ÿWPC7Õ r#¦F˜~-yh7éë^&{dèÓL´¿üP#„³öãPÀůì7!q7 ‰ÛHE{ôì?Ë D¬‘™™ÿ!šnÐw ']a*°h[8ç?o„&)Ÿ«ó!ýù߯ûÿMŒGí¤Gݫι,õ¥É"u —¤•©¡er»€ío~oí#gš ÝÅ¥Ì-D£${Zúg! N_ ^ a w@m 4­ Á Ð mÒ Né Eë fí aï 1‡ 1uŠ UBÿ bA eI 0 cJ ­ ¼¿¡{…3¡œÔpŸŽŽ-"» "Ý "ÿ Í!! Bî"< #!G'„h)„ì-p1Y…4aÞ7­??aìC÷MEªDG 1‡îLvuMëT¼ýVœ¹X…U\¡Ú]{`3ƒ`œ¶cRfŸpgŽiÍlqjn<Ûq!v•8x„ÍQ„•f‡aû‹÷\ÂS•¼'—œã˜…œ¡ž3¥ œØ£t¦Ÿ’§Ž1©Í¿¬qŒ®<ý±!9¶•Z¸„ï¿sÄ•ˆÇaÌ÷~ÍÂuϘHP LaserJet 4,ü,,,,,ü0X(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó($¡¡<þ6X9`("Courier NewTT(d:2áX$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€–oXÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóvÖr Z‹6Times New Roman Regular<è\( 9Z+&Courier Regular:Šð*Æ ÑÒEÓÔÖ×+Ó€Ù,Ó€ÚEÛÜïy‡˜*ê:i¢Ø+003|xÜ.ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀøÀTABLE A(нCEKQW]cioAutoList1A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.3#37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpi- ù-(;3£$´´Ô2#ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  à Ý ƒáX$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€–oXÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔUnder€the€SDWA,€the€term€"public€water€system"€encompassesÐ ° Ðany€"system€for€the€provision€to€the€public€of€piped€water€forÏhuman€consumption€through€pipes€or€other€constructed€conveyances,Ïif€such€system€has€at€least€fifteen€service€connections€orÏregularly€serves€at€least€twenty„five€individuals."€€42€U.S.C.€ððÏ300f(4)(A). ²Ý ƒáX$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€–oXÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔOf€the€eleven€"avoidance€criteria,"€two€relate€to€sourceÐ ° Ðwater€quality,€four€concern€minimum€levels€of€disinfection,€andÏfive€involve€system„specific€watershed€protection€and€operationsÏrequirements.€€40€C.F.R.òòóó€ðððð€141.71(a)„(b). —Ý ƒáX$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€–oXÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔIn€1986,€Congress€amended€ðð€300g„3(b)€by€increasing€theÐ ° Ðmaximum€available€civil€penalties€under€the€Act€from€$5,000€per€dayÏto€$25,000€per€day,€and€by€eliminating€the€requirement€that€an€SDWAÏviolation€must€be€"willful"€in€order€to€be€the€basis€for€civilÏpenalties.€€And€in€1996,€Congress€substituted€the€term€"anyÏapplicable€requirement"€for€"a€national€primary€drinking€waterÏregulation"€to€reflect€the€semantic€changes€effected€by€the€1986Ïamendments€to€the€Act.€ {Ý ƒáX$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€–oXÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔWithout€resort€to€judicial€process,€however,€the€EPA€mayÐ ° Ðimpose€a€civil€penalty€not€exceeding€$25,000€per€day€for€violationsÏof€administrative€orders.€€42€U.S.C.€ðð€300g„3(g)(3)(A).€€ )Ý ƒáX$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€–oXÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔIn€1996€Congress€once€again€amended€the€Ô_ÔSDWAÔ_Ô€to€permit€theÐ ° ÐEPA€to€excuse€from€filtration€certain€public€water€systemsò ò€ó óthatÐ xÈ Ðdraw€water€from€uninhabited,€undeveloped€watersheds€over€which€theÏpublic€water€system€has€"consolidated"€(òòi.e.óó,€sole)€ownership€ofÐ 0€ Ðthe€surrounding€landsò òó ó.€€42€U.S.C.€ðð€300g„1(b)(7)(C)(v).€€The€Ô_ÔMWRAÔ_Ô,Ð øH Ðhowever,€does€not€qualify€to€take€advantage€of€the€exceptionÏbecause€it€does€not€have€consolidated€ownership€of€the€landÏsurrounding€its€reservoirs. ’Ý ƒáX$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€–oXÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔEven€though€the€MDC€was€named€as€a€defendant€in€this€lawsuitÐ ° Ðby€virtue€of€its€ownership€and€control€of€many€of€the€water„¼treatment€facilities€in€question,€the€United€States€did€not€allegeÏin€the€district€court,€nor€does€it€allege€before€this€court,€thatÏthe€MDC€violated€any€laws€with€respect€to€this€controversy.€€WeÏtherefore€refer€to€the€appellees€throughout€this€opinion€as€"theÏMWRA,"€except€where€it€is€necessary€to€distinguish€between€the€twoÏentities.€€€€ Ý ƒáX$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€–oXÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€MWRA€continues€to€use€chloramine€disinfection€at€theÐ ° ÐNorumbega€Reservoir€site. •Ý ƒáX$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€–oXÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔA€subsequent€amendment€to€the€Ô_ÔACOÔ_Ô€pushed€back€to€October€31,Ð ° Ð1998,€the€Ô_ÔMWRAÔ_Ô's€target€date€for€demonstrating€compliance€with€theÏavoidance€criteria. „Ý ƒáX$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€–oXÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú10Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€MWRA€asserts€that€the€January€1999€fecal€coliform€failureÐ ° Ðwas€illusory,€in€that€the€relevant€water€samples€barely€missedÏmeeting€the€acceptable€levels€of€bacterial€colonies€and€that€theÏtesting€during€that€period€was€conducted€at€tolerance€levels€andÏfrequencies€far€more€rigorous€than€those€required€by€the€SWTR€andÏother€EPA€guidelines.€€The€district€court€noted,€however,€that€theÏMWRA€failed€to€raise€the€testing„technique€issue€in€opposition€toÏthe€United€States's€motion€for€partial€summary€judgment.€€òòMWRA€IIóó,Ð ( x Ð97€F.€Supp.€2d€at€176.€€Consequently,€it€found€the€testing€methodÏused€by€the€MWRA€in€January€1999€to€be€"a€fact€of€no€legalÏsignificance."€€òòId.óó€at€189. Ñ  ÑÑ  Ñ Ñ  ÑÑ  Ñ Ñ  ÑÑ  Ñ ÃÝ ƒáX$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€–oXÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú11Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€district€court€noted€that€the€possibility€of€"regrowth,"€Ð ° Ðwithout€actual€evidence€of€heightened€levels€of€bacteria,€was€not€Ïa€component€of€the€Ô_ÔSWTRÔ_Ô's€filtration„avoidance€criteria.€€òòId.óó€atÐ @ Ð189. d 2Ý ƒáX$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€–oXÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú13Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€United€States€does€suggest€that€the€district€court€erredÐ ° Ðby€discounting€the€Ô_ÔMWRAÔ_Ô's€pre„1999€avoidance„criteria€violations€inÏits€decision€not€to€order€filtration.€€It€also€contends€that€it€hasÏnot€been€Ô_ÔestoppedÔ_Ô€from€pointing€out€the€Ô_ÔMWRAÔ_Ô's€pre„1999€violationsÏby€its€failure€to€block€the€Ô_ÔACOÔ_Ô.€€However,€as€the€United€StatesÏÔ_ÔstatesÔ_Ô€in€its€brief,€under€its€theory€of€the€case€„„€that€aÏdistrict€court€does€not€have€the€discretion€to€excuse€Ô_ÔSWTRÔ_ÔÏviolations€„„€the€additional€violations€are€essentially€irrelevant,Ïas€even€one€failure€to€meet€the€avoidance€criteria€after€theÏDecember€30,€1991€deadline€creates€an€ongoing€violation€thatÏtriggers€the€filtration€obligation€under€the€Rule. Ý ƒáX$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€–oXÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú14Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThis€passage€was€dicta€because€the€court€disposed€of€theÐ ° Ðproposed€Ô_ÔintervenorsÔ_Ô'€appeal€on€the€alternative€ground€that€theÏdistrict€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€by€denying€theÏorganization's€requests€for€intervention€as€a€matter€of€right€andÏfor€permissive€intervention.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó€at€367„68.€€ zÝ ƒáX$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€–oXÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú16Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔWe€note€that€in€òòCity€of€New€Yorkóó,€the€proposed€Ô_ÔintervenorsÔ_ÔÐ ° Ðdid€not€argue€that€the€equities€of€the€case€favored€withholdingÏfiltration€in€that€particular€case;€rather,€they€sought€to€effectÏa€"head„on€challenge€to€filtration"€òòperóó€òòseóó.€€198€F.3d€at€366.€€TheÐ X Ðproposed€Ô_ÔintervenorsÔ_Ô'€challenge€principally€was€basedòòóó€on€theirÐ Ð  Ðassertion€that€"filtration€.€.€.€is€[both]€dangerous€to€consumersÏ[and]€fiscally€wasteful."€€òòId.óó€at€363;€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòid.óó€at€364Ð ` ° Ð("[Appellants]€do[]€not€seek€to€enforce€administrativelyÏestablished€criteria;€[they]€seek[]€to€block€such€enforcement.").€ÏMoreover,€in€òòCity€of€New€Yorkóó€(unlike€in€the€present€case)€theÐ ¸   Ðpublic€water€system€conceded€that€it€would€not€be€able€to€meet€theÏavoidance€criteria€in€the€future.€€òòId.óó€at€362„63. zÝ ƒáX$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€–oXÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€Ô_ÔSDWAÔ_Ô€contains€no€statute€of€limitations,€and€"an€actionÐ ° Ðon€behalf€of€the€United€States€in€its€governmental€capacity€.€.€.Ïis€subject€to€no€time€limitation,€in€the€absence€of€congressionalÏenactment€clearly€imposing€it."€€òòE.I.€Dupont€de€Nemours€&€Co.óó€v.Ð X ÐòòDavisóó,€264€U.S.€456,€462€(1924);€òòcf.óó€òòUnited€Statesóó€v.€òòTellurideÐ Ð  ÐCo.óó,€146€F.3d€1241€(10th€Cir.€1998)€(refusing€to€apply€generalÐ ˜è Ðfive„year€statute€of€limitations€for€civil€actions€by€the€UnitedÏStates€to€enforcement€suits€under€Clean€Water€Act€because€statuteÏof€limitations€does€not€cover€claims€for€equitable€relief). Ý ƒáX$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€–oXÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú17Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔConversely,€when€Congress€employs€the€word€"shall"€in€likeÐ ° Ðcontexts,€it€often€means€that€"Congress€has€imposed€a€mandatoryÏduty€upon€the€subject€of€the€command."€€òòForest€Guardiansóó€v.Ð @ ÐòòBabbittóó,€174€F.3d€1178,€1187€(10th€Cir.€1999)€(citingòòóó€òòMonsantoóó,€491Ð X ÐU.S.€at€607).€€However,€even€the€use€of€the€word€"shall"€does€notÏnecessarily€eliminate€all€equitable€discretion€if€Congress'sÏpurpose€not€to€eliminate€such€discretion€is€manifest.€€òòÔ_ÔHechtÔ_Ô€Co.óó,Ð ` ° Ð321€U.S.€at€329.€€ OÝ ƒáX$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€–oXÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú12Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔIn€particular,€the€court€found€that€the€Ô_ÔMWRAÔ_Ô€had€budgetedÐ ° Ðapproximately€$1.7€billion€for€four€major€(and€needed)€capitalÏimprovement€projects:€a€new€water€supply€tunnel;€a€covered„storageÏfacility€for€treated€water;€a€new€disinfection€facility;€and€anÏongoing€water„main€rehabilitation€project.€€òòId.óó€at€169.€Ð Ð  ÐAdditionally,€the€district€court€found€that€the€Ô_ÔMWRAÔ_Ô€had€institutedÏa€successful€grant€program€in€which€it€was€providing€$25€millionÏper€year€to€its€constituent€cities€and€towns€to€improve€the€safetyÏof€their€local€water€delivery€systems.€€òòId.óó€€€€ WÝ ƒáX$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€–oXÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú15Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔIn€order€to€issue€a€permanent€injunction,€a€district€courtÐ ° Ðtypically€must€find€that€(1)€the€plaintiff€has€demonstrated€actualÏsuccess€on€the€merits€of€its€claims;€(2)€the€plaintiff€would€beÏirreparably€injured€in€the€absence€of€injunctive€relief;€(3)€theÏharm€to€the€plaintiff€from€defendant's€conduct€would€exceed€theÏharm€to€the€defendant€accruing€from€the€issuance€of€an€injunction;Ïand€(4)€the€public€interest€would€not€be€adversely€affected€by€anÏinjunction.€€òòE.g.óó,€òòA.W.€Chesterton€Co.óó€v.€òòChestertonóó,€128€F.3d€1,Ð ( x Ð5€(1st€Cir.€1997).€€At€least€with€respect€to€some€statutoryÏinjunction€provisions,€however,€courts€have€found€that€whenÏCongress€decides€to€make€available€the€remedy€of€injunction€forÏviolations€of€a€statute's€substantive€provisions,€irreparableÏinjury€is€presumed€to€flow€from€such€violations.€€òòE.g.óó,€òòUnitedÐ `  ÐStatesóó€v.€òòCity€of€Ô_ÔPainesvilleÔ_Ôóó,€644€F.2d€1186,€1194€(6th€Cir.€1981).Ð Ø(  Ðà  àWe€note€that,€in€spite€of€the€legislative€history€indicatingÏCongress's€intent€to€narrow€the€scope€of€equitable€discretion€underÏthe€Ô_ÔSDWAÔ_Ô,€at€least€one€court€has€applied€traditional€principles€ofÏequitable€balancing€to€determine€the€propriety€of€an€injunction€forÏviolations€of€the€Act's€substantive€provisiòòóóons.€€òòSeeóó€òòUnited€StatesóóÐ À B Ðv.€òòMidway€Heights€County€Water€Dist.óó,€695€F.€Supp.€1072€(E.D.€Cal.Ð ° Ð1988)€(denying€public€water€system's€motion€for€stay€of€preliminaryÏinjunction€requiring€it€to€comply€with€national€drinking€waterÏregulations).ò òó ó€ £Ý ƒáX$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€–oXÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú18Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€United€States€asserts€that€by€creating€a€filtrationÐ ° Ðexemption€under€the€Ô_ÔSDWAÔ_Ô€in€1996€for€water€systems€with€uninhabitedÏand€undeveloped€watersheds€in€consolidated€control,€42€U.S.C.€ððÏ300g„1(b)(7)(C)(v),€Congress€demonstrated€its€belief€that€such€anÏamendment€was€needed€to€circumvent€the€mandatory€command€of€theÏAct's€filtration€requirement.€€We€disagree.€€This€provision€merelyÏauthorizes€state€enforcement€agencies,€who€would€otherwise€beÏobliged€to€bring€an€enforcement€action€for€avoidance„criteriaÏviolations,€òòseeóó€òòid.óó€ðð€300g„3(a)(1)(B)€(requiring€the€EPA€to€bringÐ ð @ Ðsuit€for€substantive€Ô_ÔSDWAÔ_Ô€violation€if€state€enforcement€agencyÏfails€timely€to€do€so),€to€permit€compliance€with€the€Act€by€meansÐ € Ð  € Ðother€than€filtration€for€certain€types€of€water€systems.€€TheÏamendment€does€not€touch€upon€the€power€of€the€court€to€issue€„„€orÏnot€issue€„„€an€injunction.€€ WÝ ƒáX$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€–oXÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú19Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔAs€we€note€òòinfraóóò òó ó,€we€believe€that€the€district€court€didÐ ° Ðrequire€compliance€with€the€Ô_ÔSDWAÔ_Ô€in€this€case.€ íÝ ƒáX$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€–oXÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú20Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThis€apparent€omission€was€noted€in€a€dissent€by€then„JusticeÐ ° ÐRehnquist,€who,€after€taking€note€of€the€provision,€determined€thatÏit€was€not€strong€enough€to€eliminate€the€presumption€of€retainedÏequitable€discretion.€€òòHillóó,€437€U.S.€at€211„13€(Rehnquist,€J.,Ð X Ðdissenting).  Ý ƒáX$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€–oXÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú21Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔIn€òòÔ_ÔHechtÔ_Ô€Co.óó,€the€defendant€had€remedied€its€past€violationsÐ ° Ðof€the€Emergency€Price€Control€Act,€and€the€district€court€hadÏfound€that€those€transgressions€were€not€likely€to€recur.€€321€U.S.Ïat€325„26.€€In€òòRomero„Ô_ÔBarceloÔ_Ôóó,€the€Court€noted€that€the€violatorÐ X Ð(the€Navy)€was€likely€in€the€near€future€to€receive€the€permit€itÏneeded€to€comply€with€the€Federal€Water€Pollution€Control€ActÏamendments€to€the€Clean€Water€Act,€and€found€that€the€statute'sÏjudicial„enforcement€provision€"permits€the€district€court€to€orderÏthat€relief€it€considers€necessary€òòto€secure€prompt€compliance€withÐ ð @ Ðthe€Actóó."€€456€U.S.€at€320€(emphasis€added).€€And€in€òòVillage€ofÐ ¸   ÐÔ_ÔGambellÔ_Ôóó,€the€Court€found€that€because€oil€companies€needed€toÐ € Ð  Ðreceive€further€approval€from€the€Secretary€of€the€Interior€beforeÏengaging€in€drilling€off€the€coast€of€Alaska,€the€district€courtÏwas€not€required,€under€the€Alaska€National€Interest€LandsÏConservation€Act,€to€enjoin€the€companies'€activities€based€onÏtheir€past€failures€to€meet€the€Act's€procedural€requirements.€€480ÏU.S.€at€544.(š½CEKQW]cioAutoList2A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A. lÝ ƒP{$ÝÓ=€ èÐXdÐd=ÓÓ  Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú15Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔIn€order€to€issue€a€permanent€injunction,€a€district€courtÐ ° Ðtypically€must€find€that€(1)€the€plaintiff€has€demonstrated€actualÏsuccess€on€the€merits€of€its€claims;€(2)€the€plaintiff€would€beÏirreparably€injured€in€the€absence€of€injunctive€relief;€(3)€theÏharm€to€the€plaintiff€from€defendant's€conduct€would€exceed€theÏharm€to€the€defendant€accruing€from€the€issuance€of€an€injunction;Ïand€(4)€the€public€interest€would€not€be€adversely€affected€by€anÏinjunction.€€òòE.g.óó,€òòA.W.€Chesterton€Co.óó€v.€òòChestertonóó,€128€F.3d€1,Ð ( x Ð5€(1st€Cir.€1997).€€At€least€with€respect€to€some€statutoryÏinjunction€provisions,€however,€courts€have€found€that€whenÏCongress€decides€to€make€available€the€remedy€of€injunction€forÐ € Ð  € Ðviolations€of€a€statute's€substantive€provisions,€irreparableÏinjury€is€presumed€to€flow€from€such€violations.€€òòE.g.óó,€òòUnitedÐ xÈ ÐStatesóó€v.€òòCity€of€Ô_ÔPainesvilleÔ_Ôóó,€644€F.2d€1186,€1194€(6th€Cir.€1981).Ð @ Ðà  àWe€note€that,€in€spite€of€the€legislative€history€indicatingÏlegislative€intent€to€narrow€the€scope€of€equitable€discretionÏunder€the€Ô_ÔSDWAÔ_Ô,€at€least€one€court€has€applied€traditionalÏprinciples€of€equitable€balancing€to€determine€the€propriety€of€anÏinjunction€for€violations€of€the€Act's€substantive€provisiòòóóons.€€òòSeeóóÐ ( x ÐòòUnited€Statesóó€v.€òòMidway€Heights€County€Water€Dist.óó,€695€F.€Supp.Ð ð @ Ð1072€(E.D.€Cal.€1988)€(denying€public€water€system's€motion€forÏstay€of€preliminary€injunction€requiring€it€to€comply€with€nationalÏdrinking€water€regulations).ò òó ó€ Ý ƒP{$ÝÓ=€ èÐXdÐd=ÓÓ  Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔUnder€the€SDWA,€the€term€"public€water€system"€encompassesÐ ° Ðany€"system€for€the€provision€to€the€public€of€piped€water€forÏhuman€consumption€through€pipes€or€other€constructed€conveyances,Ïif€such€system€has€at€least€fifteen€service€connections€orÏregularly€serves€at€least€twenty„five€individuals."€€42€U.S.C.€ððÏ300f(4)(A). ²Ý ƒP{$ÝÓ=€ èÐXdÐd=ÓÓ  Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔOf€the€eleven€"avoidance€criteria,"€two€relate€to€sourceÐ ° Ðwater€quality,€four€concern€minimum€levels€of€disinfection,€andÏfive€involve€system„specific€watershed€protection€and€operationsÏrequirements.€€40€C.F.R.òòóó€ðððð€141.71(a)„(b). ’Ý ƒP{$ÝÓ=€ èÐXdÐd=ÓÓ  Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€Ô_ÔSDWAÔ_Ô€contains€no€statute€of€limitations,€and€"an€actionÐ ° Ðon€behalf€of€the€United€States€in€its€governmental€capacity€.€.€.Ïis€subject€to€no€time€limitation,€in€the€absence€of€congressionalÏenactment€clearly€imposing€it."€€òòE.I.€Dupont€de€Nemours€&€Co.óó€v.Ð X ÐòòDavisóó,€264€U.S.€456,€462€(1924);€òòcf.óó€òòUnited€Statesóó€v.€òòTellurideÐ Ð  ÐCo.óó,€146€F.3d€1241€(10th€Cir.€1998)€(refusing€to€apply€generalÐ ˜è Ðfive„year€statute€of€limitations€for€civil€actions€by€the€UnitedÐ ` ° € ÐStates€to€enforcement€suits€under€Clean€Water€Act€because€statuteÏof€limitations€does€not€cover€claims€for€equitable€relief). {Ý ƒP{$ÝÓ=€ èÐXdÐd=ÓÓ  Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔWithout€resort€to€judicial€process,€however,€the€EPA€mayÐ ° Ðimpose€a€civil€penalty€not€exceeding€$25,000€per€day€for€violationsÏof€administrative€orders.€€42€U.S.C.€ðð€300g„3(g)(3)(A).€€ —Ý ƒP{$ÝÓ=€ èÐXdÐd=ÓÓ  Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔIn€1986,€Congress€amended€ðð€300g„3(b)€by€increasing€theÐ ° Ðmaximum€available€civil€penalties€under€the€Act€from€$5,000€per€dayÏto€$25,000€per€day,€and€by€eliminating€the€requirement€that€an€SDWAÏviolation€must€be€"willful"€in€order€to€be€the€basis€for€civilÏpenalties.€€And€in€1996,€Congress€substituted€the€term€"anyÏapplicable€requirement"€for€"a€national€primary€drinking€waterÏregulation"€to€reflect€the€semantic€changes€effected€by€the€1986Ïamendments€to€the€Act.€  )Ý ƒP{$ÝÓ=€ èÐXdÐd=ÓÓ  Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔIn€1996€Congress€once€again€amended€the€Ô_ÔSDWAÔ_Ô€to€permit€theÐ ° ÐEPA€to€excuse€from€filtration€certain€public€water€systemsò ò€ó óthatÐ xÈ Ðdraw€water€from€uninhabited,€undeveloped€watersheds€over€which€theÏpublic€water€system€has€"consolidated"€(òòi.e.óó,€sole)€ownership€ofÐ 0€ Ðthe€surrounding€landsò òó ó.€€42€U.S.C.€ðð€300g„1(b)(7)(C)(v).€€The€Ô_ÔMWRAÔ_Ô,Ð øH Ðhowever,€does€not€qualify€to€take€advantage€of€the€exceptionÏbecause€it€does€not€have€consolidated€ownership€of€the€landÏsurrounding€its€reservoirs. ’Ý ƒP{$ÝÓ=€ èÐXdÐd=ÓÓ  Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔEven€though€the€MDC€was€named€as€a€defendant€in€this€lawsuitÐ ° Ðby€virtue€of€its€ownership€and€control€of€many€of€the€water„¼treatment€facilities€in€question,€the€United€States€did€not€allegeÏin€the€district€court,€nor€does€it€allege€before€this€court,€thatÏthe€MDC€violated€any€laws€with€respect€to€this€controversy.€€WeÏtherefore€refer€to€the€appellees€throughout€this€opinion€as€"theÏMWRA,"€except€where€it€is€necessary€to€distinguish€between€the€twoÏentities.€€€€ Ý ƒP{$ÝÓ=€ èÐXdÐd=ÓÓ  Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€MWRA€continues€to€use€chloramine€disinfection€at€theÐ ° ÐNorumbega€Reservoir€site. •Ý ƒP{$ÝÓ=€ èÐXdÐd=ÓÓ  Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔA€subsequent€amendment€to€the€Ô_ÔACOÔ_Ô€pushed€back€to€October€31,Ð ° Ð1998,€the€Ô_ÔMWRAÔ_Ô's€target€date€for€demonstrating€compliance€with€theÏavoidance€criteria. „Ý ƒP{$ÝÓ=€ èÐXdÐd=ÓÓ  Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú10Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€MWRA€asserts€that€the€January€1999€fecal€coliform€failureÐ ° Ðwas€illusory,€in€that€the€relevant€water€samples€barely€missedÏmeeting€the€acceptable€levels€of€bacterial€colonies€and€that€theÏtesting€during€that€period€was€conducted€at€tolerance€levels€andÏfrequencies€far€more€rigorous€than€those€required€by€the€SWTR€andÏother€EPA€guidelines.€€The€district€court€noted,€however,€that€theÏMWRA€failed€to€raise€the€testing„technique€issue€in€opposition€toÏthe€United€States's€motion€for€partial€summary€judgment.€€òòMWRA€IIóó,Ð ( x Ð97€F.€Supp.€2d€at€176.€€Consequently,€it€found€the€testing€methodÏused€by€the€MWRA€in€January€1999€to€be€"a€fact€of€no€legalÏsignificance."€€òòId.óó€at€189. ÃÝ ƒP{$ÝÓ=€ èÐXdÐd=ÓÓ  Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú11Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€district€court€noted€that€the€possibility€of€"regrowth,"€Ð ° Ðwithout€actual€evidence€of€heightened€levels€of€bacteria,€was€not€Ïa€component€of€the€Ô_ÔSWTRÔ_Ô's€filtration„avoidance€criteria.€€òòId.óó€atÐ @ Ð189. gÝ ƒP{$ÝÓ=€ èÐXdÐd=ÓÓ  Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú12Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔIn€particular,€the€court€found€that€the€Ô_ÔMWRAÔ_Ô€had€budgetedÐ ° Ðapproximately€$1.7€billion€for€four€major€(and€needed)€capitalÏimprovement€projects:€a€new€water€supply€tunnel;€a€covered„storageÏfacility€for€treated€water;€a€new€disinfection€facility;€and€anÏongoing€water„main€rehabilitation€project.€€òòId.óó€at€169.€Ð Ð  ÐAdditionally,€the€district€court€found€that€the€Ô_ÔMWRAÔ_Ô€had€institutedÐ ˜è ¤ Ða€successful€grant€program€in€which€it€was€providing€$25€millionÏper€year€to€its€constituent€cities€and€towns€to€improve€the€safetyÏof€their€local€water€delivery€systems.€€òòId.óó€€€€ 2Ý ƒP{$ÝÓ=€ èÐXdÐd=ÓÓ  Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú13Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€United€States€does€suggest€that€the€district€court€erredÐ ° Ðby€discounting€the€Ô_ÔMWRAÔ_Ô's€pre„1999€avoidance„criteria€violations€inÏits€decision€not€to€order€filtration.€€It€also€contends€that€it€hasÏnot€been€Ô_ÔestoppedÔ_Ô€from€pointing€out€the€Ô_ÔMWRAÔ_Ô's€pre„1999€violationsÏby€its€failure€to€block€the€Ô_ÔACOÔ_Ô.€€However,€as€the€United€StatesÏÔ_ÔstatesÔ_Ô€in€its€brief,€under€its€theory€of€the€case€„„€that€aÏdistrict€court€does€not€have€the€discretion€to€excuse€Ô_ÔSWTRÔ_ÔÏviolations€„„€the€additional€violations€are€essentially€irrelevant,Ïas€even€one€failure€to€meet€the€avoidance€criteria€after€theÏDecember€30,€1991€deadline€creates€an€ongoing€violation€thatÏtriggers€the€filtration€obligation€under€the€Rule. Ý ƒP{$ÝÓ=€ èÐXdÐd=ÓÓ  Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú14Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThis€passage€was€dicta€because€the€court€disposed€of€theÐ ° Ðproposed€Ô_ÔintervenorsÔ_Ô'€appeal€on€the€alternative€ground€that€theÏdistrict€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€by€denying€theÏorganization's€requests€for€intervention€as€a€matter€of€right€andÏfor€permissive€intervention.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó€at€367„68.€€ ‹Ý ƒP{$ÝÓ=€ èÐXdÐd=ÓÓ  Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú15Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔIn€order€to€issue€a€permanent€injunction,€a€district€courtÐ ° Ðtypically€must€find€that€(1)€the€plaintiff€has€demonstrated€actualÏsuccess€on€the€merits€of€its€claims;€(2)€the€plaintiff€would€beÏirreparably€injured€in€the€absence€of€injunctive€relief;€(3)€theÏharm€to€the€plaintiff€from€defendant's€conduct€would€exceed€theÏharm€to€the€defendant€accruing€from€the€issuance€of€an€injunction;Ïand€(4)€the€public€interest€would€not€be€adversely€affected€by€anÏinjunction.€€òòE.g.óó,€òòA.W.€Chesterton€Co.óó€v.€òòChestertonóó,€128€F.3d€1,Ð ( x Ð5€(1st€Cir.€1997).€€At€least€with€respect€to€some€statutoryÏinjunction€provisions,€however,€courts€have€found€that€whenÏCongress€decides€to€make€available€the€remedy€of€injunction€forÐ € Ð  B Ðviolations€of€a€statute's€substantive€provisions,€irreparableÏinjury€is€presumed€to€flow€from€such€violations.€€òòE.g.óó,€òòUnitedÐ xÈ ÐStatesóó€v.€òòCity€of€Ô_ÔPainesvilleÔ_Ôóó,€644€F.2d€1186,€1194€(6th€Cir.€1981).Ð @ Ðà  àWe€note€that,€in€spite€of€the€legislative€history€indicatingÏÔ_ÔCongress'sÔ_Ô€intent€to€narrow€the€scope€of€equitable€discretion€underÏthe€Ô_ÔSDWAÔ_Ô,€at€least€one€court€has€applied€traditional€principles€ofÏequitable€balancing€to€determine€the€propriety€of€an€injunction€forÏviolations€of€the€Act's€substantive€provisiòòóóons.€€òòSeeóó€òòUnited€StatesóóÐ ( x Ðv.€òòMidway€Heights€County€Water€Dist.óó,€695€F.€Supp.€1072€(E.D.€Cal.Ð ð @ Ð1988)€(denying€public€water€system's€motion€for€stay€of€preliminaryÏinjunction€requiring€it€to€comply€with€national€drinking€waterÏregulations).ò òó ó€ zÝ ƒP{$ÝÓ=€ èÐXdÐd=ÓÓ  Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú16Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔWe€note€that€in€òòCity€of€New€Yorkóó,€the€proposed€Ô_ÔintervenorsÔ_ÔÐ ° Ðdid€not€argue€that€the€equities€of€the€case€favored€withholdingÏfiltration€in€that€particular€case;€rather,€they€sought€to€effectÏa€"head„on€challenge€to€filtration"€òòperóó€òòseóó.€€198€F.3d€at€366.€€TheÐ X Ðproposed€Ô_ÔintervenorsÔ_Ô'€challenge€principally€was€basedòòóó€on€theirÐ Ð  Ðassertion€that€"filtration€.€.€.€is€[both]€dangerous€to€consumersÏ[and]€fiscally€wasteful."€€òòId.óó€at€363;€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòid.óó€at€364Ð ` ° Ð("[Appellants]€do[]€not€seek€to€enforce€administrativelyÏestablished€criteria;€[they]€seek[]€to€block€such€enforcement.").€ÏMoreover,€in€òòCity€of€New€Yorkóó€(unlike€in€the€present€case)€theÐ ¸   Ðpublic€water€system€conceded€that€it€would€not€be€able€to€meet€theÏavoidance€criteria€in€the€future.€€òòId.óó€at€362„63. Ý ƒP{$ÝÓ=€ èÐXdÐd=ÓÓ  Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú17Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔConversely,€when€Congress€employs€the€word€"shall"€in€likeÐ ° Ðcontexts,€it€often€means€that€"Congress€has€imposed€a€mandatoryÏduty€upon€the€subject€of€the€command."€€òòForest€Guardiansóó€v.Ð @ ÐòòBabbittóó,€174€F.3d€1178,€1187€(10th€Cir.€1999)€(citingòòóó€òòMonsantoóó,€491Ð X ÐU.S.€at€607).€€However,€even€the€use€of€the€word€"shall"€does€notÏnecessarily€eliminate€all€equitable€discretion€if€Congress'sÏpurpose€not€to€eliminate€such€discretion€is€manifest.€€òòÔ_ÔHechtÔ_Ô€Co.óó,Ð ` ° Ð321€U.S.€at€329.€€ ‹Ý ƒP{$ÝÓ=€ èÐXdÐd=ÓÓ  Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú18Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€United€States€asserts€that€by€creating€a€filtrationÐ ° Ðexemption€under€the€Ô_ÔSDWAÔ_Ô€in€1996€for€water€systems€with€uninhabitedÏand€undeveloped€watersheds€in€consolidated€control,€42€U.S.C.€ððÏ300g„1(b)(7)(C)(v),€Congress€demonstrated€its€belief€that€such€anÏamendment€was€needed€to€circumvent€the€mandatory€command€of€theÏAct's€filtration€requirement.€€We€disagree.€€This€provision€merelyÏauthorizes€state€enforcement€agencies,€who€would€otherwise€beÏobliged€to€bring€an€enforcement€action€for€avoidance„criteriaÏviolations,€òòseeóó€òòid.óó€ðð€300g„3(a)(1)(B)€(requiring€the€EPA€to€bringÐ ð @ Ðsuit€for€substantive€Ô_ÔSDWAÔ_Ô€violation€if€state€enforcement€agencyÏfails€timely€to€do€so),€to€permit€compliance€with€the€Act€by€meansÏother€than€filtration€for€certain€types€of€water€systems.€€TheÏamendment€does€not€touch€upon€the€power€of€the€court€to€issue€„„€orÏnot€issue€„„€an€injunction.€€ WÝ ƒP{$ÝÓ=€ èÐXdÐd=ÓÓ  Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú19Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔAs€we€note€òòinfraóóò òó ó,€we€believe€that€the€district€court€didÐ ° Ðrequire€compliance€with€the€Ô_ÔSDWAÔ_Ô€in€this€case.€ íÝ ƒP{$ÝÓ=€ èÐXdÐd=ÓÓ  Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú20Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThis€apparent€omission€was€noted€in€a€dissent€by€then„JusticeÐ ° ÐRehnquist,€who,€after€taking€note€of€the€provision,€determined€thatÏit€was€not€strong€enough€to€eliminate€the€presumption€of€retainedÏequitable€discretion.€€òòHillóó,€437€U.S.€at€211„13€(Rehnquist,€J.,Ð X Ðdissenting). ¸Ý ƒP{$ÝÓ=€ èÐXdÐd=ÓÓ  Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú21Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔIn€òòÔ_ÔHechtÔ_Ô€Co.óó,€the€defendant€had€remedied€its€past€violationsÐ ° Ðof€the€Emergency€Price€Control€Act,€and€the€district€court€hadÏfound€that€those€transgressions€were€not€likely€to€recur.€€321€U.S.Ïat€325„26.€€In€òòRomero„Ô_ÔBarceloÔ_Ôóó,€the€Court€noted€that€the€violatorÐ X Ð(the€Navy)€was€likely€in€the€near€future€to€receive€the€permit€itÏneeded€to€comply€with€the€Federal€Water€Pollution€Control€ActÏamendments€to€the€Clean€Water€Act,€and€found€that€the€statute'sÏjudicial„enforcement€provision€"permits€the€district€court€to€orderÏthat€relief€it€considers€necessary€òòto€secure€prompt€compliance€withÐ ð @ Ðthe€Actóó."€€456€U.S.€at€320€(emphasis€added).€€And€in€òòVillage€ofÐ ¸   ÐÔ_ÔGambellÔ_Ôóó,€the€Court€found€that€because€oil€companies€needed€toÐ € Ð  Ðreceive€further€approval€from€the€Secretary€of€the€Interior€beforeÏengaging€in€drilling€off€the€coast€of€Alaska,€the€district€courtÏwas€not€required,€under€the€Alaska€National€Interest€LandsÏConservation€Act,€to€enjoin€the€companies'€activities€based€onÐ  ð  ¤ Ðtheir€past€failures€to€meet€the€Act's€procedural€requirements.€€480ÏU.S.€at€544. Ý ƒQ3$ÝÓ=€VZÐXdÐd=ÓÓ  Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔUnder€the€SDWA,€the€term€"public€water€system"€encompassesÐ ° Ðany€"system€for€the€provision€to€the€public€of€piped€water€forÏhuman€consumption€through€pipes€or€other€constructed€conveyances,Ïif€such€system€has€at€least€fifteen€service€connections€orÏregularly€serves€at€least€twenty„five€individuals."€€42€U.S.C.€ððÏ300f(4)(A). ²Ý ƒQ3$ÝÓ=€VZÐXdÐd=ÓÓ  Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔOf€the€eleven€"avoidance€criteria,"€two€relate€to€sourceÐ ° Ðwater€quality,€four€concern€minimum€levels€of€disinfection,€andÏfive€involve€system„specific€watershed€protection€and€operationsÏrequirements.€€40€C.F.R.òòóó€ðððð€141.71(a)„(b). ’Ý ƒQ3$ÝÓ=€VZÐXdÐd=ÓÓ  Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€Ô_ÔSDWAÔ_Ô€contains€no€statute€of€limitations,€and€"an€actionÐ ° Ðon€behalf€of€the€United€States€in€its€governmental€capacity€.€.€.Ïis€subject€to€no€time€limitation,€in€the€absence€of€congressionalÏenactment€clearly€imposing€it."€€òòE.I.€Dupont€de€Nemours€&€Co.óó€v.Ð X ÐòòDavisóó,€264€U.S.€456,€462€(1924);€òòcf.óó€òòUnited€Statesóó€v.€òòTellurideÐ Ð  ÐCo.óó,€146€F.3d€1241€(10th€Cir.€1998)€(refusing€to€apply€generalÐ ˜è Ðfive„year€statute€of€limitations€for€civil€actions€by€the€UnitedÐ ` ° † ÐStates€to€enforcement€suits€under€Clean€Water€Act€because€statuteÏof€limitations€does€not€cover€claims€for€equitable€relief). {Ý ƒQ3$ÝÓ=€VZÐXdÐd=ÓÓ  Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔWithout€resort€to€judicial€process,€however,€the€EPA€mayÐ ° Ðimpose€a€civil€penalty€not€exceeding€$25,000€per€day€for€violationsÏof€administrative€orders.€€42€U.S.C.€ðð€300g„3(g)(3)(A).€€ —Ý ƒQ3$ÝÓ=€VZÐXdÐd=ÓÓ  Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔIn€1986,€Congress€amended€ðð€300g„3(b)€by€increasing€theÐ ° Ðmaximum€available€civil€penalties€under€the€Act€from€$5,000€per€dayÏto€$25,000€per€day,€and€by€eliminating€the€requirement€that€an€SDWAÏviolation€must€be€"willful"€in€order€to€be€the€basis€for€civilÏpenalties.€€And€in€1996,€Congress€substituted€the€term€"anyÏapplicable€requirement"€for€"a€national€primary€drinking€waterÏregulation"€to€reflect€the€semantic€changes€effected€by€the€1986Ïamendments€to€the€Act.€ )Ý ƒQ3$ÝÓ=€VZÐXdÐd=ÓÓ  Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔIn€1996€Congress€once€again€amended€the€Ô_ÔSDWAÔ_Ô€to€permit€theÐ ° ÐEPA€to€excuse€from€filtration€certain€public€water€systemsò ò€ó óthatÐ xÈ Ðdraw€water€from€uninhabited,€undeveloped€watersheds€over€which€theÏpublic€water€system€has€"consolidated"€(òòi.e.óó,€sole)€ownership€ofÐ 0€ Ðthe€surrounding€landsò òó ó.€€42€U.S.C.€ðð€300g„1(b)(7)(C)(v).€€The€Ô_ÔMWRAÔ_Ô,Ð øH Ðhowever,€does€not€qualify€to€take€advantage€of€the€exceptionÏbecause€it€does€not€have€consolidated€ownership€of€the€landÏsurrounding€its€reservoirs. ’Ý ƒQ3$ÝÓ=€VZÐXdÐd=ÓÓ  Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔEven€though€the€MDC€was€named€as€a€defendant€in€this€lawsuitÐ ° Ðby€virtue€of€its€ownership€and€control€of€many€of€the€water„¼treatment€facilities€in€question,€the€United€States€did€not€allegeÏin€the€district€court,€nor€does€it€allege€before€this€court,€thatÏthe€MDC€violated€any€laws€with€respect€to€this€controversy.€€WeÏtherefore€refer€to€the€appellees€throughout€this€opinion€as€"theÏMWRA,"€except€where€it€is€necessary€to€distinguish€between€the€twoÏentities.€€€€ Ý ƒQ3$ÝÓ=€VZÐXdÐd=ÓÓ  Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€MWRA€continues€to€use€chloramine€disinfection€at€theÐ ° ÐNorumbega€Reservoir€site. •Ý ƒQ3$ÝÓ=€VZÐXdÐd=ÓÓ  Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔA€subsequent€amendment€to€the€Ô_ÔACOÔ_Ô€pushed€back€to€October€31,Ð ° Ð1998,€the€Ô_ÔMWRAÔ_Ô's€target€date€for€demonstrating€compliance€with€theÏavoidance€criteria. „Ý ƒQ3$ÝÓ=€VZÐXdÐd=ÓÓ  Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú10Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€MWRA€asserts€that€the€January€1999€fecal€coliform€failureÐ ° Ðwas€illusory,€in€that€the€relevant€water€samples€barely€missedÏmeeting€the€acceptable€levels€of€bacterial€colonies€and€that€theÏtesting€during€that€period€was€conducted€at€tolerance€levels€andÏfrequencies€far€more€rigorous€than€those€required€by€the€SWTR€andÏother€EPA€guidelines.€€The€district€court€noted,€however,€that€theÏMWRA€failed€to€raise€the€testing„technique€issue€in€opposition€toÏthe€United€States's€motion€for€partial€summary€judgment.€€òòMWRA€IIóó,Ð ( x Ð97€F.€Supp.€2d€at€176.€€Consequently,€it€found€the€testing€methodÏused€by€the€MWRA€in€January€1999€to€be€"a€fact€of€no€legalÏsignificance."€€òòId.óó€at€189. ÃÝ ƒQ3$ÝÓ=€VZÐXdÐd=ÓÓ  Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú11Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€district€court€noted€that€the€possibility€of€"regrowth,"€Ð ° Ðwithout€actual€evidence€of€heightened€levels€of€bacteria,€was€not€Ïa€component€of€the€Ô_ÔSWTRÔ_Ô's€filtration„avoidance€criteria.€€òòId.óó€atÐ @ Ð189. gÝ ƒQ3$ÝÓ=€VZÐXdÐd=ÓÓ  Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú12Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔIn€particular,€the€court€found€that€the€Ô_ÔMWRAÔ_Ô€had€budgetedÐ ° Ðapproximately€$1.7€billion€for€four€major€(and€needed)€capitalÏimprovement€projects:€a€new€water€supply€tunnel;€a€covered„storageÏfacility€for€treated€water;€a€new€disinfection€facility;€and€anÏongoing€water„main€rehabilitation€project.€€òòId.óó€at€169.€Ð Ð  ÐAdditionally,€the€district€court€found€that€the€Ô_ÔMWRAÔ_Ô€had€institutedÐ ˜è ‡ Ða€successful€grant€program€in€which€it€was€providing€$25€millionÏper€year€to€its€constituent€cities€and€towns€to€improve€the€safetyÏof€their€local€water€delivery€systems.€€òòId.óó€€€€ 2Ý ƒQ3$ÝÓ=€VZÐXdÐd=ÓÓ  Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú13Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€United€States€does€suggest€that€the€district€court€erredÐ ° Ðby€discounting€the€Ô_ÔMWRAÔ_Ô's€pre„1999€avoidance„criteria€violations€inÏits€decision€not€to€order€filtration.€€It€also€contends€that€it€hasÏnot€been€Ô_ÔestoppedÔ_Ô€from€pointing€out€the€Ô_ÔMWRAÔ_Ô's€pre„1999€violationsÏby€its€failure€to€block€the€Ô_ÔACOÔ_Ô.€€However,€as€the€United€StatesÏÔ_ÔstatesÔ_Ô€in€its€brief,€under€its€theory€of€the€case€„„€that€aÏdistrict€court€does€not€have€the€discretion€to€excuse€Ô_ÔSWTRÔ_ÔÏviolations€„„€the€additional€violations€are€essentially€irrelevant,Ïas€even€one€failure€to€meet€the€avoidance€criteria€after€theÏDecember€30,€1991€deadline€creates€an€ongoing€violation€thatÏtriggers€the€filtration€obligation€under€the€Rule. Ý ƒQ3$ÝÓ=€VZÐXdÐd=ÓÓ  Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú14Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThis€passage€was€dicta€because€the€court€disposed€of€theÐ ° Ðproposed€Ô_ÔintervenorsÔ_Ô'€appeal€on€the€alternative€ground€that€theÏdistrict€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€by€denying€theÏorganization's€requests€for€intervention€as€a€matter€of€right€andÏfor€permissive€intervention.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó€at€367„68.€€ ‹Ý ƒQ3$ÝÓ=€VZÐXdÐd=ÓÓ  Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú15Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔIn€order€to€issue€a€permanent€injunction,€a€district€courtÐ ° Ðtypically€must€find€that€(1)€the€plaintiff€has€demonstrated€actualÏsuccess€on€the€merits€of€its€claims;€(2)€the€plaintiff€would€beÏirreparably€injured€in€the€absence€of€injunctive€relief;€(3)€theÏharm€to€the€plaintiff€from€defendant's€conduct€would€exceed€theÏharm€to€the€defendant€accruing€from€the€issuance€of€an€injunction;Ïand€(4)€the€public€interest€would€not€be€adversely€affected€by€anÏinjunction.€€òòE.g.óó,€òòA.W.€Chesterton€Co.óó€v.€òòChestertonóó,€128€F.3d€1,Ð ( x Ð5€(1st€Cir.€1997).€€At€least€with€respect€to€some€statutoryÏinjunction€provisions,€however,€courts€have€found€that€whenÏCongress€decides€to€make€available€the€remedy€of€injunction€forÐ € Ð   Ðviolations€of€a€statute's€substantive€provisions,€irreparableÏinjury€is€presumed€to€flow€from€such€violations.€€òòE.g.óó,€òòUnitedÐ xÈ ÐStatesóó€v.€òòCity€of€Ô_ÔPainesvilleÔ_Ôóó,€644€F.2d€1186,€1194€(6th€Cir.€1981).Ð @ Ðà  àWe€note€that,€in€spite€of€the€legislative€history€indicatingÏÔ_ÔCongress'sÔ_Ô€intent€to€narrow€the€scope€of€equitable€discretion€underÏthe€Ô_ÔSDWAÔ_Ô,€at€least€one€court€has€applied€traditional€principles€ofÏequitable€balancing€to€determine€the€propriety€of€an€injunction€forÏviolations€of€the€Act's€substantive€provisiòòóóons.€€òòSeeóó€òòUnited€StatesóóÐ ( x Ðv.€òòMidway€Heights€County€Water€Dist.óó,€695€F.€Supp.€1072€(E.D.€Cal.Ð ð @ Ð1988)€(denying€public€water€system's€motion€for€stay€of€preliminaryÏinjunction€requiring€it€to€comply€with€national€drinking€waterÏregulations).ò òó ó€ zÝ ƒQ3$ÝÓ=€VZÐXdÐd=ÓÓ  Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú16Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔWe€note€that€in€òòCity€of€New€Yorkóó,€the€proposed€Ô_ÔintervenorsÔ_ÔÐ ° Ðdid€not€argue€that€the€equities€of€the€case€favored€withholdingÏfiltration€in€that€particular€case;€rather,€they€sought€to€effectÏa€"head„on€challenge€to€filtration"€òòperóó€òòseóó.€€198€F.3d€at€366.€€TheÐ X Ðproposed€Ô_ÔintervenorsÔ_Ô'€challenge€principally€was€basedòòóó€on€theirÐ Ð  Ðassertion€that€"filtration€.€.€.€is€[both]€dangerous€to€consumersÏ[and]€fiscally€wasteful."€€òòId.óó€at€363;€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòid.óó€at€364Ð ` ° Ð("[Appellants]€do[]€not€seek€to€enforce€administrativelyÏestablished€criteria;€[they]€seek[]€to€block€such€enforcement.").€ÏMoreover,€in€òòCity€of€New€Yorkóó€(unlike€in€the€present€case)€theÐ ¸   Ðpublic€water€system€conceded€that€it€would€not€be€able€to€meet€theÏavoidance€criteria€in€the€future.€€òòId.óó€at€362„63. Ý ƒQ3$ÝÓ=€VZÐXdÐd=ÓÓ  Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú17Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔConversely,€when€Congress€employs€the€word€"shall"€in€likeÐ ° Ðcontexts,€it€often€means€that€"Congress€has€imposed€a€mandatoryÏduty€upon€the€subject€of€the€command."€€òòForest€Guardiansóó€v.Ð @ ÐòòBabbittóó,€174€F.3d€1178,€1187€(10th€Cir.€1999)€(citingòòóó€òòMonsantoóó,€491Ð X ÐU.S.€at€607).€€However,€even€the€use€of€the€word€"shall"€does€notÏnecessarily€eliminate€all€equitable€discretion€if€Congress'sÏpurpose€not€to€eliminate€such€discretion€is€manifest.€€òòÔ_ÔHechtÔ_Ô€Co.óó,Ð ` ° Ð321€U.S.€at€329.€€ ‹Ý ƒQ3$ÝÓ=€VZÐXdÐd=ÓÓ  Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú18Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€United€States€asserts€that€by€creating€a€filtrationÐ ° Ðexemption€under€the€Ô_ÔSDWAÔ_Ô€in€1996€for€water€systems€with€uninhabitedÏand€undeveloped€watersheds€in€consolidated€control,€42€U.S.C.€ððÏ300g„1(b)(7)(C)(v),€Congress€demonstrated€its€belief€that€such€anÏamendment€was€needed€to€circumvent€the€mandatory€command€of€theÏAct's€filtration€requirement.€€We€disagree.€€This€provision€merelyÏauthorizes€state€enforcement€agencies,€who€would€otherwise€beÏobliged€to€bring€an€enforcement€action€for€avoidance„criteriaÏviolations,€òòseeóó€òòid.óó€ðð€300g„3(a)(1)(B)€(requiring€the€EPA€to€bringÐ ð @ Ðsuit€for€substantive€Ô_ÔSDWAÔ_Ô€violation€if€state€enforcement€agencyÏfails€timely€to€do€so),€to€permit€compliance€with€the€Act€by€meansÏother€than€filtration€for€certain€types€of€water€systems.€€TheÏamendment€does€not€touch€upon€the€power€of€the€court€to€issue€„„€orÏnot€issue€„„€an€injunction.€€ WÝ ƒQ3$ÝÓ=€VZÐXdÐd=ÓÓ  Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú19Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔAs€we€note€òòinfraóóò òó ó,€we€believe€that€the€district€court€didÐ ° Ðrequire€compliance€with€the€Ô_ÔSDWAÔ_Ô€in€this€case.€ íÝ ƒQ3$ÝÓ=€VZÐXdÐd=ÓÓ  Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú20Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThis€apparent€omission€was€noted€in€a€dissent€by€then„JusticeÐ ° ÐRehnquist,€who,€after€taking€note€of€the€provision,€determined€thatÏit€was€not€strong€enough€to€eliminate€the€presumption€of€retainedÏequitable€discretion.€€òòHillóó,€437€U.S.€at€211„13€(Rehnquist,€J.,Ð X Ðdissenting). ¸Ý ƒQ3$ÝÓ=€VZÐXdÐd=ÓÓ  Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú21Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔIn€òòÔ_ÔHechtÔ_Ô€Co.óó,€the€defendant€had€remedied€its€past€violationsÐ ° Ðof€the€Emergency€Price€Control€Act,€and€the€district€court€hadÏfound€that€those€transgressions€were€not€likely€to€recur.€€321€U.S.Ïat€325„26.€€In€òòRomero„Ô_ÔBarceloÔ_Ôóó,€the€Court€noted€that€the€violatorÐ X Ð(the€Navy)€was€likely€in€the€near€future€to€receive€the€permit€itÏneeded€to€comply€with€the€Federal€Water€Pollution€Control€ActÏamendments€to€the€Clean€Water€Act,€and€found€that€the€statute'sÏjudicial„enforcement€provision€"permits€the€district€court€to€orderÏthat€relief€it€considers€necessary€òòto€secure€prompt€compliance€withÐ ð @ Ðthe€Actóó."€€456€U.S.€at€320€(emphasis€added).€€And€in€òòVillage€ofÐ ¸   ÐÔ_ÔGambellÔ_Ôóó,€the€Court€found€that€because€oil€companies€needed€toÐ € Ð  Ðreceive€further€approval€from€the€Secretary€of€the€Interior€beforeÏengaging€in€drilling€off€the€coast€of€Alaska,€the€district€courtÏwas€not€required,€under€the€Alaska€National€Interest€LandsÏConservation€Act,€to€enjoin€the€companies'€activities€based€onÐ  ð  ˆ Ðtheir€past€failures€to€meet€the€Act's€procedural€requirements.€€480ÏU.S.€at€544.Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ£°ÑÑTRXà3Ø'Xà3Ø' Letter3Ø' Letterÿ3Ø'TÑÑ ? ÑÙ*ƒ !ÙÔ€XB[XXXÔÔ€°µ°XXB[Ôò òÓ  ÓÓ  ÓUnited€States€Court€of€AppealsÔ€„“„°°µÔÐ ° ÐFor€the€First€Circuitó óÔ€„=„„„“ÔÔ€X–LX„„=ÔÐ „Ô ÐÓÓÌÌßA€') °°` dE<s ` AßÐ t Ä ÐNo.€00„2028ÌÌà@¤¤#ìàUNITED€STATES,ˆÌÌà@ ìàPlaintiff,€Appellant,ˆÌÌà@tt)ìàv.ˆÌÌà@Œ Œ ìàMASSACHUSETTS€WATER€RESOURCES€AUTHORITY;ˆÌÓ  ÓMETROPOLITAN€DISTRICT€COMMISSION,ÌÓãÓÌà@ÄÄìàDefendants,€Appellees.ˆÌÌßA€') °°` dE<ª` AßÐ «û ÐÌà@œ œ ìàAPPEAL€FROM€THE€UNITED€STATES€DISTRICT€COURTˆÌÌà@0 0 ìàFOR€THE€DISTRICT€OF€MASSACHUSETTSˆÌÌà@$ $ ìà[Hon.€Richard€G.€Stearns,€òòU.S.€District€Judgeóó]ˆÐ ¢ò ÐÌßA€') °°` dE<1` AßÐ 2‚ ÐÌà@„„'ìàBeforeˆÌÌÓ  Óà@@((ìà€Boudin,€òòChief€Judgeóó,Ð ™é ÐòòóóÓ  ÓÓ  ÓTorruella,€òòCircuit€Judgeóó,Ð a± Ðand€Stahl,€òòSenior€Circuit€Judgeóó.Ð )y  ÐÓJÓÌÌßA€') °°` dE<€` AßÐ Ñ# ÐÌÓ  ÓÓ  Óà  àòòRobert€H.€Ô_ÔOakleyÔ_Ôóó,€Attorney,€with€whom€òòGreer€S.€Goldmanóó,Ð X ¨% ÐAttorney,€òòBrian€Ô_ÔDonohueÔ_Ôóó,€Attorney,€òòSteve€Kelleróó,€Attorney,€òòScottÐ  !p& ÐBaueróó,€Attorney,€òòLois€J.€Ô_ÔSchifferÔ_Ôóó,€Assistant€Attorney€General,Ð è!8' ÐòòGeorge€B.€Henderson,€IIóó,€Assistant€United€States€Attorney,€andÐ °"( ÐòòDonald€K.€Sternóó,€United€States€Attorney,€were€on€brief,€forÐ x#È) Ðappellee.Ìà  àòòJohn€M.€Stevensóó,€òòJonathan€M.€Ô_ÔEttingerÔ_Ôóó,€òòJack€W.€Ô_ÔPirozzoloÔ_Ôóó,Ð %X + ÐòòFoley,€Ô_ÔHoagÔ_Ô€&€Eliot€Ô_ÔLLPÔ_Ôóó,€and€òòNancy€C.€Kurtzóó,€were€on€brief,€forÐ Ð% !, Ðappellant.Ìà  àòòAlexandra€D.€Dawsonóó€on€brief€for€Nashua€River€WatershedÐ `'°". ÐAssociation,€Inc.,€Massachusetts€Audubon€Society,€Inc.,€Friends€ofÏÔ_ÔQuabbinÔ_Ô,€Inc.,€Water€Supply€Citizens€Advisory€Committee,€andÏRutherford€H.€Platt,€amici€curiae.Ìà  àÌÌÔ*‹ƒ'ddd Xdd Xdd X°(#°(#‹ÔÔ,( dd ÔÔ,( dd ÔÔ,( dd ÔÔ+  ÔÐ  ,`'4 ‹‹ÐÓ:ÓñÜñÐ SIt,Ä'5 àâ@37087„„‰àâ@‰‹‹SÐñÜññÜñÐ 0&t,Ä'5 „„‹‹0ÐñÜñÌñÛñJuly€16,€2001ñÛñÌÐ SID.T)8" àâ@37087 àâ@ ‹‹SÐÐ(t,Ä'9  (ÐÓ  ÓÙ* !ÙÌÐ Ä/+:? ÐÓ  ÓÌÑ  ÑÓÓÑ8€–oXXdÈXXdÈ8ÑÑ€ÑÓ*°,X°` ¨ ƒX°œX*ÓñÙñÔ",USú ú, ú (ú:!ú&ú),ÔñÙññ×ñÓ=€VZÐXdÐd=Óñ×ñÑ€#*ÑÑ€$*ÑÑ€%*ÑñÙñÔ ƒÝ ÔJuly€11,€2001Ô!  ÔÌñÙñà ` àò òSTAHL,€òòSenior€Circuit€Judgeó óóó.€€The€federal€Safe€WaterÐ xÈ ÐDrinking€Act€(Ô_ÔSDWAÔ_Ô€or€Act)€authorizes€the€Environmental€ProtectionÏAgency€(EPA)€to€prescribe€criteria€specifying€when€public€waterÏsystems€are€"required"€to€install€a€filtration€systemò òó ó.€€The€ActÐ x È Ðalso€provides,€however,€that€courts€asked€to€issue€an€injunctionÏenforcing€the€EPA's€filtration€standards€"may€enter€.€.€.€suchÏjudgment€as€protection€of€public€health€may€require€.€.€.€."€€ThisÏappeal€requires€us€to€resolve€the€apparent€tension€between€theseÏtwo€provisions.€€Specifically,€we€must€decide€whether€the€Ô_ÔSDWAÔ_ÔÏrequires€courts€to€order€the€statutorily€prescribed€remedy€ofÏfiltration€for€violations€of€its€substantive€provisions€and€theÏregulations€promulgated€thereunder,€or,€alternatively,€whetherÏcourts€have€the€authority€in€Ô_ÔSDWAÔ_Ô€cases€not€to€order€such€remediesÏin€those€instances€where€the€equities€are€found€to€counselÏforbearance.€€Suffice€it€to€say,€we€are€not€faced€with€an€imminentÏthreat€to€the€public€health€in€this€case;€none€has€been€alleged€byÏthe€United€States€on€appeal.€€Rather,€this€dispute€mainly€has€to€doÏwith€the€operation€of€an€EPA€rule€that€purports€to€oblige€publicÏwater€systems€to€install€a€filtration€system€if€they€fail€to€meetÏcertain€regulatory€standards€by€a€prescribed€deadline€„„€anÏobligation€that€extends€into€the€future€indefinitely,€and€that€doesÏnot€account€for€the€present€and€future€safety€of€the€system'sÏdrinking€water.Ìà ` àBased€on€our€reading€of€the€Act,€we€find€that€theÏdistrict€court€acted€within€its€discretion€by€declining€to€orderÏthat€the€Massachusetts€Water€Resources€Authority€(Ô_ÔMWRAÔ_Ô)€install€aÏfiltration€system.€€We€therefore€affirm€its€judgment.€Ð h.¸)5 ÐÔ_Ôò òÓ  ÓI.€BackgroundÐ ° Ðó óÓ Óà ` àThe€facts€surrounding€this€controversy€are€laid€out€inÐ à Ðextensive€detail€in€the€district€court's€two€written€opinions,ÏòòUnited€Statesóó€v.€òòMass.€Water€Res.€Auth.óó,€48€F.€Supp.€2d€65€(D.Ð °  ÐMass.€1999)€(òòMWRA€Ióó)€(holding€that€district€court€had€equitableÐ @  Ðdiscretion€not€to€order€filtration€remedy€for€SDWA€violation);ÏòòUnited€Statesóó€v.€òòMass.€Water€Res.€Auth.óó,€97€F.€Supp.€2d€155€(D.Ð `°  ÐMass.€2000)€(òòMWRA€IIóó)€(declining€to€order€filtration€remedy€basedÐ ð@  Ðon€equities€of€the€case),€and€so€we€confine€our€recitation€to€thoseÏfacts€bearing€specifically€upon€this€appeal.ÌÓL€ 3š½(3LÓÝ ‚3£ ÝÝ  ÝÝ‚3£TÝÔ2š½ÔÚ  ÚAÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0 ` àÝ  ÝòòRegulatory€Regimeóó݃3£T݌Рð` (#` (# ÐŒÝ  ÝÓL€ н((3LÓòòòòóóò òóóó óà ` àIn€1974,€Congress,€legislating€in€an€area€that€hadÐ 0€ Ðpreviously€received€scant€attention€under€federal€law,€passed€theÏSafe€Drinking€Water€Actòòóóò òó ó,€Pub.€L.€No.€93„523,€88€Stat.€1660Ð P  Ð(codified€as€amended€at€42€U.S.C.€ðððð€300f€to€300j„8€(1991€&€Supp.Ï2000)),€with€the€basic€goal€of€protecting€the€purity€of€theÏdrinking€water€provided€by€the€nation's€public€water€systems.ñ×ññÙñ׃×ñÙññÙñ׃K×ñÙññ×ññ×ñ׃5×ñ×ñÝ ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€ToÐ P  Ðthis€end,€the€Act€vests€authority€in€the€EPA€to€promulgate€andÏenforce€two€types€of€water„purity€standards:€maximum€contaminantÏlevels€(MCLs)€and€treatment€techniques.€€Under€the€Act,€the€EPA€isÏto€regulate€the€majority€of€contaminants€in€drinking€water€byÏformulating€MCLs€„„€numerical€standards€that€represent€the€agency'sÏexpert€determination€as€to€"the€level€at€which€no€known€orÐ `'°", Ðanticipated€adverse€effects€on€the€health€of€persons€occur€andÏwhich€allows€an€adequate€margin€of€safety."€€òòId.óó€ðð€300g„1(b)(4)(A).€Ð @ Ðò òó óBy€contrast,€the€EPA€only€may€require€the€implementation€ofÐ Ð  Ðspecific€treatment€techniques,€consisting€of€engineering€or€designÏstandards,€in€instances€where€the€Administrator€deems€itÏinfeasible,€for€technological€or€economic€reasons,€to€ascertain€anÏacceptable€concentration€level€for€the€contaminant.€€òòId.óó€ðð€300g„Ð `  Ð1(b)(7)(A).€€As€originally€written,€the€SDWA€did€not€specificallyÏrequire€that€the€EPA€develop€either€MCLs€or€treatment€techniquesÏwith€respect€to€any€particular€contaminant.€€As€a€result,€betweenÏ1974€and€1986€the€EPA€promulgated€regulations€concerning€onlyÏtwenty„three€drinking€water€contaminants,€and€of€these€pollutants,Ïall€but€one€had€previously€been€subject€to€regulations€issued€byÏthe€Public€Health€Service.€€James€Kavanaugh,€Comment,€òòTo€Filter€orÐ P ÐNot€to€Filter:€A€Discussion€and€Analysis€of€the€MassachusettsÏFiltration€Conflict€in€the€Context€of€the€Safe€Drinking€Water€Actóó,Ð  p Ð26€B.C.€Envtl.€Aff.€L.€Rev.€809,€814€(1999).€€Ìà ` àò òó óIn€1986,€however,€Congress€amended€the€Act€so€as€toÐ @" Ðrequire€(rather€than€merely€to€authorize)€the€EPA€to€developÏtreatment€regimes€with€respect€to€scores€of€additionalÏcontaminants,€and€to€require€that€violations€of€the€Act'sÏsubstantive€provisions€and€the€rules€promulgated€thereunder€beÏprosecuted€by€either€the€states€or€the€EPA.€€òòId.óó€at€814„15.€€TheseÐ '`", Ðamendments€were€prompted€by€the€EPA's€perceived€laxity€in€issuingÏrules€under€and€enforcing€the€SDWA,€òòseeóó€2€William€H.€Rodgers,€Jr.,Ð 0*€%0 ÐòòEnvironmental€Lawóó,€ðð€4.20A,€at€152€(Supp.€2001)€("In€making€theseÐ À+'2 Ðchanges€Congress€[was]€convinced€that€it€[could]€controlÐ P- (4 Ðprosecutorial€options€[under€the€SDWA]€by€replacing€'mays'€withÏ'shalls'€in€its€enforcement€instructions."),€and€by€anecdotalÏevidence€suggesting€a€rise€in€biological€and€chemical€contaminationÏof€public€water€supplies€throughout€the€United€States.Ìà ` àThrough€these€amendments,€Congress€also€expressed€aÏgrowing€preference€for€the€employment€of€specific€treatmentÏtechniques,€as€opposed€to€the€promulgation€of€MCLs,€to€solve€theÏproblem€of€contaminated€drinking€water.ò òó ó€€This€policy€shift€occurred€Ð  ð  Ðas€the€result€of€mounting€scientific€evidence€demonstrating€theÏefficacy€of€filtration€and€disinfection€techniques€in€reducingÏwaterborne€viral€and€bacterial€contamination.€€òòId.óó,€ðð€4.20A,€atÐ P  Ð151.ò òó ó€€Reflecting€this€view,€Congress€specifically€required€thatÐ à0 Ðdisinfection€be€employed€by€òòallóó€public€water€systems€to€reduce€theÐ pÀ Ðlive€quantities€of€those€pathogens,€except€for€systems€specificallyÏeligible€to€receive€a€variance€from€the€EPA.€€42€U.S.C.€ðð€300g„¼1(b)(8)ò òó ó.€€Congress€also€changed€the€SDWA€to€provide€for€filtrationÐ  p Ðof€public€water€systems.€€òòId.óó€ðð€300g„1(b)(7)(C)(i).€€But€unlike€theÐ °  Ðdisinfection€mandate,€filtration€was€not€directly€imposed€upon€allÏpublic€water€systems;€rather,€Congress€provided€that€the€EPA€"shallÏpropose€and€promulgate€.€.€.€criteria€under€which€filtration€.€.€.Ïis€required€as€a€treatment€technique€for€public€water€systemsÏsupplied€by€surface€water€sources."€€òòId.óó€ò òó óÐ €%Ð * Ðà ` àOn€June€29,€1989,€pursuant€to€this€statutory€command,€theÏEPA€promulgated€the€Surface€Water€Treatment€Rule€(SWTR€or€Rule),€40ÏC.F.R.€ðððð€141.70„.73.€€The€SWTR€focuses€on€public€systems€that€drawÏtheir€water€in€some€measure€from€above„ground€sources.€€It€seeks€toÏreduce€the€risk€of€illness€from€waterborne€pathogens€to€one€yearlyÐ P- (4 Ðoccurrence€per€10,000€consumers€of€water€from€covered€publicÏsystems.ò òó ó€€Drinking€Water;€National€Primary€Drinking€WaterÐ @ ÐRegulations;€Filtration,€Disinfection;€Turbidity,€Giardia€lamblia,ÏViruses,€Legionella,€and€Heterotrophic€Bacteria,€54€Fed.€Reg.Ïò òó ó27,486,€27,490€(June€29,€1989)€(codified€at€40€C.F.R.€pts.€141€andÐ ð @ Ð142).€€Specifically,€the€Rule€requires€that€all€public€systemsÏachieve€a€three„log€(99.9€percent)€reduction€in€the€òòGiardiaóó€òòlambliaóóÐ `  Ðparasite€and€a€four„log€(99.99€percent)€reduction€in€viralÏcontamination,€40€C.F.R.€ðð€141.70(a);€establishes€a€mandatoryÏdisinfection€requirement€for€all€systems,€subject€to€the€grantingÏof€variances€by€the€EPA,€òòid.óó€ðð€141.72;€specifies€the€standardsÐ P  Ðaccording€to€which€all€filtration€systems€must€be€constructed,€òòid.óóÐ à0 Ððð€141.73;€and€sets€out€eleven€"avoidance€criteria"€for€levels€ofÏcertain€waterborne€contaminants€that€all€public€water€systemsÏhoping€to€forego€filtration€must€satisfy,€òòid.óó€ðððð€141.71(a)„(b).ñ×ññÙñ׃×ñÙññÙñ׃L×ñÙññ×ññ×ñ׃6×ñ×ñÝ ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀Рà ÐOn€December€16,€1998,€in€response€to€an€additional€amendment€to€theÏSDWA€passed€in€1996,€òòseeóó€42€U.S.C.€ðð€300g„1(b)(2)(C)€(Supp.€2000),Ð °  Ðthe€EPA€promulgated€the€Interim€Enhanced€Surface€Water€TreatmentÏRule€(IESWTR),€40€C.F.R.€ðððð€141.170„.173,€which€requires€thatÏpublic€water€systems€implement€treatment€techniques€with€respect€toÏthe€protozoan€òòCryptosporidiumóó€òòlarvumóó,€whose€presence€in€publicÐ ð#@( Ðwater€systems€has€risen€in€the€past€two€decades€and€which€has€beenÏdemonstrated€to€cause€significant€health€problems,€particularly€forÏthose€individuals€with€weakened€immune€systems.€€This€Rule,€whoseÐ  (ð#. Ðrequirements€must€be€met€by€public€water€systems€by€the€end€ofÏ2001,€requires€a€two„log€(99€percent)€reduction€in€òòCryptosporidiumóóÐ @ Ðby€all€water€systems€that€employ€filtration,€and€an€extension€ofÏwatershed€controls€to€cover€ò òó óòòCryptosporidiumóó€for€all€unfilteredÐ ` ° Ðwater€systems.€€òòId.óó€ðð€141.173(b).Ð ð @ Ðà ` àThe€filtration€mandate€in€the€SWTR€is€written€inÏunequivocal€„„€and,€in€the€context€of€federal€regulations,Ïunusually€broad€„„ò ò€ó óterms.€€Tracking€the€pertinent€deadlinesÐ  ð  Ðembodied€in€the€Act,€the€Rule€requires€that€public€water€systemsÏnot€meeting€all€of€the€avoidance€criteria€by€December€30,€1991,Ï"òòmustóó€provide€treatment€consisting€of€both€disinfection€.€.€.€andÐ  ð Ðfiltration"€by€June€29,€1993,€or,€if€the€violation€occurs€afterÏDecember€30,€1991,€within€eighteen€months€of€the€date€that€theÏviolation€has€been€established.€€òòId.óó€ðð€141.73€(emphasis€added).€Ð P  ÐMoreover,€filtration€decisions€under€the€Rule€are€final,€in€thatÏthe€Rule€provides€no€mechanism€by€which€a€public€water€system€mayÏpetition€for€a€reopening€of€a€filtration€determination.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó€Ð P  ÐThe€upshot€of€this€regulatory€scheme€is€that€once€a€public€waterÏsystem€has€been€found€to€have€violated€one€of€the€avoidanceÏcriteria,€it€forever€remains€subject€to€an€enforcement€suitÏrequesting€the€installation€of€a€filtration€system.ñ×ññÙñ׃+×ñÙññÙñ׃M×ñÙññ×ññ×ñ׃7×ñ×ñÝ ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€This€resultÐ @$( Ðobtains€no€matter€how€safe€the€system's€drinking€water€is€followingÐ Ð% !* Ðthe€violation,€and€regardless€of€how€diligent€the€water€system€isÏin€remedying€the€problems€that€caused€the€avoidance„criteriaÏfailures€in€the€first€place.Ìòòóóò òó óà ` àDespite€the€mandatory€nature€of€the€Rule€regarding€theÐ ` ° Ðneed€for€filtration,òòóó€the€EPA€cannot€compel€a€violator€to€complyÐ ð @ Ðwith€its€provisions€merely€by€issuing€its€own€enforcement€order.ñ×ññÙñ׃×ñÙññÙñ׃N ×ñÙññ×ññ×ñ׃8 ×ñ×ñÝ ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀Р€ Ð  ÐRather,€the€agency€must€bring€suit€in€federal€district€court€toÏrequest€that€a€remedy€provided€for€elsewhere€in€the€Act,€such€asÏthe€construction€of€a€filtration€facility,€be€ordered.€€òòSeeóó€42Ð 0€  ÐU.S.C.€ðð€300g„3(b)€("The€[EPA]€Administrator€may€bring€a€civilÏaction€.€.€.€to€require€compliance€with€any€applicable€requirementÏ.€.€.€.").€€And€the€Act€provides€that€in€deciding€such€suits,Ïcourts€"may€enter€.€.€.€such€judgment€as€protection€of€publicÏhealth€may€require,€taking€into€consideration€the€time€necessary€toÏcomply€and€the€availability€of€alternative€water€supplies."€€òòId.óó€Ð à ÐThe€language€of€this€judicial„enforcement€provision€has€remainedÏuntouched,€in€pertinent€part,€since€the€Act's€original€passage€inÏ1974.ñ×ññÙñ׃è×ñÙññÙñ׃O@×ñÙññ×ññ×ñ׃9@×ñ×ñÝ ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð @" Ðà ` àAs€a€practical€matter,€much€of€the€burden€of€enforcingÏthe€SDWA€falls€on€the€shoulders€of€state€environmental€authorities,Ð `"°& Ðsuch€as€the€Massachusetts€Department€of€Environmental€ProtectionÏ(DEP).€€This€is€so€because,€under€the€Act,€state€agencies€thatÏadopt€drinking€water€regulations€deemed€by€the€EPA€to€be€at€leastÏas€stringent€as€its€own€may€assume€primary€responsibility€forÏidentifying€violations€of€the€EPA's€regulations€and€for€enforcingÏthe€filtration€requirement€against€the€violators.€€òòId.óó€ðð€300g„2(a).€Ð € Ð  ÐThe€Act€provides€that€within€thirty€months€of€the€promulgation€ofÏthe€SWTR,€those€state€agencies€that€participate€in€SDWA€enforcementÏmust€identify€the€water€systems€that€are€required€to€installÏfiltration€facilities.ñ×ññÙñ׃×ñÙññÙñ׃P×ñÙññ×ññ×ñ׃;×ñ×ñÝ ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€òòId.óó€ðð€300g„1(b)(7)(C)(iii).€€AlthoughÐ À Ðstate€authorities€are€afforded€the€first€opportunity€under€thisÏsystem€to€make€formal€determinations€regarding€the€need€forÏfiltration,€the€EPA€must€bring€its€own€enforcement€action€in€theÏabsence€of€such€a€state€determination,€provided€the€state€agencyÏand€the€violating€water€system€are€given€thirty€days'€notice€and€anÏopportunity€for€consultation€with€the€EPA.€€òòId.óó€ðð€300g„3(a)(1)(B)ò ò.Ð  p Ðà ` àó óOn€June€28,€1993,€after€the€DEP€adopted€drinking€waterÐ P  Ðregulations€requiring€filtration€whenever€a€public€water€systemÏfails€to€satisfy€the€SWTR's€avoidance€criteria,€òòseeóó€Mass.€Regs.Ð  !p$ ÐCode€tit.€310,€ðððð€22.20A(2),€(4)ò òó ó,€the€EPA€granted€primaryÐ °"& Ðâ âenforcement€responsibility€to€the€DEP.€€Public€Water€Supervision:Ð @$( ÐProgram€Revision€for€Commonwealth€of€Massachusetts,€58€Fed.€Reg.Ï34,583€(June€28,€1993).Ìâ âÝ ‚3£ ÝÝ  ÝÝ‚3£>KÝÔ2нÔÚ  ÚBÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0 ` àÝ  ÝòòThe€MWRAò òó óóó݃3£>KiKÝŒÐÐ ` (#` (# ÐŒÝ  Ýà ` àEstablished€in€1984,€the€MWRA€owns€and€operates€theÏpublic€water€system€that€provides€most€of€the€drinking€water€forÏthe€city€of€Boston€and€surrounding€communities.€€Its€water€systemÏserves€approximately€two€million€customers€in€over€fortyÏMassachusetts€cities€and€towns.€€The€MWRA€has€primaryÏresponsibility€for€treating€its€drinking€water€and€transportingÏthat€water€from€its€reservoirs€to€the€distribution€systems€of€theÏlocal€communities€it€serves.€€In€providing€water€to€its€customers,Ïthe€MWRA€works€in€tandem€with€the€Metropolitan€District€CommissionÏ(MDC),€an€organization€responsible€for€monitoring€the€quality€ofÏwater€in€the€MWRA€system€and€managing€the€watersheds€surroundingÏthe€principal€sources€of€the€MWRA's€water€supply.ñ×ññÙñ׃×ñÙññÙñ׃Q×ñÙññ×ññ×ñ׃<×ñ×ñÝ ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×ò òó óÐ à Ðà ` àThe€MWRA's€water€system,€which€was€originally€designed€byÏthe€Massachusetts€Board€of€Health€in€the€late€nineteenth€century,Ïconsists€of€three€large€reservoirs€connected€by€a€network€of€265Ïmiles€of€water€mains€and€130€miles€of€aqueducts.€€Feeding€into€theÏsystem€are€two€above„ground€bodies€of€water€in€centralÏMassachusetts,€the€Quabbin€and€Wachusett€Reservoirs,€whichÏcollectively€contain€approximately€475€billion€gallons€of€water.€Ð €%Ð * ÐThe€Quabbin€Reservoir,€by€far€the€larger€of€the€two€bodies€ofÏwater,€empties€into€the€Wachusett€Reservoir.€€The€MWRA€draws€waterÏfrom€the€eastern€edge€of€the€Wachusett€Reservoir€at€the€CosgroveÏIntake,€and€transports€the€water€through€a€series€of€tunnels€andÏaqueducts€until€it€reaches€the€Norumbega€Reservoir,€an€intermediateÏstorage€basin€in€Weston,€Massachusetts.€€From€there€the€waterÏtravels€in€all€directions,€through€a€complex,€6,700„mile€web€ofÏadditional€tunnels,€pipes,€and€aqueducts,€ultimately€connecting€toÏthe€local€distribution€centers€in€the€various€communities€that€theÏMWRA€serves.Ìà ` àFor€some€time,€the€MWRA€has€employed€two€basic€Ïtechniques€to€treat€its€drinking€water:€disinfection,€used€to€killÏlive€contaminants,€and€corrosion€control,€used€to€minimize€theÏleaching€of€metals€(such€as€lead)€into€the€water€from€theÏantiquated€pipes€through€which€the€water€travels€before€reachingÏthe€taps€of€consumers.€€The€water€supply€undergoes€disinfection€asÏit€enters€the€distribution€system€through€the€Cosgrove€Intake€andÏagain€as€it€departs€the€primary€distribution€system€at€theÏNorumbega€Reservoir.€€In€the€mid„1990s,€the€MWRA€replaced€theÏchloramine€disinfection€treatment€it€used€at€the€Cosgrove€IntakeÏwith€an€alternative€disinfection€treatment€of€ozonation,€whichÏconsists€of€the€injection€of€ozone€bubbles€into€the€water€supply.ñ×ññÙñ׃ ×ñÙññÙñ׃R×ñÙññ×ññ×ñ׃=×ñ×ñÝ ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀Р€%Ð * ÐAccording€to€the€MWRA,€ozonation€kills€a€wider€range€of€pathogensÏthan€do€the€traditional€disinfection€techniques,€and€the€process€Ïprovides€the€added€benefit€of€improving€the€taste€and€coloration€ofÐ 0*€%0 Ðtreated€water.€€While€the€EPA€acknowledges€the€generalÏeffectiveness€of€ozonation,€the€agency€has€taken€the€position€thatÏit€is€not,€by€itself,€an€effective€substitute€for€filtration.€€€ò òó óÐ Ð  Ðà ` àIn€the€months€following€the€EPA's€formulation€of€theÏSWTR,€the€MWRA€determined€that€it€would€not€be€able€to€fulfill€allÏof€the€avoidance€criteria€by€the€December€30,€1991€deadline.€€InÏparticular,€the€MWRA€concluded€that€occasional€spikes€in€fecalÏcoliform€bacteria€that€had€been€measured€in€the€Wachusett€ReservoirÏin€the€late€1980s€and€early€1990s,€a€phenomenon€later€attributed€toÏthe€seasonal€roosting€habits€of€gulls,€could€not€be€controlled€byÏthat€date.€€Consequently,€the€MWRA€did€not€seek€a€formal€avoidanceÏdetermination€from€the€DEP.€€On€January€24,€1992,€the€DEP€notifiedÏthe€MWRA€that,€according€to€the€terms€of€the€SDWA,€it€would€beÏrequired€to€install€a€filtration€system€by€June€30,€1993.Ìà ` àBy€early€1993,€after€it€became€clear€that€the€MWRA€couldÏnot€design€and€install€a€filtration€system€before€June€1993,€theÏMWRA,€the€MDC,€and€the€DEP€entered€into€negotiations€on€anÏadministrative€consent€order€(ACO)€to€govern€the€MWRA's€complianceÏwith€the€SWTR.€€Rather€than€requiring€the€immediate€installation€ofÏa€filtration€system,€the€ACO€established€a€"dual„track"€approachÏfor€compliance.€€Under€this€scheme,€the€MWRA€was€permitted€in€theÏshort€term€to€employ€a€treatment€regime€consisting€of€disinfection,Ïozonation,€and€covered€water€storage€facilities,€while€at€the€sameÏtime€embarking€upon€an€aggressive€watershed€protection€plan€for€theÏWachusett€Reservoir.€€The€MWRA€also€was€expected€to€continue€itsÏcampaign€of€"gull€harassment,"€a€policy€meant€to€scare€away€birdsÏso€as€to€prevent€them€from€defecating€in€the€reservoir.€€If€theÐ P- (4 ÐMWRA€properly€pursued€these€endeavors,€it€would€be€given€theÏopportunity€under€the€ACO€to€petition,€on€or€before€August€3,€1998,Ïfor€a€"reopener"€establishing€that€the€avoidance€criteria€had€beenÏmet€and€that€filtration€was€not€required.ñ×ññÙñ׃!×ñÙññÙñ׃S×ñÙññ×ññ×ñ׃>×ñ×ñÝ ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€At€the€same€time€as€itÐ ` ° Ðpursued€the€watershed€protection€strategy,€however,€the€MWRA€alsoÏwas€obligated€to€plan€the€siting€and€design€of€the€filtrationÏfacility€that€it€would€be€required€to€install€in€the€event€that€itÏcould€not€establish€its€eligibility€for€filtration€avoidance€byÏAugust€1998.€€The€MWRA,€the€MDC,€and€the€DEP€signed€the€ACO€on€JuneÏ11,€1993.€Ìà ` àGiven€that€the€ACO€essentially€excused€the€MWRA€fromÏcomplying€with€a€key€component€of€the€SWTR,€it€seems€ratherÏsurprising€at€first€blush€that€the€EPA,€while€aware€of€theÏnegotiations€over€the€ACO,€did€not€attempt€to€block€itsÏimplementation.€€In€fact,€despite€having€written€the€Rule'sÏfiltration€requirement€in€mandatory€terms€(and€despite€the€Act'sÏmandate€that€there€be€filtration€when€the€Rule's€standards€were€notÏmet),€the€EPA's€actual€practice€has€been€to€enforce€the€filtrationÏmandate€with€less€than€the€unswerving€rigor€that€the€statutory€andÏregulatory€language€would€seem€to€require.€€For€instance,Ïnotwithstanding€the€filtration€command€in€the€SWTR,€in€1992€the€EPAÏissued€an€internal€guidance€memorandum€that€gave€state€enforcementÏauthorities€the€discretion€to€postpone€final€filtrationÏdeterminations€if€a€water€system€is€able€to€prove€that€it€couldÏlater€meet€the€avoidance€criteria€through€intermediate€measures.€Ð 0*€%0 ÐAnd€while€the€EPA€never€expressly€acquiesced€in€the€provision€inÏthe€ACO€that€created€the€potential€for€the€MWRA€to€eventually€avoidÏfiltration€(in€fact,€it€stated€in€a€letter€to€the€parties€to€theÏACO€that€it€reserved€the€right€to€bring€an€enforcement€action€at€aÏlater€date),€it€did€promise€the€DEP€and€the€MWRA€that€it€wouldÏabstain,€at€least€in€the€short€term,€from€filing€its€ownÏenforcement€suit€once€the€ACO€was€executed.€€Ìà ` àConsistent€with€this€approach,€the€EPA€worked€closelyÏwith€the€MWRA€in€its€implementation€of€both€compliance€tracks€inÏthe€three€years€following€the€signing€of€the€ACO.€€This€assistanceÏincluded€the€agency's€advice€on€steps€to€be€taken€by€the€MWRA€toÏsatisfy€the€avoidance€criteria.€€ò òó óIn€November€1996,€John€DeVillars,Ð à0 Ðthe€EPA€Regional€Administrator,€wrote€a€letter€to€the€MWRA€in€whichÏhe€generally€commended€the€MWRA€on€its€progress€but€cautioned€thatÏ"òòin€order€to€avoid€filtrationóó,€more€still€needs€to€be€done"€Ð à Ð(emphasis€added).€€At€least€through€the€end€of€1996,€this€statementÏepitomized€the€EPA's€deliberately€ambiguous€posture€vis„„vis€theÏMWRA's€need€to€install€filtration:€the€agency€generally€supportedÏthe€MWRA's€efforts€to€achieve€compliance€with€the€avoidanceÏcriteria€by€alternative€means,€even€as€it€held€out€the€threat€ofÏsuing€to€require€filtration€if€it€later€found€itself€unsatisfiedÏwith€the€MWRA's€performance.Ìà ` àIn€early€1997,€after€the€MWRA€acknowledged€that€it€couldÏnot€meet€several€interim€deadlines€contained€in€the€ACO,€the€EPAÏbegan€to€lose€patience,€and€the€working€relationship€between€theÏMWRA€and€the€EPA€quickly€deteriorated.€€In€two€letters€to€the€MWRAÏdated€January€8,€1997,€and€May€15,€1997,€the€EPA€RegionalÐ P- (4 ÐAdministrator€expressed€"extreme€concern"ò ò€ó ófor€the€MWRA's€failure€toÐ ° Ðproduce€adequate€design€plans€for€a€Wachusett€Reservoir€filtrationÏfacility,€and€reminded€the€MWRA€that€it€was€still€in€technicalÏviolation€of€the€SWTR€for€its€failure€to€install€a€filtrationÏsystem€back€in€1993.€€The€EPA's€displeasure€with€the€MWRA'sÏapproach€was€only€exacerbated€by€a€September€18,€1997€agreementÏbetween€the€DEP€and€the€MWRA€that€amended€the€ACO€to€delay€theÏcompletion€of€the€design€of€the€filtration€plant€until€January€31,Ï2002.Ìà ` àOn€October€1,€1997,€over€a€year€before€the€MWRA€was€toÏhave€submitted€its€petition€to€reopen€the€filtration€determination,Ïthe€MWRA€and€the€MDC€filed€with€the€DEP€an€early€"Request€forÏReview€and€Revision€of€DEP€Determination€that€Filtration€isÏRequired€for€Wachusett€Reservoir."€€This€document€requested€thatÏthe€MWRA€be€excused€from€further€pursuing€the€filtration€track€byÏthe€end€of€1997€if€it€could€establish€prospective€compliance€withÏthe€SWTR's€avoidance€criteria.€€The€EPA,€which€was€not€consulted€byÏthe€MWRA€prior€to€the€filing€of€this€request,€responded€criticallyÏupon€learning€of€it.€€In€a€December€9,€1997€letter€to€the€MWRA,€theÏMDC,€and€the€DEP,€the€EPA€Regional€Administrator€revealed€that€heÏhad€asked€the€U.S.€Department€of€Justice€to€bring€an€SDWAÏenforcement€action€to€require€"filtration€.€.€.€[and]€measures€toÏenhance€protection€of€the€Wachusett€reservoirs€.€.€.€according€toÏa€clear,€binding€and€expeditious€schedule."€€Such€legal€action€wasÏnecessary,€in€his€opinion,€because€the€MWRA€"did€not€meet€theÏavoidance€criteria€in€1991,€has€not€met€them€to€this€day,€and€willÏnot€meet€them€by€next€summer,€either."Ð  -ð(4 Ðà ` àThree€days€after€the€EPA€Regional€Administrator€sent€thisÏletter,€the€DEP€issued€a€noncommittal€response€to€the€MWRA'sÏrequest€to€forego€filtration.€€While€refusing€to€allow€work€on€theÏfiltration€track€to€be€terminated€in€light€of€the€MWRA'sÏacknowledgment€that€it€could€not€meet€the€avoidance€criteriaÏregarding€òòGiardiaóó,€viruses,€and€total€coliform€counts€by€the€end€ofÐ € Ð  Ð1997,€the€DEP€did€grant€the€MWRA€until€October€31,€1998,€or€nearlyÏthree€months€later€than€allowed€by€the€ACO,€to€reapply€for€aÏfiltration€waiver.€€Accepting€that€invitation,€the€MWRA€submittedÏa€follow„up€request€to€the€DEP€on€October€30,€1998.€€In€thatÏrequest,€the€MWRA€sought€permission€to€treat€its€water€usingÏozonation€and€chloramine€disinfection€only.€€The€MWRA€also€proposedÏthat€the€savings€realized€from€not€installing€a€filtration€facilityÏbe€spent€on€a€pipeline€replacement€plan€and€stepped„up€monitoringÏprogram.€€On€November€13,€1998,€the€DEP€formally€approved€theÏrequest,€finding€that€the€MWRA€had€come€into€compliance€with€all€ofÏthe€SWTR's€avoidance€criteria€and€concluding€that€the€MWRA€hadÏdeveloped€satisfactory€plans€for€improving€the€quality€of€itsÏwater.€€The€DEP's€action€effectively€excused€the€MWRA€from€havingÏto€install€a€filtration€system€for€the€time€being;€however,€theÏapproval€made€clear€that€any€future€violation€of€any€of€theÏavoidance€criteria€would€result€in€revocation€of€the€waiver€andÏreimposition€of€the€filtration€requirement.ñÚñÌÌñÚñÌÝ ‚3£ ÝÝ  ÝÝ‚3£ÈyÝÔ2нÔÚ  ÚCÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0 ` àÝ  ÝòòThe€Proceedings€Belowóó݃3£Èyóy݌Р(ð#.` (#` (# ÐŒÝ  Ýà ` àMeanwhile,€on€February€12,€1998,€the€United€States€hadÏfiled€the€instant€SDWA€lawsuit€on€behalf€of€the€EPA.€€The€lawsuitÏsought€an€injunction€ordering€the€MWRA€to€comply€with€theÐ P- (4 Ðfiltration€requirement€set€out€in€the€Act€and€the€Rule.€€TheÏdistrict€court,€while€permitting€some€initial€discovery,Ïeffectively€stayed€the€case€for€nearly€a€full€year€in€anticipationÏof€the€DEP's€disposition€of€the€MWRA's€filtration„waiver€request.€ÏOnce€the€DEP€approved€the€request,€the€United€States€moved€forÏsummary€judgment,€citing€uncontradicted€evidence€of€the€MWRA's€pastÏfailures€to€meet€the€avoidance€criteria€and€its€continued€refusalÏto€install€a€filtration€system.€€Its€position€was€augmented€by€theÏMWRA's€acknowledgment€that,€in€January€1999,€it€had€failed€to€meetÏone€of€the€avoidance€criteria€at€the€Wachusett€Reservoirò òó 󀄄€in€thisÐ À Ðcase,€the€standard€relating€to€fecal€coliform€concentration.ñ×ññÙñ׃"×ñÙññÙñ׃T×ñÙññ×ññ×ñ׃?×ñ×ñÝ ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú10Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€TheÐ P  ÐEPA€subsequently€asked€the€DEP€to€revoke€the€MWRA's€filtrationÏwaiver€based€on€this€violation,€but€the€DEP€declined€to€do€so.€ÏSince€the€January€1999€avoidance„criteria€failure,€the€MWRA'sÏrecord€of€providing€safe€drinking€water€has€been€unblemished.Ìà ` àOn€May€3,€1999,€the€district€court€ruled€on€the€UnitedÏStates's€motion€for€summary€judgment.€€While€noting€the€DEP'sÏNovember€1998€finding€that€the€MWRA€had€come€into€compliance€withÏall€the€avoidance€criteria€and€opining€that€"this€conclusion€mightÏhave€been€conclusive€of€the€litigation,"€the€court€found€that€the€ÏMWRA's€January€1999€violation€òòóó"entitles€the€EPA€to€a€judicialÐ ð#@( Ðdeclaration€that€the€MWRA€is€liable€under€the€SDWA€for€injunctiveÏrelief€and€civil€penalties."€€òòMWRA€Ióó,€48€F.€Supp.€2d€at€70.€€Ð @ Ðà ` àThe€district€court€went€on€to€hold,€however,€that,€basedÏon€the€principle€that€the€discretion€of€courts€to€fashion€equitableÏremedies€as€appropriate€may€only€be€circumvented€by€a€"clearÏlegislative€command,"òòóó€the€court€retained€the€discretion€toÐ € Ð  Ðdetermine€the€type€of€relief€that€should€be€granted.€€òòId.óó€at€71Ð `  Ð(citing€òòWeinbergeróó€v.€òòRomero„Barceloóó,€456€U.S.€305,€313€(1982)).€Ð  ð  ÐWhile€acknowledging€a€statement€in€the€Act's€legislative€history€toÏthe€effect€that€courts€shall€not€use€"traditional€balancingÏprinciples€used€by€equity€courts"€in€ruling€on€SDWA€suits,€òòid.óóÐ P  Ð(quoting€H.R.€Rep.€No.€93„1185€(1974),€òòreprintedóó€òòinóó€1974Ð à0 ÐU.S.C.C.A.N.€6454,€6476),ò òòòó óóó€the€court€determined€that€the€judicial„Ð pÀ Ðenforcement€provision€of€the€Act€contained€language€"descriptive€ofÏthe€traditional€powers€of€a€court€of€chancery"€and€that€the€statuteÏdid€not€"impos[e]€the€same€narrow€mandate"€on€courts€to€enforceÏviolations€of€its€substantive€provisions€that€it€placeñÐñsñÐññÒññÑñsñÑññÒññÓñdñÓñ€on€the€EPAÏto€promulgate€rules.€€òòId.óó€at€71.€€In€the€final€analysis,€the€courtÐ @" Ðdiscerned€no€clear€command€that€courts€"limit€[themselves]€toÏmechanical€enforcement€of€EPA€compliance€orders,"€òòid.óó,€although€itÐ `"°& Ðdid€find€a€"presumption€expressed€by€Congress€in€the€SDWA€thatÏfiltration€will€almost€always€be€the€preferred€remedy€for€a[n]€SWTRÏviolation."€€òòId.óó€at€72.Ð '`", Ðà ` àHaving€determined€that€it€possessed€the€equitableÏdiscretion€to€withhold€the€filtration€remedy,€the€district€courtÏordered€a€bench€trial€to€determine€whether,€in€fact,€it€wasÏappropriate€to€exercise€such€discretion€with€respect€to€the€MWRA.€Ð P- (4 ÐAs€the€court€saw€it,€the€issue€to€be€tried€was€whether€"the€MWRA'sÏalternative€strategy€of€ozonation,€chlorination,€and€pipeÏreplacement€[will]€better€serve€Congress's€objective€of€providingÏ'maximum€feasible€protection€of€the€public€health'€than€will€theÏEPA's€insistence€on€filtration."€€òòId.óó€€Ð ð @ Ðà ` àBetween€December€1999€and€February€2000,€the€districtÏcourt€presided€over€a€twenty„four€day€bench€trial€in€which€it€heardÏfrom€twenty„three€witnesses€and€entered€524€exhibits€into€evidence.€ÏAt€trial,€the€United€States€sought€to€establish€that€filtrationÏcombined€with€disinfection€is€much€more€effective€against€highlyÏtreatment„resistant€pathogens,€such€as€òòGiardiaóó€and€òòCryptosporidiumóó,Ð P  Ðthan€the€ozonation€alternative€favored€by€the€MWRA.€€It€also€soughtÏto€prove€that€the€process€of€ozonation,€while€generally€effectiveÏin€combating€most€forms€of€live€waterborne€pathogens,€may€produceÏmicrobes€that€nourish€certain€types€of€bacteria,€thereby€creatingÏthe€potential€for€"regrowth"€of€certain€pathogens€in€the€waterÏsupply.€€For€its€part,€the€MWRA€noted€that€it€was€in€complianceÏwith€the€avoidance€criteria€at€the€time€of€trial,€thereby€removingÏthe€urgency€of€installing€a€filtration€system.€€It€furtherÏattempted€to€demonstrate€that€its€proposed€approach€of€pipelineÏrehabilitation,€watershed€protection,€and€ozone€and€chloramineÏdisinfection€treatments€would€provide€more€comprehensive€waterÏpurification€than€filtration€alone.Ìà ` àThe€district€court€issued€its€findings€of€fact€andÏconclusions€of€law€on€May€5,€2000,€holding,€for€the€first€time,Ïthat€the€MWRA€would€not€be€required€to€install€a€filtration€systemÏunder€present€circumstances.€€òòMWRA€IIóó,€97€F.€Supp.€2d€at€188.€Ð P- (4 ÐWhile€finding€that€filtration€combined€with€disinfection€was€aÏsuperior€treatment€technique€to€the€MWRA's€proposed€"ozonation„¼only"€strategy,€the€court€determined€that,ò ò€ó ógiven€the€lack€of€anÐ Ð  Ðactual€health€issue€in€light€of€the€MWRA's€compliance€with€theÏavoidance€criteria€at€the€time€of€trial,€"[a]ny€risk€to€publicÏhealth€entailed€by€selection€of€the€'ozone„only'€option€is€withinÏacceptable€levels."€òòId.óó€€In€making€this€determination,€the€courtÐ `°  Ðrelied€heavily€on€studies€introduced€at€trial€by€the€MWRAÏindicating€that€the€ozonation€technique€could€successfully€keep€theÏconcentrations€of€pathogens€in€the€water€supply€at€or€below€theÏsafety€levels€specified€by€the€SWTR€avoidance€criteria.€€òòId.óó€€ItÐ  ð Ðfurther€found€that,€while€the€threat€of€bacterial€"regrowth"€posedÏby€ozonation€was€real,€that€threat€could€more€effectively€beÏaddressed€through€pipe€rehabilitation,€flushing,€and€corrosionÏcontrol€than€through€filtration.ñ×ññÙñ׃&×ñÙññÙñ׃U×ñÙññ×ññ×ñ׃@×ñ×ñÝ ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú11Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€òòId.óó€€Moreover,€the€court,€notingÐ à0 Ðthe€tremendous€sums€that€the€MWRA€was€spending€and€had€pledged€toÏspend€in€subsequent€years€on€health„related€system€improvements,ñ×ññÙñ׃-°×ñÙññÙñ׃V°×ñÙññ×ññ×ñ׃A°×ñ×ñÝ ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú12Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð P  Ðaccepted€the€MWRA's€argument€that€the€installation€of€a€$180Ïmillion€filtration€system€would€severely€complicate€the€MWRA'sÐ  !p$ Ðefforts€to€take€on€other€water€purification€projects,€such€as€pipeÏreplacement,€that€would€be€needed€with€or€without€the€presence€ofÏa€filtration€system.€€òòId.óó€€As€to€the€issue€of€watershed€protection,Ð Ð  Ðthe€court€agreed€with€the€MWRA€that€the€plan€of€acquiring€landsÏclose€to€the€Wachusett€Reservoir€had€proven€successful€in€creatingÏan€effective€barrier€against€manmade€contamination,€and€that€theÏimplementation€of€a€filtration€plan€would€reduce€popular€supportÏfor€maintaining€strict€environmental€protection€of€the€protectedÏareas.€€òòId.óó€at€187„88.€Ð 0€  Ðà ` àIn€sum,€the€district€court€found€the€MWRA's€proposedÏtreatment€plan€to€be€a€"sound€alternative€to€.€.€.€filtration€whenÏcompeting€demands€for€limited€resources€and€the€level€of€risk€fromÏall€potential€threats€to€the€safety€of€MWRA€water€are€considered."€ÏòòId.óó€at€189.€€The€court€determined€that,€in€light€of€the€ACO,€onlyÐ P Ðone€avoidance€criteria€violation€remained€relevant€„„€the€fecalÏcoliform€violation€in€January€1999€„„€and€that,€based€on€thatÏsingle€SWTR€violation€and€the€myriad€efforts€undertaken€by€the€MWRAÏto€improve€the€quality€of€its€water,€the€United€States€had€notÏdemonstrated€that€reallocating€funds€from€the€MWRA's€plannedÏhealth„related€system€improvements€to€filtration€was€warranted.ò ò€Ð `"°& Ðó óòòId.óó€€Consequently,€the€court€denied€the€United€States's€request€forÐ @$( Ðinjunctive€relief.€€òòId.óó€€It€retained€jurisdiction,€however,€toÐ Ð% !* Ðfacilitate€reexamination€of€the€decision€in€the€event€that€futureÏcircumstances€warrant€it.€€òòId.óó€€This€appeal€followed.€ò òÐ ð(@$. ÐÓ  ÓII.€Equitable€Discretion€under€the€SDWAó óÐ €*Ð%0 ÐÓÛÓà ` àOn€appeal,€the€United€States€does€not€challenge€any€ofÏthe€district€court's€factual€findings,€including€the€court'sÐ ð-@)4 Ðdetermination€that€the€MWRA's€"ozonation„only"€approach€is€anÏacceptable€alternative€to€filtration.€€Nor€does€the€United€StatesÏassert€that€the€district€court€òòabusedóó€its€equitable€discretion€byÐ Ð  Ðdeclining€to€order€filtration€in€light€of€the€MWRA's€history€ofÏavoidance„criteria€noncompliance.ñ×ññÙñ׃(×ñÙññÙñ׃W×ñÙññ×ññ×ñ׃B×ñ×ñÝ ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú13Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Instead,€its€appeal€essentiallyÐ ð @ Ðis€confined€to€one€argument:€that€under€the€SDWA,€courts€have€òònoóóÐ € Ð  Ðdiscretion€to€withhold€òòindefinitelyóó€a€provided„for€remedy,€such€asÐ `  Ðfiltrationòòóó,€if€it€has€been€demonstrated€that€a€public€water€systemÐ  ð  Ðhas€violated€a€substantive€requirement€of€the€Act.€€The€districtÏcourt's€determination€regarding€the€scope€of€its€equitableÏdiscretion€presents€a€pure€issue€of€law,€and€so€we€review€thatÏdetermination€òòdeóó€òònovoóó.€€òòFergisteóó€v.€òòINSóó,€138€F.3d€14,€17€(1st€Cir.Ð à0 Ð1998).Ìà ` àIn€this€case,€the€United€States€seeks€to€bring€the€MWRAÏinto€compliance€with€the€filtration€requirement€by€resort€to€theÏSDWA's€statutory€injunction€provision,€42€U.S.C.€ðð€300g„3(b).€€TheÏrole€a€court€plays€in€deciding€whether€to€grant€a€statutoryÏinjunction€is€different€than€the€one€it€plays€when€it€weighs€theÏequitable€claims€of€two€private€parties€in€a€suit€seekingÏinjunctive€relief.€€òòYakusóó€v.€òòUnited€Statesóó,€321€U.S.€414,€441Ð `"°& Ð(1944).€€This€is€so€because€a€court€asked€to€order€a€statutoryÐ ð#@( ÐÑ#*Ñâ #âÑÑÑ  Ñâ #âÑ  Ñinjunction€must€reconcile€two€sets€of€competing€concerns.€€CourtsÏasked€to€issue€an€injunction€must€ordinarily€assume€the€role€of€aÏcourt€of€chancery€„„€a€role€that€requires€them€to€determine€whetherÏthe€equities€of€the€case€favor,€and€whether€the€public€interestÏwould€be€served€by,€the€granting€of€injunctive€relief.€€òòSeeóó€òòUnitedÐ ð @ ÐStatesóó€v.€òòOakland€Cannabis€Buyers'€Coop.óó,€___€U.S.€___,€121€S.€Ct.Ð € Ð  Ð1711,€1720€(2001)€("In€exercising€their€sound€discretion,€courts€ofÏequity€should€pay€particular€regard€for€the€public€consequences€inÏemploying€the€extraordinary€remedy€of€injunction.")€(quotingÏòòRomero„Barceloóó,€456€U.S.€at€312).€€But€in€the€context€of€statutoryÐ À Ðinjunctions,€the€court's€freedom€to€make€an€independent€assessmentÏof€the€equities€and€the€public€interest€is€circumscribed€to€theÏextent€that€Congress€has€already€made€such€assessments€with€respectÏto€the€type€of€case€before€the€court.€€òòBurlington€N.€R.R.óó€v.€òòBairóó,Ð P Ð957€F.2d€599,€601„02€(8th€Cir.€1992)€(citing€òòAtchison,€Topeka€&Ð à ÐSanta€Fe€Ry.óó€v.€òòLennenóó,€640€F.2d€255,€259€(10th€Cir.€1981)€(perÐ  p Ðcuriam));€òòcf.óó€òòClarkóó€v.€òòSmithóó,€38€U.S.€(13€Pet.)€195,€203€(1839)Ð °  Ð(finding€"inherent€in€the€Courts€of€Equity€a€jurisdiction€to€.€.€.Ïgive€effect€to€the€policy€of€the€legislature").òòóó€€òòóó€€€€Ð Ð $ Ðà ` àIn€its€decisions€addressing€this€complicated€area€of€law,Ïthe€Supreme€Court€has€held€repeatedly€that€the€retention€of€aÏcourt's€discretion€to€shape€an€injunction€authorized€by€statute€toÏthe€equities€of€the€case€„„€or€not€to€issue€an€injunction€at€all€„„Ïis€to€be€presumed,€but€that€this€presumption€may€be€overcome€by€aÏproper€showing€of€congressional€intent.€€"The€grant€of€jurisdictionÏto€ensure€compliance€with€a€statute€hardly€suggests€an€absoluteÏduty€to€do€so€under€any€and€all€circumstances,€and€a€federal€judgeÐ P- (4 ÐÑ$*Ñâ $âÑÑÑ  Ñâ $âÑ  Ñsitting€as€chancellor€is€not€mechanically€obligated€to€grant€anÏinjunction€for€every€violation€of€law."€€òòRomero„Barceloóó,€456€U.S.Ð @ Ðat€313òòóó;€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòid.óó€at€322€(Stevens,€J.,€dissenting)€("UnlessÐ Ð  ÐCongress€specifically€commands€a€particular€form€of€relief,€theÏquestion€of€remedy€remains€subject€to€a€court's€equitableÏdiscretion.");€òòTown€of€Huntingtonóó€v.€òòMarshóó,€884€F.2d€648,€651€(2dÐ € Ð  ÐCir.€1989)€("[I]n€the€area€of€environmental€statutes,€the€SupremeÏCourt€has€explicitly€rejected€the€notion€that€an€injunction€followsÏas€a€matter€of€course€upon€a€finding€of€a€statutory€violation.").€ÏAnd€while€Congress€certainly€may€intervene€and€guide€or€control€theÏexercise€of€the€courts'€discretion,€or€even€extinguish€it€entirely,Ïcourts€measuring€the€quantum€of€equitable€discretion€preserved€inÏa€statute€are€"not€lightly€[to]€assume€that€Congress€has€intendedÏto€depart€from€established€principles."€€òòRomero„Barceloóó,€456€U.S.Ð P Ðat€313€(citing€òòHecht€Co.óó€v.€òòBowlesóó,€321€U.S.€321,€329€(1944)).€Ð à ÐThis€default€rule€can€be€justified,€at€least€in€part,€by€the€factÏthat€"[w]hen€Congress€entrusts€to€an€equity€court€the€enforcementÏof€prohibitions€contained€in€a€regulatory€enactment,€it€must€beÏtaken€to€have€acted€cognizant€of€the€historic€power€of€equity€toÏprovide€complete€relief€in€light€of€the€statutory€purposes."€ÏòòMitchellóó€v.€òòRobert€DeMario€Jewelry,€Inc.óó,€361€U.S.€288,€291„92Ð ð#@( Ð(1960).€€In€this€vein,€the€Supreme€Court€has€held€that€if€CongressÏwishes€to€circumscribe€these€equitable€powers,€it€must€do€so€withÏclarity:€"Unless€a€statute€in€so€many€words,€or€by€a€òònecessary€andÐ  (ð#. Ðinescapable€inferenceóó,€restricts€the€court's€jurisdiction€inÐ 0*€%0 Ðâ âequity,€the€full€scope€of€that€jurisdiction€is€to€be€recognized€andÐ À+'2 ÐÑ%*Ñâ %âÑÑÑ  Ñâ %âÑ  Ñapplied."€€òòPorteróó€v.€òòWarner€Holding€Co.óó,€328€U.S.€395,€398€(1946)Ð ° Ð(emphasis€added).Ìâ âà ` àIn€order€to€ascertain€whether€Congress€meant€to€constrainÏthe€equitable€discretion€afforded€courts€in€SDWA€cases,€ourÏexamination€begins€„„€and,€for€the€most€part,€ends€„„€with€the€SDWAÏitself.€€This€is€so€because€the€discretion€that€inheres€in€aÏstatutory€injunction€provision€is,€by€definition,€a€product€of€theÏstatute,€and€accordingly€must€be€cabined€by€the€purposes€for€whichÏthe€statute€was€created.€€òòUnited€Statesóó€v.€òòMonsantoóó,€491€U.S.€600,Ð 0€  Ð613€(1989).€€Where,€as€here,€the€statutory€injunction€provisionÏdoes€not€explicitly€delimit€the€court's€equitable€authority,€it€isÏnecessary€to€"look€to€the€[statute's]€remedial€framework€as€aÏwhole."€€òòWilliamsóó€v.€òòJonesóó,€11€F.3d€247,€256€(1st€Cir.€1993).€€ThisÐ pÀ Ðtask€requires€that€courts€not€only€consider€the€"language,€historyÏand€structure"€of€the€legislation,€òòTVAóó€v.€òòHillóó,€437€U.S.€153,€174Ð à Ð(1978),€but€also€the€"underlying€substantive€policy"€that€theÏstatutory€procedures€are€designed€to€further,€òòAmoco€Prod.€Co.óó€v.Ð °  ÐòòVillage€of€Gambellóó,€480€U.S.€531,€544€(1987).€€Under€this€analysis,Ð @" Ðthe€language€and€structure€of€the€Rule€regarding€the€need€forÏfiltration€reflect€policy€judgments€made€by€the€EPA,€not€Congress,Ïand€as€such,€are€not€relevant€indicia€of€legislative€intentò òó ó.€€òòCf.óóÐ ð#@( ÐòòChevron€U.S.A.,€Inc.óó€v.€òòNatural€Res.€Def.€Councilóó,€467€U.S.€837,Ð €%Ð * Ð842„43€&€n.9€(1984)€(directing€courts€to€distinguish€between€agencyÏpolicy€and€congressional€intent€and€to€reject€administrativeÏconstructions€that€do€not€give€effect€to€the€intent€of€Congress).€Ìà ` àThe€United€States€does€not€quibble€with€this€analyticalÏframework.€€Rather,€it€argues€that€the€judicial„enforcementÐ P- (4 Ðprovision€of€the€SDWA,€42€U.S.C.€ðð€300g„3(b),€when€read€along€withÏthe€rest€of€the€Act,€admits€of€only€one€appropriate€outcome€inÏcases€where€a€water€system€fails€an€avoidance€criterion:€theÏdelinquent€water€system€must€be€directed€to€install€a€filtrationÏsystem.€€Accordingly,€in€the€United€States's€view,€the€SDWA€òòdoesóóÐ ð @ Ðcreate€a€"necessary€and€inescapable€inference"€that€courts€may€notÏdecline€to€order€filtration€whenever€a€violation€of€the€Act€or€theÏrules€promulgated€thereunder€has€been€established.€€Ìà ` àIn€reaching€this€conclusion,€the€United€States€focuses€onÏthe€SDWA's€judicial„enforcement€provision,€42€U.S.C.€ðð€300g„3(b),Ïwhich€states,€in€relevant€part:ÌÓÓÒ` °ÒÒ` °ÒThe€[EPA]€Administrator€may€bring€a€civilÏaction€in€the€appropriate€United€StatesÏdistrict€court€to€require€compliance€with€anyÏapplicable€requirement€[of€the€Act]€.€.€.€.ÏThe€court€may€enter,€in€an€action€broughtÏunder€this€subsection,€such€judgment€asÏprotection€of€public€health€may€require,Ïtaking€into€consideration€the€time€necessaryÏto€comply€and€the€availability€of€alternativeÏwater€supplies€.€.€.€.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÏÌÒ°` “ÀÒÒ°` …ÀÒÓsÀÓà ` àAs€the€United€States€sees€it,€the€key€words€in€thisÏpassage€are€"compliance"€and€"comply."€€Based€on€their€presence,€asÏwell€as€on€the€Act's€command€that€the€EPA€delimit€circumstancesÏunder€which€filtration€is€"required,"€òòid.óó€ðð€300g„1(b)(7)(C)(i),€theÐ (#x' ÐUnited€States€contends€that,€while€ðð€300g„3(b)€may€not€haveÏabrogated€courts'€equitable€powers€to€specify€when€("the€timeÏnecessary€to€comply")€and€how€("the€availability€of€alternativeÏwater€supplies")€a€violator€is€to€comply€with€the€filtrationÏrequirement,€the€provision€òòdoesóó€deprive€courts€of€the€authority€toÐ ø*H&1 Ðallow€SDWA€violators€to€remain€in€permanent€noncompliance.€€In€thisÏrespect,€the€United€States€contends€that€the€case€at€bar€is€mostÐ .h)5 Ðakin€toòòóó€òòHillóó,€a€decision€in€which€the€Supreme€Court€found€that€theÐ ° Ðdistrict€court€did€not€have€the€equitable€discretion€under€theÏEndangered€Species€Act€to€decline€the€issuance€of€an€injunction€ifÏit€found€that€a€violation€of€the€statute's€substantive€provisionsÏhad€occurred.€€437€U.S.€at€193„95ò òó ó.Ð ð @ Ðà ` àTo€bolster€this€argument,€the€United€States€adverts€to€aÏpassage€from€ðð€300g„3(b)'s€legislative€history€that,€it€argues,Ïevinces€congressional€intent€to€diminish€courts'€equitableÏdiscretion€under€the€SDWA.€€This€passage,€appearing€in€the€reportÏof€the€House€Interstate€and€Foreign€Commerce€Committee€(whichÏauthored€the€version€of€the€Act€that€ultimately€became€law€inÏ1974),€states:€ÌÓÓÒ` °ÒÒ` °Ò[T]he€Committee€intends€that€courts€which€areÏconsidering€remedies€in€enforcement€actionsÏunder€[ðð€300g„3]€are€not€to€apply€traditionalÏbalancing€principles€used€by€equity€courts.€ÏRather,€they€are€directed€to€give€utmostÏweight€to€the€Committee's€paramount€objectiveÏof€providing€maximum€feasible€protection€ofÏthe€public€health€at€the€times€specified€inÏthe€bill.̀РxÈ! ÐÒ°` ÒÒ°` ÒÓÓH.R.€Rep.€No.€93„1185€(1974),€òòreprintedóó€òòinóó€1974€U.S.C.C.A.N.€6454,Ð @" Ð6476.Ìà ` àThe€Second€Circuit€has€òòóóaccepted€this€analysis,€albeit€inÐ `"°& Ðdicta,€and€concluded€that,€for€largely€the€same€reasons€advanced€byÏthe€United€States,€courts€may€not€consider€the€propriety€òòvelóó€òònonóó€ofÐ €%Ð * Ðfiltration€in€individual€SDWA€cases.€€In€òòUnited€Statesóó€v.€òòCity€ofÐ '`", ÐNew€Yorkóó,€198€F.3d€360€(2d€Cir.€1999),€a€case€in€which€a€citizens'Ð  (ð#. Ðgroup€sued€to€undo€a€consent€agreement€between€New€York€City€andÏthe€EPA€that€required€the€installation€of€a€filtration€system,€theÏcourt€in€dicta€stated:Ð P- (4 ÐÓÓÒ` °ÒÒ` °Ò[T]he€decision€to€filtrate€or€not€is€a€policyÏchoice€that€Congress€seems€to€have€made€andÏthat,€in€any€event,€is€beyond€our€judicialÏfunction.€€Our€conclusion€is€not€altered€byÏappellants'€interesting,€but€ultimatelyÏunpersuasive,€argument€that,€since€the€SDWAÏauthorizes€a€court€to€enter€"such€judgment€asÏprotection€of€public€health€may€require,"€42ÏU.S.C.€ðð€300g„3(b),€the€district€court€has€theÏpower€to€refuse€to€order€filtration€in€thisÏaction€.€.€.€.€We€think€that€the€equitableÏpower€vested€in€the€district€court€is€moreÏcircumscribed€than€intervenors€propose;€it€isÏavailable€to€ensure€compliance€with€theÏstatute€and€the€regulations€promulgatedÏthereunder,€not€to€rework€or€reject€theseÏlegislative€and€regulatory€determinations.ÌÌÒ°` rÍÒÒ°` dÍÒÓRÍÓòòId.óó€at€366.ñ×ññÙñ׃)×ñÙññÙñ׃X×ñÙññ×ññ×ñ׃C×ñ×ñÝ ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú14Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð À Ðà ` àWhile€we€agree€that€the€SDWA's€text€and€legislativeÏhistory€provide€evidence€of€Congress's€intent€not€to€allow€courtsÏin€SDWA€cases€to€apply€the€traditional€test€for€issuingÏinjunctionsò òó ó,ñÔññ×ññÙñ׃.x×ñÙññÙñ׃Yx×ñÙññ×ññ×ñ׃Dx×ñ×ññÔññÔñ׃4x×ñÔñÝ ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú15Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€we€are€not€convinced€that€such€evidence€gives€riseÐ P Ðto€a€"necessary€and€inescapable€inference"€that€the€substantiveÏremedies€made€available€under€the€Act€must€òòalwaysóó€be€orderedÐ @ Ðwhenever€a€regulation€promulgated€under€the€Act€has€been€violated.ñ×ññÙñ׃*°×ñÙññÙñ׃Zð ×ñÙññ×ññ×ñ׃Eð ×ñ×ñÝ ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú16Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð Ð  ÐRather,€we€believe€that€as€long€as€a€court€issues€a€"judgment€asÏpublic€health€may€require,"€42€U.S.C.€ðð€300g„3(b),€thereby€ensuringÏthat€the€public€system€provides€water€that€is€safe€according€toÏstandards€identified€by€the€EPA,€the€court€retains€a€measure€ofÏflexibility€under€the€Act€to€tailor€the€specifics€of€an€equitableÏremedy€that€will€help€bring€about€that€goal.€€Our€determination€onÏthis€point€is€bolstered€by€several€factors€relating€to€the€Act'sÏ"language,€history€and€structure,"€òòHillóó,€437€U.S.€at€174,€and€itsÐ P  Ð"underlying€substantive€policy,"òòóó€òòVillage€of€Gambellóó,€480€U.S.€atÐ à0 Ð544.Ìà ` àFirst,€the€critical€passage€of€the€SDWA's€judicial„¼enforcement€subsection€states€that,€following€a€violation€of€theÏAct's€substantive€provisions,€the€court€"òòmayóó€enter€.€.€.€suchÐ  p Ðjudgment€as€protection€of€public€health€may€require€.€.€.€."€€42ÏU.S.C.€ðð€300g„3(b)€(emphasis€added).€€When€Congress€uses€theÐ @" Ðpermissive€"may"€in€settings€such€as€ðð€300g„3(b),€it€is€"eminentlyÏreasonable"€to€presume€that€the€choice€of€verbiage€is€a€deliberateÏone,€and€that,€in€the€context€of€that€statute,€"'may'€means€may."ñ×ññÙñ׃,×ñÙññÙñ׃[×ñÙññ×ññ×ñ׃F×ñ×ñÝ ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú17Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀РР ÐòòMcCrearyóó€v.€òòOffneróó,€172€F.3d€76,€83€(D.C.€Cir.€1999);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóóÐ ` ° ÐòòUnited€Statesóó€v.€òòRodgersóó,€461€U.S.€677,€706€(1983)€("The€wordÐ ð @ Ð'may,'€when€used€in€a€statute,€usually€implies€some€degree€ofÏdiscretion.");€òòFlynnóó€v.€òòUnited€Statesóó,€786€F.2d€586,€591€(3d€Cir.Ð `  Ð1986)€(finding€that€where€statute€states€that€court€"may"€grantÏinjunctive€relief,€the€statute's€use€of€the€conditional€"suggestsÏthat€such€relief€is€not€mandatory€in€every€case").€€This€tenet€ofÏstatutory€construction€should€obtain€unless€"obvious€inferencesÏfrom€the€structure€and€purpose€of€the€statute€[indicate]€that€'may'Ïwas€intended€to€have€something€other€than€its€ordinary€meaning."€Ð pÀ ÐòòReynoldsóó€v.€òòSpearsóó,€93€F.3d€428,€434„35€(8th€Cir.€1996)€(citingÐ P ÐòòUnited€Statesóó€v.€òòRodgersóó,€461€U.S.€at€706)€(internal€quotationÐ à Ðmarks€omitted).Ìà ` àIf€anything,€the€strongest€inference€that€may€be€drawnÏfrom€the€SDWA€is€that€Congress€òòdidóó€intend€for€"may"€in€ðð€300g„3(b)Ð @" Ðto€track€its€everyday€meaning.€€As€mentioned€in€Part€I,€òòsupraóó,Ð Ð $ ÐCongress€amended€the€Act€in€1986€to€enhance€the€level€ofÏenforcement€under€the€SDWA.€€òòSeeóó€42€U.S.C.€ðð€300g„3(a)(1)(B)Ð ð#@( Ð(providing€that€if€the€responsible€state€enforcement€authority€doesÐ €%Ð * Ðnot€commence€enforcement€action€within€thirty€days€of€beingÏnotified€by€the€EPA€of€existence€of€violation,€"the€€AdministratorÐ @ Ðòòshallóó€issue€an€[administrative]€order€.€.€.€or€the€AdministratorÐ Ð  Ðòòshallóó€commence€a€civil€action€.€.€.€.")€(emphases€added);€Rodgers,Ð ` ° Ðòòsupraóó,€ðð€4.20A,€at€152€("In€making€these€changes€Congress€[was]Ð ð @ Ðconvinced€that€it€[could]€control€prosecutorial€options€byÏreplacing€'mays'€with€'shalls'€in€its€enforcement€instructions.").€ÏBut€in€so€amending€the€Act,€Congress€left€untouched€the€"mays"Ïcontained€in€the€Act's€neighboring€judicial„enforcement€provision,Ïthereby€making€only€òòprosecutionóó€of€substantive€SDWA€violations€anÐ À Ðexpressly€mandatory€undertaking.€€It€presumably€did€so€with€theÏunderstanding€that€under€the€Act,€enforcement€requires€the€actionsÏof€two€entities€„„€the€state€enforcement€authority€or€the€U.S.ÏAttorney's€office,€who€must€sue€to€require€compliance,€and€theÏdistrict€court,€which€must€issue€an€injunction€„„€to€bring€about€aÏsubstantive€remedy€under€the€Act.€€"[W]hen€the€same€[provision]Ïuses€both€'may'€and€'shall,'€the€normal€inference€is€that€each€isÏused€in€its€usual€sense€„„€the€one€act€being€permissive,€the€otherÏmandatory."€€òòAndersonóó€v.€òòYungkauóó,€329€U.S.€482,€485€(1947);€òòseeóóÐ Ð $ Ðòòalsoóó€òòBarbierióó€v.€òòRAJ€Acquisition€Corp.óó€(òòIn€re€Barbierióó),€199€F.3dÐ `"°& Ð616,€619„20€(2d€Cir.€1999)€(distinguishing€neighboring€subsectionsÏof€same€section€of€Bankruptcy€Code€based€on€presence€of€"may"€inÏone€provision€and€"shall"€in€the€other€provision).€ò òó óÐ '`", Ðà ` àAdditional€evidence€of€the€preservation€of€equitableÏdiscretion€comes€from€the€fact€that,€in€the€1986€SDWA€amendments,ÏCongress€vested€power€in€the€EPA€to€issue€administrative€orders€forÏminor€SDWA€violations,€and€to€collect€fines€for€those€violations,Ð P- (4 Ðwithout€first€seeking€authorization€from€the€courts.€€òòSeeóó€42€U.S.C.Ð ° Ððð€300g„3(g).€€In€the€report€of€the€Senate€Environment€and€PublicÏWorks€Committee€(which€generated€the€version€of€the€bill€thatÏultimately€became€law)€on€the€enactment€of€these€amendments,€theÏCommittee€stated€that€"[t]he€purpose€of€adding€administrative€orderÏauthority€is€not€to€replace€judicial€enforcement,€but€to€add€aÏcomplementary€enforcement€mechanism."€€S.€Rep.€No.€99„56,€at€9Ï(1986),€òòreprintedóó€òòinóó€1986€U.S.C.C.A.N.€1566,€1574.€€€By€affordingÐ  ð  Ðthe€EPA€an€intermediate€remedy€for€SDWA€violations€that€does€notÏrequire€court€action,€Congress€explicitly€contemplated€a€system€inÏwhich€substantive€violations€of€the€Act€(particularly€minor€ones)Ïwould€not€always€result€in€the€issuance€of€an€injunction.€€òòSeeóóÐ à0 ÐòòRomero„Barceloóó,€456€U.S.€at€317„18.€Ð pÀ Ðà ` àIn€sum,€there€is€substantial€evidence€in€the€SDWA's€textÏand€legislative€history€to€suggest€that€"may"€really€does€meanÏ"may"€in€ðð€300g„3(b).€€While€these€clues€alone€might€not€suffice€toÏeliminate€all€doubt€that€Congress€intended€for€"may"€to€have€aÏpermissive€meaning,€ò òó óat€a€minimum,€they€do€eliminate€the€possibilityÐ @" Ðthat€the€SDWA's€structure€and€purpose€generate€an€"obviousÏinference"€that€the€word€"may"€in€ðð€300g„3(b)€really€meansÏ"shall."ñ×ññÙñ׃/×ñÙññÙñ׃\×ñÙññ×ññ×ñ׃G×ñ×ñÝ ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú18Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€òòRodgersóó,€461€U.S.€at€706;€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€Russ€Winner,€òòTheÐ ð#@( ÐChancellor's€Foot€and€Environmental€Law:€A€Call€for€Better€ReasonedÏDecisions€on€Environmental€Injunctionsóó,€9€Envtl.€L.€477,€506€(1979)Ð @ Ð("If€.€.€.€the€legislation€explicitly€requires€that€'an€injunctionÏmust€issue,'€a€court€.€.€.€has€no€choice€but€to€comply.€€Most€ofÏthe€time,€however,€the€legislature€is€silent€as€to€injunctiveÏremedy€or€merely€says€that€an€injunction€'may'€issue.€€In€thisÏcase,€courts€usually€retain€their€full€equitable€discretion.").Ìà ` àOur€conclusion€on€the€SDWA's€preservation€of€equitableÏdiscretion€also€is€reinforced€by€other€portions€of€the€Act'sÏjudicial„enforcement€provisionò òó ó.€€While€the€United€States€reliesÐ À Ðheavily€on€language€in€ðð€300g„3(b)€referring€to€compliance€with€theÏAct,€and€specifically€on€statements€to€the€effect€that€the€EPAÏAdministrator€is€authorized€to€"bring€a€civil€action€.€.€.€toÏrequire€compliance"€and€that€a€court€hearing€an€SDWA€suit€"mayÏenter€.€.€.€such€judgment€as€protection€of€public€health€mayÏrequire,€taking€into€consideration€the€time€necessary€to€comply,"Ïwe€find€that€such€language,€when€compared€to€similar€language€inÏother€federal€enforcement€statutes,€does€not€compel€the€conclusionÏthat€the€court€must€issue€an€injunction.€€Ìà ` àTake,€for€example,€the€provision€empowering€the€EPA€toÏbring€a€civil€action€"to€require€compliance."€€Similar€languageÏappears€in€a€number€of€other€statutes'€judicial„enforcementÏprovisions,€and€generally€has€been€construed€as€leaving€intact€theÏjudiciary's€equitable€discretion€to€deny€the€issuance€of€anÏinjunction.€€The€courts€reaching€this€interpretation€have€reasonedÐ 0*€%0 Ðthat€the€language€simply€represents€Congress's€grant€of€authorityÏto€an€agency€to€bring€a€suit€to€require€compliance€„„€in€otherÏwords,€that€the€agency€can€òòseekóó€to€require€compliance€through€legalÐ Ð  Ðprocess.€€Ìà ` àFor€instance,€under€the€judicial„enforcement€provision€ofÏthe€Securities€and€Exchange€Act€of€1934,€15€U.S.C.€ðð€78u(d)(1),€theÏSEC€"may,€in€its€discretion,€bring€an€action€.€.€.€to€enjoin€.€.€.Ïacts€or€practices"€violating€the€statute's€substantive€provisions.€ÏIn€òòSECóó€v.€òòFrankóó,€388€F.2d€486,€491€(2d€Cir.€1968),€Judge€Friendly,Ð 0€  Ðwriting€for€the€panel,€found€such€language€not€susceptible€of€theÏinterpretation€that€equitable€discretion€had€been€stripped€from€theÏdistrict€court:€"Such€bland€language€affords€no€sufficient€basisÏfor€concluding€that€Congress€meant€special€weight€to€be€given€theÏCommission's€decision€to€allow€its€staff€to€institute€suit.€€IfÏCongress€wishes€to€go€further,€it€should€say€so€in€language€all€canÏunderstand."€€Likewise,€inòòóó€òòFederal€Power€Commissionóó€v.€òòArizonaÐ  p ÐEdison€Co.óó,€194€F.2d€679,€684„86€(9th€Cir.€1952),€the€NinthÐ °  ÐCircuit,€reaching€an€analogous€conclusion€with€respect€to€identicalÏlanguage€in€the€judicial„enforcement€provision€of€the€Federal€PowerÏCommission€Act,€16€U.S.C.€ðð€825m(a),€held€that€the€courts'Ïtraditional€powers€of€equity€had€not€been€eviscerated€by€theÏagency's€power€to€bring€suit€to€require€compliance.€€AnotherÏexample€of€this€usage,€albeit€in€a€slightly€different€context,Ïappears€in€the€citizen„suit€provision€of€the€Clean€Water€Act;€underÏthis€statute,€suits€may€not€be€instituted€by€individuals€orÏorganizations€if€the€EPA€or€the€appropriate€state€enforcementÏauthority€"has€commenced€and€is€diligently€pursuing€a€civil€orÐ P- (4 Ðcriminal€action€.€.€.€òòto€require€complianceóó"€with€the€Act'sÐ ° Ðsubstantive€provisions.€€òòóó33€U.S.C.€ðð€1365(b)(1)(B)òòóó€(emphasisÐ @ Ðadded).€€Despite€this€reference€to€"requir[ing]€compliance"€in€theÏstatutory€language,€the€Supreme€Court€held€in€òòRomero„Barceloóó€thatÐ ` ° Ðthe€Clean€Water€Act€does€not€require€the€issuance€of€an€injunctionÏin€all€cases€where€a€statutory€violation€has€been€identified.€€456ÏU.S.€at€313€(holding€that€"[t]he€grant€of€jurisdiction€to€ensureÏcompliance€with€a€statute€hardly€suggests€a€duty€to€do€so€under€anyÏand€all€circumstances").€€These€examples€demonstrate€that€aÏstatutory€provision€that€gives€an€agency€the€power€to€litigate€"toÏrequire€compliance,"€without€more,€does€not€necessarily€obligateÏthe€court€asked€to€rule€on€such€a€suit€to€issue€any€particularÏremedy.ñ×ññÙñ׃0×ñÙññÙñ׃]×ñÙññ×ññ×ñ׃H×ñ×ñÝ ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú19Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð pÀ Ðà ` àThe€other€passage€in€ðð€300g„3(b)€referred€to€by€theÏUnited€States€„„€the€one€stating€that€courts€are€to€consider€"theÏtime€necessary€to€comply€and€the€availability€of€alternative€waterÏsupplies"€in€fashioning€equitable€relief€„„€is€better€construed€toÏmean€that,€to€the€extent€a€courtòòóó€issues€a€"judgment€as€publicÐ @" Ðhealth€may€require"€that€òòdoesóó€include€the€filtration€remedy€(which,Ð Ð $ Ðas€the€district€court€noted,€will€usually€be€the€case),€it€mustÏallow€the€public€water€system€reasonable€time€to€comply€in€light€ofÏthe€availability€of€alternative€water€sources.€€From€the€commandÏthat€a€court€must€consider€the€time€necessary€to€comply€when€itÏdoes€order€a€"judgment€as€public€health€may€require,"€however,€itÏdoes€not€necessarily€follow€that€the€court€must€òòalwaysóó€exact€theÐ 0*€%0 Ðtype€of€compliance€sought€by€the€agency€whenever€a€violation€of€theÏAct€has€been€identified.€€This€construction€is€supported€by€theÏfact€that,€in€spite€of€the€ubiquitousness€of€the€term€"compliance"Ïin€ðð€300g„3(b),€courts€are€not€expressly€limited€by€the€statute€toÏentering€judgments€that€"require€compliance,"€but€instead€have€beenÏgranted€the€leeway€to€issue€"judgment[s]€as€protection€of€publicÏhealth€may€require."€€òòCf.óó€òòNatural€Res.€Def.€Councilóó€v.€òòSouthwestÐ `  ÐMarine,€Inc.óó,€236€F.3d€985,€1000€(9th€Cir.€2000)€(holding€that,Ð  ð  Ðwith€respect€to€judicial„enforcement€provision€in€Clean€Water€ActÏlimiting€courts€to€"enforce[ment]"€of€existing€standards€andÏorders,€"the€authority€to€'enforce'€an€existing€requirement€is€moreÏthan€the€authority€to€declare€that€the€requirement€exists€andÏrepeat€that€it€must€be€followed"),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€121€S.€Ct.€2242Ð pÀ Ð(2001).Ìà ` àIn€sum,€while€the€United€States's€position€certainly€isÏnot€implausible,€the€fact€that€the€MWRA's€interpretation€of€theÏSDWA€is€at€least€as€plausible€effectively€forecloses€theÏpossibility€that€a€"necessary€and€inescapable€inference"€exists€inÏthe€Act€as€to€the€necessity€for€filtration€upon€a€finding€of€aÏregulatory€violation.€€òòPorteróó,€328€U.S.€at€398.€Ð `"°& Ðà ` àThe€United€States€insists€that,€in€terms€of€breadth€ofÏequitable€discretion,€the€SDWA€bears€an€uncanny€resemblance€to€theÏEndangered€Species€Act€(ESA)€„„€a€statute€found€by€the€SupremeÏCourt€to€have€removed€courts'€authority€to€withhold€injunctiveÏrelief.€€òòHillòòóó,€óó437€U.S.€at€ò òó ó193„95.€€In€òòHillóó,€the€Supreme€CourtÐ 0*€%0 Ðfound€that€the€ESA€had€flatly€banned€federal€agencies€from€carryingÏout€activities€which€threaten€to€destroy€or€modify€the€habitat€ofÐ  -ð(4 Ðendangered€species.€€òòId.óó€at€194.€€Through€an€examination€of€theÐ ° Ðstatute's€voluminous€text€and€legislative€history,€the€Court€foundÏthat€Congress€"ha[d]€spoken€in€the€plainest€of€words,€making€itÏabundantly€clear€that€the€balance€had€been€struck€in€favor€ofÏaffording€endangered€species€the€highest€of€priorities€.€.€.€."€ÏòòId.óó€€In€so€finding,€moreover,€the€Court€essentially€ignored€theÐ € Ð  Ðstatute's€judicial„enforcement€provision,€16€U.S.C.€ðð€1540(g),Ïwhich,€far€from€expressly€requiring€the€issuance€of€an€injunctionÏupon€the€finding€of€a€statutory€violation,€merely€gives€districtÏcourts€"jurisdiction€.€.€.€to€enforce€any€.€.€.€provision"€of€theÏAct.ñ×ññÙñ׃1×ñÙññÙñ׃^×ñÙññ×ññ×ñ׃I×ñ×ñÝ ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú20Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Attempting€to€tether€this€case€to€that€precedent,€the€UnitedÐ P  ÐStates€flags€what€it€sees€as€analogous€indicia€of€legislativeÏintent€with€respect€to€the€filtration€mandate€in€the€SDWA,€andÏurges€us€to€overlook€the€similarly€permissive€nature€of€the€SDWA'sÏjudicial„enforcement€provision.€Ìà ` àWhile€there€is€force€to€this€argument,€in€the€finalÏanalysis€we€do€not€believe€that€it€holds€water.€€The€principalÏproblem€with€the€United€States's€effort€to€juxtapose€the€ESA€andÏthe€SDWA€is€that,€for€reasons€discussed€above,€the€overwhelmingÏevidence€of€congressional€intent€that€the€Supreme€Court€found€inÏòòHillóó€simply€does€not€exist€with€respect€to€the€filtration€mandateÐ ð#@( Ðin€the€SDWA.€€The€United€States€points€us€to€no€specific€evidenceÏthat€the€narrow€goal€of€òòfiltrationóó€(as€opposed€to€the€broader€aimÐ '`", Ðof€safe€drinking€water)€was€to€receive€the€overarching€priorityÐ  (ð#. Ðthat€endangered„species€protection€garnered€under€the€ESA.€€As€theÏdistrict€court€noted,€by€imposing€the€disinfection€mandate€directlyÏeven€as€it€imposed€the€filtration€remedy€indirectly,€CongressÏ"stopped€short€of€ordering€filtration€as€an€all„encompassingÏpreventive."€€òòMWRA€IIóóòò,€óó97€F.€Supp.€2d€at€165.ò òó ó€€As€for€the€SupremeÐ ð @ ÐCourt's€failure€to€consider€the€language€of€the€ESA's€judicial„¼enforcement€provision€in€òòHillóó,€we€note€that€in€subsequent€cases,Ð `°  Ðsuch€as€òòUnited€Statesóó€v.€òòOakland€Cannabis€Buyers'€Cooperativeóó,€theÐ ð@  ÐCourt€has€found€that€piece€of€legislative€evidence€to€beÏparticularly€relevant€in€ascertaining€the€extent€to€which€equitableÏdiscretion€had€been€retained.€€òòSeeóó€___€U.S.€___,€121€S.€Ct.€1711,Ð  ð Ð1721€(2001)€(analyzing€judicial„enforcement€provision€of€ControlledÏSubstances€Act,€21€U.S.C.€ðð€882(a),€and€concluding€that€theÏdistrict€court€"is€not€textually€required€by€any€clear€and€validÏlegislative€command"€in€that€provision€to€issue€an€injunction)Ï(internal€quotation€marks€omitted).€€Whether€or€not€the€approachÏtaken€in€òòHillòòóó€óówith€respect€to€the€ESA€is€still€"good€law,"€we€areÐ P  Ðnot€persuaded€that€a€similar€approach€is€appropriate€here.ò òó óÐ à0" Ðà ` àApart€from€its€arguments€concerning€the€text€of€the€SDWA,Ïthe€United€States€also€pursues€a€broader€line€of€attack€in€thisÏappeal:€that€the€district€court's€decision€excuses€an€ongoingÏstatutory€violation,€and€therefore€exceeds€the€scope€of€equitableÏdiscretion€that€may€be€exercised€under€òòanyóó€statute.€€WhileÐ °'#, Ðacknowledging€the€Supreme€Court's€statement€that€"a€federal€judgeÏsitting€as€chancellor€is€not€mechanically€obligated€to€grant€anÏinjunction€for€every€violation€of€law,"€òòRomero„Barceloóó,€456€U.S.€atÐ `,°'2 Ð313,€the€United€States€contends€that€the€Court€has€never€authorizedÐ ð-@)4 Ðcourts€to€do€what€ñÖñit€claims€ñÖñthe€district€court€did€in€this€case€„„Ïnamely,€to€permit€a€water€system€in€violation€of€the€SDWA€to€remainÏin€violation€indefinitely.€€In€pressing€this€argument,€the€UnitedÏStates€points€to€three€of€the€Court's€seminal€cases€in€this€areaÏfrom€the€last€century:€òòHecht€Co.óó,€òòRomero„Barceloóó,€and€òòVillage€ofÐ ð @ ÐGambellóó.€Even€though€the€Supreme€Court€endorsed€the€districtÐ € Ð  Ðcourt's€exercise€of€equitable€discretion€in€each€of€thoseÏdecisions,€the€United€States€correctly€observes€that€the€districtÏcourt's€order€in€all€three€cases€was€designed€to€lead€to€complianceÏwith€the€relevant€statute.ñ×ññÙñ׃2×ñÙññÙñ׃_×ñÙññ×ññ×ñ׃J×ñ×ñÝ ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú21Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€€By€declining€to€order€the€MWRA€toÐ À Ðinstall€a€filtration€system,€the€United€States€contends,€theÏdistrict€court€was€unfaithful€to€these€precedents€by€"allow[ing]Ïthe€MWRA€to€remain€out€of€compliance€with€the€SDWA€and€the€SWTRÏpermanently."€Ìà ` àWe€agree€that€in€all€three€of€these€cases€„„€and,€indeed,Ïin€all€cases€in€which€the€Supreme€Court€has€spoken€in€this€area€„„Ïthe€violating€party€was€not€permitted€to€evade€the€substantiveÏrequirements€of€the€statute.€€We€disagree,€however,€with€the€UnitedÐ @" ÐStates's€argument€that€the€court€is€permitting€noncompliance€inÏthis€case.€€òòóó"[W]hen€a€court€of€equity€exercises€its€discretion,€itÐ @ Ðmay€not€consider€the€advantages€and€disadvantages€of€nonenforcementÏof€the€statute,€but€only€the€advantages€and€disadvantages€ofÏemploying€the€extraordinary€remedy€of€injunction€over€the€otherÏavailable€methods€of€enforcement."€€òòOakland€Cannabis€Buyers'€Coop.óó,Ð € Ð  Ð121€S.€Ct.€at€1722€(internal€citations€and€quotation€marksÏomitted).€€Because€the€court's€order€is€designed€to€ensure€that€theÏAct's€paramount€objective€of€safe€drinking€water€remains€fulfilledÏin€the€future,€the€district€court€did€not,€as€the€United€StatesÏargues,€sanction€perpetual€noncompliance€with€the€Act.€€òòSeeóó€òòVillageÐ P  Ðof€Gambellóó,€480€U.S.€at€544€(directing€courts€charged€with€ensuringÐ à0 Ðcompliance€with€a€statute€to€focus€on€"the€underlying€substantiveÏpolicy€the€process€was€designed€to€effect").€€Contrary€to€theÏsituation€in€òòHillóó,€this€is€not€a€case€where€"Congress'€order€ofÐ à Ðpriorities,€as€expressed€in€the€statute,€would€be€deprived€ofÏeffect€if€the€District€Court€could€choose€to€deny€injunctiveÏrelief."€€òòOakland€Cannabis€Buyers'€Coop.óó,€121€S.€Ct.€at€1721Ð @" Ð(internal€quotation€marks€omitted)€(citing€òòHillóó,€437€U.S.€at€194).€Ð Ð $ Ðà ` àAlthough€the€EPA€is€correct€that€filtration€is€anÏabsolute€requirement€under€the€SDWA/SWTR€regime€for€those€waterÏsystems€that€fail€to€meet€the€avoidance€criteria,€the€preeminenceÏof€filtration€in€bringing€about€the€goal€of€safe€drinking€water€isÏprimarily€a€function€of€the€Rule,€not€the€Act.€€The€purpose€of€theÏAct,€in€the€words€of€its€drafters,€is€to€"assure€that€water€supplyÏsystems€serving€the€public€meet€minimum€national€standards€forÏprotection€of€public€health."€òòóó€H.R.€Rep.€No.€93„1185,€òòreprintedóó€òòinóóÐ P- (4 Ð1974€U.S.C.C.A.N.€6454,€6454.€€In€other€words,€the€framers€of€theÏAct€were€concerned€with€ensuring€that€consumers€of€public€waterÏsystems€have€access€to€safe€drinking€water,€with€the€safety€of€theÏwater€to€be€judged€according€to€objective€criteria€developed€by€theÏEPA.€€Filtration,€while€serving€an€important€role€in€furtherance€ofÏthe€objective€of€safe€water,€is€merely€a€prophylactic€remedy€madeÏavailable€to€help€bring€about€that€objective.€€One€fact€underscoresÏthis€point€particularly€well,€and€demonstrates€why€the€exercise€ofÏequitable€discretion€is€especially€appropriate€with€respect€to€thisÏparticular€regulatory€scheme:€under€the€Act,€if€a€water€systemÏnever€violates€any€of€the€avoidance€criteria,€its€water€isÏpresumptively€"safe"€according€to€the€SDWA,€regardless€of€whetherÏit€ever€installs€a€filtration€system.€€In€essence,€the€waterÏsystem's€compliance€with€the€avoidance€criteria€makes€the€waterÏsafe€from€the€EPA's€perspective€„„€a€point€conceded€by€the€UnitedÏStates€at€trialò òó ó.€€We€fail€to€see€how€accomplishment€of€the€Act'sÐ  p Ðsubstantive€goals€is€undermined€by€overlooking€past€violations€ofÏregulatory€deadlines€that€have€no€bearing€on€the€current€or€futureÏpurity€of€the€water€delivered€to€consumers.€€òòSeeóó€ò òó óòòRomero„Barceloóó,Ð Ð $ Ð456€U.S.€at€310€(noting€that€purpose€of€injunctive€relief€is€toÏdeter€future€violations,€not€to€punish€past€ones)€(citing€òòHechtÐ ð#@( ÐCo.óó,€321€U.S.€at€329„30);€òòcf.óó€òòFriends€of€the€Earthóó€v.€òòLaidlawÐ €%Ð * ÐEnvtl.€Servs.€(TOC),€Inc.óó,€528€U.S.€167,€192€(2000)€(holding€thatÐ '`", Ðdistrict€court€had€discretion€under€Clean€Water€Act€"to€determineÏwhich€form€of€relief€is€best€suited,€in€the€particular€case,€òòtoÐ 0*€%0 Ðabate€current€violations€and€deter€future€onesóó")€(emphasis€added).€Ð À+'2 ÐMoreover,€given€that€the€district€court€has€retained€jurisdictionÐ P- (4 Ðin€this€case€for€the€purpose€of€policing€any€future€violation,Ïthereby€allowing€it€to€revisit€the€validity€of€its€earlier€decisionÏnot€to€order€filtration,€the€United€States€has€a€ready€forum€inÏwhich€to€seek€relief€for€any€future€avoidance„criteria€violations.€ÏòòSeeóó€òòRomero„Barceloóó,€456€U.S.€at€320€("Should€it€become€clear€thatÐ ð @ Ð.€.€.€compliance€with€the€[statute]€will€not€be€forthcoming,€theÏstatutory€scheme€and€purpose€would€require€the€court€to€reconsiderÏthe€balance€it€has€struck.").€€Ìà ` àBesides€the€issue€of€ongoing€supervision€to€ensureÏcompliance,€the€case€at€bar€bears€a€close€similarity€to€òòRomero„Ð À ÐBarceloóó€in€at€least€one€other€respect:€the€district€court's€focusÐ P  Ðon€the€relevant€statute's€substantive€purposes,€rather€than€itsÏtechnical€requirements.€€In€òòRomero„Barceloóó,€the€plaintiffs€claimedÐ pÀ Ðthat,€by€allowing€the€Navy€to€continue€bombing€exercises€on€ViequesÏIsland€without€first€having€obtained€a€discharge€permit,€the€courtÏwas€countenancing€an€ongoing€statutory€violation€„„€namely,€theÏunpermitted€discharge€of€ordnance€into€navigable€waters.€€456€U.S.Ïat€314.€€Disagreeing€with€this€characterization,€the€Supreme€CourtÏfound€that,€by€tying€future€Navy€activities€to€its€procurement€ofÏa€discharge€permit,€the€district€court€had€"neither€ignored€theÏstatutory€violation€nor€undercut€the€purpose€and€function€of€theÏpermit€system."€€òòId.óó€at€315.€€This€was€the€case,€according€to€theÐ €%Ð * ÐCourt,€because€"[t]he€integrity€of€the€Nation's€waters,€.€.€.€notÏthe€permit€process,€is€the€purpose€of€the€[statute]."€€òòId.óó€at€314.€Ð  (ð#. ÐSo€it€is€here:€the€manifest€purpose€of€the€SDWA€is€safe€drinkingÏâ âwater,€not€filtration.€€Ð À+'2 Ðà ` àOf€course,€we€are€aware€that€the€filtration€mandate€is,Ïâ âin€some€meaningful€way,€more€"substantive"€than€the€FWPCA's€permitÏrequirement,€and€that,€through€the€1986€amendments€to€the€SDWA,ÏCongress€expressed€its€intent€that€filtration€should€be€used€byÏwater€systems€that€fail€to€meet€the€standards€for€avoidanceÏestablished€by€the€EPA.€€But€in€the€end,€we€believe€that€we€wouldÏdo€far€greater€violence€to€both€the€text€and€the€purpose€of€theÏSDWA€were€we€to€strip€courts€of€the€flexibility€to€shape€equitableÏdecrees€in€appropriate€situations.€€For€as€we€noted€òòinfraóó,€under€ððÐ 0€  Ð300g„3(b),€courts€are€authorized€to€issue€"judgments€as€protectionÏof€public€health€may€require."€€ò òó óMoreover,€by€retaining€jurisdictionÐ P  Ðin€this€case,€the€district€court€has€assumed€the€responsibility€ofÏensuring€that,€through€continued€oversight€of€the€MWRA's€avoidance„¼criteria€compliance,€the€MWRA's€water€supply€will€remain€"safe"Ïaccording€to€the€EPA's€standards.€Ìà ` àThe€United€States's€final€contention€„„€in€reality,€it€isÏnothing€more€than€a€variation€on€the€basic€theme€of€its€appeal€„„Ïis€that€the€district€court,€by€holding€a€trial€on€the€propriety€ofÏapplying€the€filtration€requirement€to€the€MWRA,€arrogated€toÏitself€powers€that€had€been€placed€by€Congress€in€the€hands€of€theÏEPA.€€In€its€view,€the€district€court's€trial€amounted€to€littleÏmore€than€an€improper€reconsideration€of€the€determinations€thatÏthe€EPA€made€in€promulgating€the€Rule.€€Under€the€SDWA,€the€UnitedÏStates€argues,€such€considerations€are€the€exclusive€province€ofÏexperts€in€the€EPA,€not€the€courts,€and€if€the€district€court'sÏâ âdecision€is€left€to€stand,€every€water€system€that€finds€itselfÐ À+'2 Ðdispleased€with€the€SWTR's€rigid€requirements€will€have€theÏopportunity€to€challenge€the€wisdom€of€the€Rule€as€applied€to€it.Ìâ âà ` àThis€line€of€reasoning€only€is€valid€as€far€as€it€goes€„„Ïand€it€does€not€go€as€far€as€the€United€States€suggests.€€It€isÏcertainly€true€that,€in€delegating€authority€to€the€EPA€toÏascertain€circumstances€in€which€"filtration€.€.€.€is€required"€ofÏpublic€water€systems,€42€U.S.C.€ðð€300g„1(b)(7)(C)(i),€CongressÏentrusted€the€EPA€with€the€power€to€make€policy€judgments€withÏrespect€to€the€factors€that€would€make€filtration€mandatory.€€It€isÏalso€true€that,€as€a€general€matter,€those€judgments€are€not€to€beÏsecond„guessed€by€courts.€€But€policy€determinations€in€statutesÏand€regulations€that€Congress€chooses€to€have€enforced€throughÏsuits€in€equity€are€always€subject€to€courts'€equitable€discretionÏ„„€that€is,€at€least€to€the€extent€that€Congress€has€preservedÏdiscretion€in€the€statute€and€has€not€proscribed,€through€itsÏexpressions€of€policy,€the€type€of€equitable€remedy€that€a€courtÏseeks€to€implement.€€If€Congress€has€left€the€door€open€to€a€courtÏto€exercise€equitable€discretion€respecting€enforcement€of€aÏstatute€such€as€the€SDWA,€and€the€court€senses€that€the€equities€ofÏthe€case€may€favor€alternative€means€of€exacting€compliance€withÏthe€statute€(òòi.e.óó,€other€than€the€issuance€of€an€injunction),€theÐ ð#@( Ðcourt€does€not€exceed€the€boundaries€of€its€authority€by€conductingÏfact„finding€for€the€purpose€of€determining€how€best€to€wield€itsÏdiscretion€in€light€of€the€priorities€established€in€the€statute.€ÏThe€district€court€did€not€hold€a€trial€to€revisit€the€underlyingÏwisdom€of€the€SWTR;€rather,€it€held€a€trial€to€ascertain€whether,Ïbased€on€both€the€particular€facts€of€this€case€and€the€substantiveÐ P- (4 Ðgoals€of€the€Act,€it€was€more€appropriate€to€order€filtration€or€toÏpermit€the€MWRA€to€pursue€its€alternative€approach€to€the€extentÏthat€it€could€satisfy€the€Rule's€avoidance€criteria€and€ultimatelyÏprovide€a€safer€water€supply.€Ìà ` àIn€sum,€with€respect€to€the€SDWA,€a€court€must€"take€asÏgiven€the€value€choices€embodied€in€the€statutes€and€policiesÏadministered€by€the€[agency],€but€is€entitled€and€in€fact€requiredÏto€consider€whether€the€enforcement€of€the€[agency's]€order€wouldÏviolate€equitable€principles€that€are€neutral€with€regard€to€thoseÏvalue€choices."€€òòNLRBóó€v.€òòP*I*E€Nationwide,€Inc.óó,€894€F.2d€887,€893Ð À Ð(7th€Cir.€1990).€€In€our€view,€this€is€precisely€what€the€districtÏcourt€did€in€this€case.€€€òòóóÐ à0 Ðò òÓ  ÓConclusionó óÐ pÀ ÐÓÞFÓà ` àUnder€the€SDWA,€it€should€be€a€rare€case€in€which€aÏviolation€of€regulatory€standards€does€not€lead€to€an€injunction€ifÏthe€responsible€enforcement€agency€requests€one.€€This€is€soÏbecause,€as€the€district€court€in€this€case€properly€found,€theÏSDWA€contains€a€"presumption€expressed€by€Congress€.€.€.€thatÏfiltration€will€almost€always€be€the€preferred€remedy€for€a[n]€SWTRÏviolation."€€òòMWRA€Ióó,€48€F.€Supp.€2d€at€72.€€Expressions€by€CongressÐ °"& Ðof€this€sort,€once€identified,€must€be€respected€by€courts,€lestÏequitable€discretion€become€the€judiciary's€preferred€method€ofÏreshaping€policy€determinations€made€by€other€branches€ofÏgovernment€that€are€better€equipped€to€make€them.€€But€the€districtÏcourt,€after€carefully€considering€the€facts,€found€that€this€wasÏindeed€such€a€rare€case,€and€accordingly€declined€to€issue€anÏinjunction.€€In€rendering€this€judgment,€the€court€was€careful€òòòòóóóótoÐ  -ð(4 Ðshape€its€decision€so€as€to€ensure€that€the€MWRA's€drinking€waterÏwill€meet€the€avoidance„criteria€standards€that€are€the€EPA'sÏbenchmarks€for€safety.€€It€exercised€the€flexibility€left€to€it€byÏCongress€in€the€statute,€and€assumed€the€responsibility€ofÏmonitoring€the€MWRA's€compliance€in€the€event€that€futureÏviolations€require€a€reexamination€of€the€decision€not€to€orderÏfiltration.€€In€short,€the€district€court€used€its€equitableÏdiscretion€to€appropriate€ends:€furthering€the€substantive€purposesÏof€the€Act.€€In€so€doing,€it€did€not€act€outside€the€scope€of€itsÏauthority€with€respect€to€the€specific€statute€at€issue€inÏdeclining€to€issue€an€injunction.€€Accordingly,€the€districtÏcourt's€judgment€isÌà ` àòòò òAffirmed.ó óóó€€No€costs.