Aquifer Exemption & the Safe Drinking Water Act

Letter from 1985 Spares about 100 Wells from Shutdown
(John COX, Bakersfield Californian; August 4, 2014)
http://www.bakersfieldcalifornian.com/business/kern-gusher/x603939181/Letter-from-1985-spares-about-100-wells-from-shutdown

California Oil Regulators Add 95 Wells to Review
(John COX, Bakersfield Californian; July 12, 2014)

http://www.bakersfieldcalifornian.com/business/kern-gusher/x634492505/Oil-regulators-focus-on-95-injection-wells

N. B.: Aforementioned article posted on Eaglefordtexas.com by Shane THIELGES

http://eaglefordtexas.com/news/id/130690/california-oil-regulators-add-95-wells-review/

I believe that the statement found on page 2 in the following letter written by Eric JANTZ, Staff Attorney regarding The Safe Drinking Water Act and Energy and Mineral Resource Development says it quite eloquently:

“Nevertheless, Congress did not intend to make protection of water sources secondary to mineral development.”

Aquifer Exemption Letter to U. S. EPA Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6 on Behalf of the Eastern Diné Navajo Against Uranium Mining (ENDAUM) [Eric JANTZ, New Mexico Environmental Law Center; August 6, 2012]

http://nmenvirolaw.org/images/pdf/2012-08_AQUIFER_EXEMPTION_LETTER.pdf

United States Code, Title 42, Chapter 6A, Subchapter XII, Part C, §300h

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/pdf/uscode42/lii_usc_TI_42_CH_6A_SC_XII_PA_C_SE_300h.pdf

N. B.:  Please note 42 USC §300h(b)(1) (A – D), and §300h(b)(3)(C).

Gratitude extended to the Diné Navajo Nation.