GAC system based on design parameters, such as grade of carbon used, carbon contact time and frequency of regeneration chemical characteristics of a particular contaminant, and effectiveness of contaminant removal (suggested to be 90-99 percent removal). CONF. REP., supra note 20, reprinted in 132 CONG. REC. H2334 (daily ed. May 5, 1986).
40. 132 CONG. REC. S6287 (daily ed. May 21, 1986).
41. H.R. REP. NO. 1185, 93d Cong., 1st Sess., at 18 (1974).
42. 132 CONG. REC. S6287 (daily ed. May 21, 1986). But see the statement of Senator Phillip Hart in the legislative history to the 1974 Act endorsing the weighing of costs against health risks. 132 CONG. REC. S20220, 20240 (daily ed. Nov. 26, 1974), reprinted in LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT, at 890.
43. SDWA § 1415, 42 U.S.C. § 300g-4, ELR STAT. 41106.
44. SDWA § 1416, 42 U.S.C. § 300g-5, ELR STAT. 41107.
45. SDWA § 1415(a)(1)(A), 42 U.S.C. § 300g-4(a)(1)(A), ELR STAT. 41106.
47. Variance regulations for trihalomethanes, 40 C.F.R. § 142.60, and fluoride, 40 C.F.R. § 142.61, were promulgated relatively recently by EPA.
48. 40 C.F.R. §§ 142.60(b), 142.61(b).
49. See 40 C.F.R. §§ 142.60(a), 142.61(a).
50. 45 Fed. Reg. 50833, 50835 (1980); 51 Fed. Reg. 23468, 23470 (1986).
51. Interestingly, in selecting BAT for MCLs, there appears to be no bar on the Administrator's consideration of physical conditions related to engineering feasibility or different costs that may flow from those conditions, as long as the Administrator looks to large systems in his assessment of those costs and conditions. One could even argue that EPA's determination of "availability" for MCLs requires such an analysis.
52. SDWA § 1416(a)(1), 42 U.S.C. § 300g-5(a)(1), ELR STAT. 41107.
53. SDWA § 1416(b)(2)(B), 42 U.S.C. § 300g-5(b)(2)(B), ELR STAT. 41108.
54. SDWA § 1416(b)(2)(C), 42 U.S.C. § 300g-5(b)(2)(C), ELR STAT. 41108. The statute says taking all practicable steps to meet the requirements of subparagraph (B). It is unclear whether the system has to reestablish its entitlement to exemption under Subparagraph (B) (e.g., showing of need for financial assistance) or merely that it is taking "all practicable steps" to meet the standard. SDWA § 1416(b)(2)(B), (C), 42 U.S.C. § 300g-5(b)(2)(B), (C), ELR STAT. 41108.
55. SDWA §§ 1414(g), 1423(c), 42 U.S.C. §§ 300g-3, 300h-2(c), ELR STAT. 41106, 41111.
56. SDWA §§ 1414(b), 1423(b), 1423(c), 42 U.S.C. §§ 300g-3(b), 300h-2(b), 300h-2(c), ELR STAT. 41105, 41111.
57. SDWA §§ 1414(a), 1423(a), 42 U.S.C. §§ 300g-3(a), 300h-2(a), ELR STAT. 41105, 41110.
58. SDWA §§ 1414(c), (g), 1445(c), 42 U.S.C. §§ 300g-3(c), (g), 300j-4(c), ELR Stat. 41105, 41120.
59. SDWA §§ 1414(a)(1)(A), (B), 1423(a)(1), (2), 42 U.S.C. §§ 300g-3(a)(1)(A), (B), 300h-2(a)(1), (2), ELR STAT. 41105, 41110.
60. 40 C.F.R. §§ 141.31, 146.
61. SDWA §§ 1414(a), 1423(a), 42 U.S.C. §§ 300g-3(a), 300h-2(a), ELR STAT. 41105, 41110.
62. SDWA §§ 1414(a)(1)(B), 1423(a)(1), 42 U.S.C. §§ 300g-3(a)(1)(B), 300h-2(a)(1), ELR STAT. 41105, 41110.
63. SDWA §§ 1414(a)(1)(A), (B), 1423(a)(1), (2), 42 U.S.C. §§ 300g-3(a)(1)(A), (B), 300h-2(a)(1), (2), ELR STAT. 41105, 41110.
64. CONF. REP., supra note 20, reprinted in 132 CONG., REC. H2335 (daily ed. May 5, 1986); H.R. REP., supra note 37; S. REP., supra note 36.
The principal of prosecutorial discretion is an essential ingredient in the execution of the laws. I believe that the Congress cannot bind the Executive in advance and remove all prosecutorial discretion without infringing on the powers of the Executive. It is unrealistic to expect that the EPA will ever have the resources or the need to take formal enforcement action against each and every violation of the Act, without regard to how trivial the violation or unfair an enforcement action would be.
22 WEEKLY COMP. PRES. DOC. 832 (June 19, 1986).
66. Sierra Club v. Train, 557 F.2d 485, 488-91, 7 ELR 20670 (5th Cir. 1977); see also Zemansky v. EPA, Civ. A-81-274, slip op., 16 ELR 20862 (D. Alaska Apr. 7, 1986); Avoyelles Sportsmen's League, Inc. v. Marsh, 715 F.2d 897, 902 n. 11, 13 ELR 20942 (5th Cir. 1983); State Water Control Board v. Train, 559 F.2d 921, 927 n. 34, 7 ELR 20571 (4th Cir. 1977); National Wildlife Federation v. Ruckelshaus, 15 ELR 20845 (D.N.J. Aug. 5, 1983); Caldwell v. Gurley Refining Co., 533 F. Supp. 252, 255-57, 12 ELR 20759 (E.D. Ark. 1982); O'Leary v. Moyer's Landfill, Inc., 516 F. Supp. 517, 11 ELR 21005 (E.D. Pa. 1981) (Exhibit A to Docket No. 4); Lanza Construction Co. v. EPA, Civ. No. 80-72895 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 27, 1981), slip op. at 9 (Exhibit A to Docket No. 7); Goodyear v. LeCraw, 15 ELR 20846 (S.D. Ga. June 27, 1980) (interpreting parallel language of FWPCA § 404; Montgomery Environmental Coalition v. Fri, Civ. No. 1307-73 (D.D.C. Dec. 12, 1973), noted at Montgomery Environmental Coalition v. Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission, 607 F.2d 378, 380 n.5 (D.C. Cir. 1979), and committee for Consideration of Jones Falls Sewage System v. Train, 387 F. Supp. 526, 529-30 n.3 (D. Md. 1975), and O'Leary supra, 11 ELR 21005; cf. Greene v. Costle, 577 F. Supp. 1225, 14 ELR 20394 (W.D. Tenn. 1983); South Carolina Wildlife Federation v. Alexander, 457 F. Supp. 118, 8 ELR 20757 (D.S.C. 1978); Illinois v. Hoffman, 425 F. Supp. 71 (S.D. Ill. 1977); United States v. Phelps Dodge Corp., 391 F. Supp. 1181, 5 ELR 20308 (D. Ariz. 1975).
67. Attorneys fees are available for citizen suits under the SDWA as under other environmental statutes. SDWA § 1449(d), 42 U.S.C. § 300j-8(d), ELR STAT. 41121.
68. SDWA §§ 1414(g), 1423(c), 42 U.S.C. §§ 300g-3(g), 300h-2(c), ELR STAT. 41106, 41111.
69. SDWA § 1414(g)(2), (3), 42 U.S.C. § 300g-3(g)(2), (3), ELR STAT. 41106, 41111.
70. SDWA § 1414(g)(3), 42 U.S.C. § 300g-3(g)(2), ELR STAT. 41106.
71. SDWA § 1423(c)(1), (3), 42 U.S.C. § 300h-2(c)(1), (3), ELR STAT. 41111.
72. SDWA § 1423(c)(3)(A), 42 U.S.C. § 300h-2(c)(3)(A), ELR STAT. 41111.
73. SDWA § 1428(a), 42 U.S.C. § 300h-7(a), ELR STAT. 41114. Under the SDWA, EPA must also establish NPDWRs for contaminants that may have any adverse effect on health. EPA has not yet announced whether state wellhead protection programs must provide protection for all contaminants regulated under the NPDWRs.
74. SDWA § 1428(e), 42 U.S.C. § 300h-7(e), ELR STAT. 41114. See supra note 3 for the SDWA's definition of public water system.
75. SDWA § 1428(e), 42 U.S.C. § 300h-7(e), ELR STAT. 41114.
76. SDWA § 1428(a)(1)-(6), 42 U.S.C. § 300h-7(a)(1)-(6), ELR STAT. 41114.
78. SDWA § 1428(i), 42 U.S.C. § 300h-7(i), ELR STAT 41114.
79. SDWA § 1428(j), 42 U.S.C. § 300h-7(j), ELR STAT. 41114.
80. CONF. REP., supra note 20.
81. SDWA § 1428(h), 42 U.S.C. § 300h-7(h), ELR STAT. 41114.
83. SDWA § 1428(c), 42 U.S.C. § 300h-7(c), ELR STAT. 41114.
85. CONF. REP., supra note 20, reprinted in 132 CONG. REC. H2338 (daily ed. May 5, 1986).
88. Id. See also SDWA § 1428(d), 42 U.S.C. § 300h-7(d), ELR STAT. 41114.
89. SDWA § 1428(a), 42 U.S.C. § 300h-7(a), ELR STAT. 41114.
90. SDWA § 1449(a)(1), 42 U.S.C. § 300j-8(a)(1), ELR STAT. 41121.
91. 132 CONG. REC. S6290 (daily ed. May 21, 1986) (statement of Sen. Durenberger); 131 CONG. REC. S6293-94 (daily ed. May 21, 1986) (statement of Sen. Bentsen). But cf. "[T]he section's exposure to the citizen suit provisions of the Act expands even further the opportunity for environmental activities [sic] to sue in Federal Court …." 132 CONG. REC. S6297 (daily ed. May 21, 1986) (statement of Sen. Helms).
92. Grants have been issued under FWPCA § 106.
93. SDWA § 1428(e), 42 U.S.C. § 300h-7(e), ELR STAT. 41114.
95. SDWA § 1428(a), 42 U.S.C. § 300h-7(a), ELR STAT. 41114.
96. SDWA § 1428(k), 42 U.S.C. § 300h-7(k), ELR STAT. 41114.
97. SDWA § 1427(a), 42 U.S.C. § 300h-6(a), ELR STAT. 41112.
98. SDWA § 1427(d), 42 U.S.C. § 300h-6(d), ELR STAT. 41113. In establishing the criteria, the Administrator is directed to consider such factors as vulnerability of the aquifer, the number of persons using the aquifer for drinking water, benefits of protection of the aquifer, and costs of degradation.
99. SDWA § 1427(c), 42 U.S.C. § 300h-6(c), ELR STAT. 41112.
100. SDWA § 1427(e), 42 U.S.C. § 300h-6(e), ELR STAT. 41113.
101. SDWA § 1427(f)(1), 42 U.S.C. § 300h-6(f)(1), ELR STAT. 41113.
102. SDWA § 1427(f)(2), 42 U.S.C. § 300h-6(f)(2), ELR STAT. 41113.
103. SDWA § 1427(g), 42 U.S.C. § 300h-6(g), ELR STAT. 41113.
104. Senator Durenberger stated that the program was not to infringe "on the traditional relationship between the Federal Government and state and local governments in matters of land use and water resources." 132 CONG. REC. S6289 (daily ed. May 21, 1986) (statement of Sen. Durenberger).
105. 132 CONG. REC. S6297 (daily ed. May 21, 1986) (statement of Sen. Cranston).
106. 132 CONG. REC. H2637-38 (daily ed. May 13, 1986) (statement of Rep. Downey).
107. SDWA § 1427(f)(2), 42 U.S.C. § 300h-6(f)(2), ELR STAT. 41113.
108. SDWA § 1427(j), 42 U.S.C. § 300h-6(j), ELR STAT. 41113.
109. 132 CONG. REC. H2637-38 (daily ed. May 13, 1986) (statement of Rep. Downey).
110. 132 CONG. REC. S6297 (daily ed. May 21, 1986) (statement of Sen. Gorton).
111. SDWA § 1427(k), 42 U.S.C. § 300h-6(k), ELR STAT. 41113.

References: § 1415
 § 1412
 § 1415
 § 1401
 § 1401
 § 300
 § 1411
 § 1415
 § 300
 § 1416
 § 300
 § 1413
 § 300
 § 264
 § 300
 § 1421
 § 300
 § 1421
 § 300
 § 1412
 § 300
 § 1412
 § 300
 § 1412
 § 300
 § 1412
 § 300
 § 1412
 § 300
 § 1412
 § 300
 § 1412
 § 300
 § 1412
 § 300
 § 1412
 § 300
 § 1412
 § 1412
 § 1412
 § 1412
 § 1412
 § 1412
 § 300
 § 1412
 § 300
 § 1412
 § 300
 § 1415
 § 300
 § 1416
 § 300
 § 1415
 § 300
 § 142
 § 142
 § 1416
 § 300
 § 1416
 § 300
 § 1416
 § 300
 § 1416
 § 300
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 404
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1449
 § 300
 § 1414
 § 300
 § 1414
 § 300
 § 1423
 § 300
 § 1423
 § 300
 § 1428
 § 300
 § 1428
 § 300
 § 1428
 § 300
 § 1428
 § 300
 § 1428
 § 300
 § 1428
 § 300
 § 1428
 § 300
 § 1428
 § 300
 § 1428
 § 300
 § 1428
 § 300
 § 1449
 § 300
 § 106
 § 1428
 § 300
 § 1428
 § 300
 § 1428
 § 300
 § 1427
 § 300
 § 1427
 § 300
 § 1427
 § 300
 § 1427
 § 300
 § 1427
 § 300
 § 1427
 § 300
 § 1427
 § 300
 § 1427
 § 300
 § 1427
 § 300
 § 1427
 § 300