Opinion ID: 614603
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Counts One Through Four: Safe Drinking Water Act

Text: Under Counts One through Four, King was convicted under 42 U.S.C. § 300h-2(b)(2), which criminalizes willful violations of an applicable underground injection program. Underground Injection Control Programs are state-administered programs under the federal Safe Drinking Water Act that prevent harmful injections into drinking water aquifers. The counts were based on four discharges of water into deep wells without a permit from the State of Idaho.

King contends that the government failed to allege and prove violations of § 300h-2(b)(2). King concedes that the government alleged and proved that he willfully injected water into wells despite not having a permit from the State of Idaho under its Underground Injection Control (UIC) program. But King contends that in order to establish a violation of an applicable underground injection program under § 300h-2(b), the government must also allege and prove that his injection of water implicated or pertain[ed] to an underground source of drinking water (USDW). King misunderstands the allocation of the burden of proof under the SDWA. King had the burden to show, during Idaho's permitting process, that his proposed injection would not adversely affect an USDW. To prove a violation of § 300h-2(b)(2), the government does not need to show that an injection will have such an effect on an USDW. The government need only show the absence of a permit under Idaho's UIC program. The SDWA establishes a federally mandated, state-administered regulatory scheme for the protection of drinking water. It provides that an applicant for a permit to inject fluids has the burden of showing that the injection will not endanger underground sources of drinking water: [T]he applicant for the permit to inject must satisfy the State that the underground injection will not endanger drinking water sources. 42 U.S.C. § 300h(b)(1)(B)(i). Underground injection endangers drinking water sources if such injection may result in the presence in underground water which supplies or reasonably can be expected to supply any public water system of any contaminant. . . . Id. at § 300h(d)(2). The SDWA's implementing regulations specify that [t]he applicant for a permit shall have the burden of showing that the applicant's injection activity will not allow[] the movement of fluid containing any contaminant into underground sources of drinking water. 40 C.F.R. § 144.12(a). Any underground injection, except . . . as authorized by permit issued under the UIC program, is prohibited. Id. at § 144.11. [N]o injection shall be authorized by permit . . . if it results in the movement of fluid containing any contaminant into [an USDW] if the presence of that contaminant may cause a violation of any primary drinking water violation. . . . Id. at § 144.1(g) The SDWA and its implementing regulations are not concerned with whether an injected fluid is itself contaminated. Rather, they are concerned with the result of injection activity. A permit applicant must show that the proposed activity will not allow the movement of fluid containing [a] contaminant. Id. Injections of clean water into the ground can cause the movement of contaminants into an aquifer. For example, contaminants may dissolve into clean water as the injected water passes through the soil on its way to an aquifer. Or, if water is injected under pressure it may cause fractures in subsurface structures, thereby releasing contaminants into the aquifer. See Subsurface Emplacement of Fluids, 39 Fed.Reg. 12922, 12922-23 (April 2, 1974). Therefore, a permit applicant must show, even as to a proposed injection of clean water, that the injection will not allow the movement of fluid containing [a] contaminant. Id. Idaho administers and is the primary enforcer of the SDWA under an UIC program approved by the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). See 40 C.F.R. § 147.650. Under Idaho's UIC program, injections of fluids into deep wells require a permit. Idaho defines a drinking water source as an aquifer which contains water having less than the 10,000 mg/1 total dissolved solids, and has not otherwise been exempted by the State's director of the department of water resources. Idaho Code § 42-3902(3); Idaho Admin. Code § 37.03.03, Rule 10.17 (same); see 40 C.F.R. § 144.3 (including this definition). A waste disposal and injection well is an injection well which is more than eighteen (18) feet in vertical depth below land surface. Idaho Code § 42-3902(19). No existing waste disposal and injection well can be used unless a permit therefor has been issued by the state director of the department of water resources. Id. § 42-3903. The director may issue a permit only if non-contamination conditions for the permit have been met by the applicant, including whether drinking water sources will be unreasonably affected. Idaho Admin. Code, § 37.03.03, Rule 45.02; see also Id. at Rule 50. We therefore conclude that the government was not required to prove, as an element of the crime of violating § 300h-2(b)(2), that King's injection of water would have an adverse impact on an USDW. The government was required to prove only that King willfull[y] failed to comply with a requirement of an applicable underground injection program. Accordingly, the government was required to prove only that King willfully injected water into a well more than eighteen feet deep without a permit, knowing that a permit was required under Idaho law.
King further contends that he cannot be convicted under federal law for violating Idaho's permitting system because it is not part of an applicable underground injection program within the meaning of § 300h-2(b)(2). In King's view, the Idaho UIC program has a greater scope than the SDWA. He points to 40 C.F.R. § 145.1(g)(2), which provides, Where an approved State program has a greater scope of coverage than required by Federal law the additional coverage is not part of the federally approved program. King contends that the requirements for obtaining a permit under Idaho law encompass more than just the absence of adverse effects on an USDW, and that the Idaho permitting program is therefore not entirely within the scope of the SDWA. We disagree. When the federal government approved Idaho's UIC program, it specifically incorporated Idaho's entire permitting process into the SDWA: Incorporation by reference. The requirements set forth in the State statutes and regulations cited in this paragraph are hereby incorporated by reference and made a part of the applicable UIC program under the SDWA for the State of Idaho. . . . . . . (7) Waste Disposal and Injection Wells, Title 42, Chapter 39, Idaho Code, sections 42-3901 through 42-3914 (Bobbs-Merrill 1977), sections 42-3915 through 42-3919 (Supp.1984). 40 C.F.R. § 147.650(a). The reference in § 147.650(a)(7) to specific provisions of Idaho law, including those applicable to permitting, make clear that the entire Idaho permitting process was approved and incorporated into the SDWA.
King contends that if the SDWA is construed to allow a criminal conviction in his case, Congress has exceeded its authority under the Commerce Clause. We disagree. Congress passed the SDWA in 1974 in response to its concern that underground sources of drinking water were threatened by unregulated underground injections. H.R.Rep. No. 93-1185 (1974), reprinted in 1974 U.S.C.C.A.N. 6454-6506. The House Report noted that recently enacted environmental laws, such as the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act, had increased the cost of atmospheric and surface waste methods of disposal, such as burning and dumping. Id. at 6459. The gap left by these laws resulted in the increased use of underground injections to dispose of waste. Id. The Report also found that existing federal and state laws regulating sources of drinking water were inadequate to ensure the safety of drinking water. Id. at 6456-60. The Report cited a 1968 study that found that 79% of water systems were not inspected by county or state authorities. Id. at 6458. The Report also cited an EPA study that found that 19% of water systems did not meet the bacteriological limits of then-current drinking water standards. Id. The Report further cited a 1973 Government Accountability Office study that found that of 446 water systems studied, only 60 were in compliance with then-current federal bacteriological and sampling requirements. Id. at 6458-59. Between 1961 and 1970, there were 130 outbreaks of disease or poisoning attributable to drinking water sources, causing over 46,000 illnesses and 20 deaths. Id. at 6457. The House Report recognized that an effective regulatory scheme protecting drinking water would need to be national in scope: In general, water in the hydrologic cycle does not respect State borders. The Nation also has an important fiscal interest in minimizing drinking water related disease, since such disease may well contribute significantly to the drain on the Federal health care financing systemMedicare, Medicaid, etc.unless the quality of the Nation's drinking water supplies is protected. Id. at 6461. Congress ultimately concluded that a cooperative federal-state program would be an appropriate means of ensuring drinking water safety. The SDWA has two parts. The first part, known as the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations, 42 U.S.C. § 300g, sets national minimum standards for drinking water quality. That part is not at issue in this appeal. The second part, 42 U.S.C. § 300h, regulates underground injections that might adversely affect current and potential underground sources of drinking water. King was prosecuted under the second part. Under the second part of the SDWA, a state may apply to administer an UIC program in lieu of being subject to federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. § 300h-1; 40 C.F.R. §§ 145 et seq. If its program is approved, a state may regulate underground injections through one of two means: rulemaking or permitting. 42 U.S.C. § 300h(b)(1)(A). If a state opts to regulate underground injections through permitting, the SDWA requires the state to prohibit . . . any underground injection. . . which is not authorized by a permit issued by the State[.] Id. (emphasis added). See also 40 C.F.R. § 144.1(g) (The UIC Permit Program regulates underground injections by six classes of wells . . . . All owners or operators of these injection wells must be authorized either by permit or rule by the Director.); Id. at § 144.11 ([a]ny underground injection, except into a well authorized by rule or except as authorized by permit issued under the UIC program, is prohibited). The injection provisions of the SDWA are preventive. 1974 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 6463. Congress concluded that the most effective way to ensure clean drinking water was to prevent pollution of underground aquifers in the first place, rather than to clean up polluted aquifers after the fact. Under the SDWA, the danger posed by proposed injections to an underground aquifer is determined during the permitting process. As noted above, the SDWA puts the burden on a permit applicant to show that a proposed injection will not endanger an USDW. If an applicant fails to show that a proposed injection is safe, the SDWA requires that the permit be denied. That is, in the absence of a showing by the applicant that a proposed injection is safe, the SDWA presumes that the injection will endanger an USDW. The constitutional question before us is whether this federal regulatory scheme exceeds Congress' power under the Commerce Clause. Congress may regulate the channels of interstate commerce; may regulate and protect the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or persons or things in interstate commerce; and may regulate activities that have a substantial relation to interstate commerce, including intrastate activities that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 558-59, 115 S.Ct. 1624, 131 L.Ed.2d 626 (1995). There can be little question that the SDWA, including its permitting process under a state UIC program, regulates activities that have a substantial relation to interstate commerce. Drinking water is an economic commodity. See Sporhase v. Nebraska, ex rel. Douglas, 458 U.S. 941, 954, 102 S.Ct. 3456, 73 L.Ed.2d 1254 (1982) (holding water is an article in interstate commerce). Most urban residents pay for drinking water that comes from their taps. Many rural residents pay for the construction and/or operation of wells to obtain water from underground aquifers. For reasons of necessity, taste or fashion, some people do not drink tap or well water. Instead, they pay for bottled water, which is often transported across state lines. Any regulatory scheme that affects the safety of a source, including an underground source, of drinking water inescapably has an effect on the supply of drinking water, and therefore on interstate commerce. The House Report on the SDWA demonstrates that unregulated injections exert[] a substantial economic effect on this commodity. Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111, 125, 63 S.Ct. 82, 87 L.Ed. 122 (1942) (consumption of home-grown wheat does not violate Commerce Clause, because home consumption impacts prices in interstate wheat market by reducing demand for commercial wheat); see also Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1, 125 S.Ct. 2195, 162 L.Ed.2d 1 (2005) (rejecting Commerce Clause challenge to criminalization of home-grown and home-consumed medical marijuana under Controlled Substances Act). Underground fluid injection can have disastrous consequences for drinking water and, in turn, for human health. Injected fluid is hard to trace once it enters the ground, and polluted aquifers are hard to remediate. Congress' cautious preventive approach requires permit applicants to show that their injections will not harm underground sources of drinking water. It presumes, until an applicant shows otherwise, that injections will contaminate an USDW. Although this approach may result in forbidding some injections that would not contaminate an USDW, it is a valid exercise of Congress' authority. When it is necessary in order to prevent an evil to make the law embrace more than the precise thing to be prevented it may do so. Perez v. United States, 402 U.S. 146, 154, 91 S.Ct. 1357, 28 L.Ed.2d 686 (1971) (quoting Westfall v. United States, 274 U.S. 256, 259, 47 S.Ct. 629, 71 L.Ed. 1036 (1927) (Holmes, J.)). In United States v. Lopez, supra , the Supreme Court considered the constitutionality of the Gun-Free School Zones Act. The Act made it a federal offense for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone. Id. at 551, 115 S.Ct. 1624. The Act neither regulated commercial activity nor contained a requirement that possession be connected to interstate commerce. Id. The Supreme Court held that the Act was beyond Congress' authority, writing that the Act's criminalization of gun possession near a school zone ha[d] nothing to do with `commerce' or any sort of economic enterprise, however broadly one might define those terms. Id. at 561, 115 S.Ct. 1624. The SDWA is fundamentally different from the Gun-Free School Zones Act. Drinking water is an article of commerce. The protection of drinking waterand its converse, the pollution of drinking water have a direct effect on commerce. We recognize that in some instances the effect of Idaho's UIC permitting program may be to prevent injection of fluids that would not contaminate an USDW. But the federal government has the authority under the Commerce Clause to regulate injections broadly, out of an abundance of caution, as a means of providing effective protection of the purity of the nation's drinking water. We therefore conclude that § 300h-2(b)(2) does not exceed Congress' authority under the Commerce Clause.