## Facts

- Legal Environmental Assistance Foundation, Inc. (LEAF) petitioned the EPA to withdraw approval of Alabama’s state Underground Injection Control (UIC) program under Part C of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA).
- LEAF argued Alabama’s UIC program was deficient because it did not regulate hydraulic fracturing of coalbed methane wells as “underground injection.”
- Hydraulic fracturing in coal seams involves injecting fluids (often with sand or other proppants) through a well at high pressure to create or enlarge fractures to increase methane production.
- The EPA denied LEAF’s petition, concluding hydraulic fracturing for coalbed methane production is not “underground injection” under the SDWA and EPA regulations.
- LEAF filed a petition for review in the Eleventh Circuit, which treated EPA’s denial as final agency action reviewable under the SDWA.

## Issues

1. Whether hydraulic fracturing used to produce coalbed methane falls within the SDWA definition of “underground injection” as “the subsurface emplacement of fluids by well injection.”
2. Whether EPA may interpret the SDWA and its UIC regulations to exclude hydraulic fracturing from “underground injection,” allowing Alabama’s UIC program to omit regulation of that activity.
3. Whether EPA’s denial of LEAF’s petition to withdraw approval of Alabama’s UIC program constituted final agency action subject to judicial review.

## Decision

- The court granted LEAF’s petition for review and remanded to the EPA.
- The court held EPA’s interpretation excluding hydraulic fracturing from “underground injection” conflicted with the plain statutory definition and the regulatory scheme.
- The court concluded hydraulic fracturing of coalbed methane wells involves the “subsurface emplacement of fluids by well injection” and therefore must be regulated under UIC programs pursuant to Part C of the SDWA.
- The court rejected EPA’s “primary function” rationale (production rather than disposal) as inconsistent with the statute’s focus on the act of subsurface fluid emplacement.
- The court held EPA’s denial was final agency action because it reflected EPA’s definitive position and carried direct legal consequences for the scope of Alabama’s UIC obligations.

## Legal Principles

- When statutory text is unambiguous, an agency may not adopt a narrowing construction that conflicts with the statute’s plain meaning.
- The SDWA definition of “underground injection” (“subsurface emplacement of fluids by well injection”) is not limited to waste disposal or storage; it covers injections performed for other purposes if they meet the definition.
- EPA UIC regulations requiring states to prohibit “any underground injection” not authorized by permit or rule apply to activities that meet the SDWA definition.
- An agency denial of a petition that sets a definitive position and affects legal obligations can constitute final agency action reviewable by a court.

## Conclusion

The Eleventh Circuit held that coalbed methane hydraulic fracturing is “underground injection” under the SDWA and EPA’s UIC framework, set aside EPA’s contrary interpretation, and remanded for proceedings requiring regulation of such fracturing through the UIC program.


Legal Envtl. Assistance Found., Inc. v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 118 F.3d 1467 (11th Cir. 1997)