HAL WRIGHI ESQ., P.C.

ArronNevs nr L,qw 3781 P.o.nrqN Rtocg Roen Arl,qsr,q" Groncr.q 30327

HOWELL F. WRIGHT (404) 694-7789

hwrightlaw@be
II

south. net

October 30, 2012 Honorable Thomas W. Thrash United States District Judge United States District Court, N.D. Ga. 2188 united States Courthouse 75 Spring Street, S.W. Atlanta, GA 30303-3361

Re: Llnited States and State of Georgia v. CiU of Atlanta; Civil Action No. 98CV-1956-TWT; Reply to Letter by William A. Weinischke dated October 19,
2012.
Judge Thrash,
Itn'?'0t'l'

On Octobernthis firrn submitted a Memorandum in Support For the

Reconsideration of the Underground I"jection Control Prograrn on behalf of its clients NOCRAP (Newly Organized Cittzens Requesting Aquifer Protection); the

Little Mountain Water Association, Inc.; and the South River Watershed Alliance,

Inc. By a note dated October 19,2012,

on this matter.

the lJnited States and the State of Georgia

notified the Court and my clients they did not intend to further engage the public

My clients are outraged that EPA/EPD, the two governmental entities

charged with protecting the waters of the State of Georgia as a public trust

resource, would so blatantly continue to mislead this Court rvith untruths, false innuendos, and misrepresentations. While "the Governments" are entitled to their

"view that there is nothing in Memorandum that has not already been addressed by
these Governments", this "convenient conclusion" is simply

that.

The

Governments' position is contrary to the facts.

The reason the public continues to seek a resolution to the UIC issue is
because this issue has never been adequately addressed by the Ltnited States, the State of Georgia, EPA/EPD, or this

Court. Despite numerous

requests, the

Governments have never rebutted the analysis contained in the Hal Wrisht lesal

opinion dated November 24, 2A0B (the activity of ernplacing waste water through a
shaft into subsurface tunnels is underground injection for which a perrnit is

required under the Safe Drinking Water Act and the Georgia Water Quality Control

Act and its implementing rules and regulations) with a substantive opinion.
Moreover, the Governments have never discussed the controlling 1 ltr' Circuit case,

LEAF-[, within the context of the central issue addressed in that case,
"underground

injection".

The Governments have never offered this Courl a

reasoned explanation of why the emplacement of waste water through a shaft into

subsurface tunnels is consistent with the Georgia Water Quality Control Act.

Finally, neither Government has disavowed that the current activities of emplacing
waste water in underground tunnels threatens ground water resources, and neither
has addressed how these activities can be in the public interest as to justi$z the

Consent Decree and the amendments thereto.

Your Honor, the reason the EPAiEPD and the Governments

will not engage

in a substantive discussion of the [Jnderground Injection Control issue is because

they have nothing of substance with which to engage. It is difficult to comprehend

how both the lJnited States of America and State of Georgia can cavalierly tum a

blind eye to the enforcement/violations of the Safe Drinking Water Act and
Georgia Water Quality Control

Act. This attorney is hard pressed

to defend

system of 'Justice" to his clients in which the public's input and interest is so

summarily dismissed by the very entity charged with assuring such interest is
protected and upheld, the [J.S. Deparlment of

Justice. However,

EPA's/EPD's

position is clear and final; in order to remedy the contamination of the State's
surface waters it is appropriate, as well as consistent w-ith the laws of this Nation

and State, to contaminate Georgia's subsurface waters.

The Court was unequivocal in approving the Consent Decree that it desired

ongoing public participation in the decision making process surrounding the City's
waste water infrastructure. The Court affirmed this desire for active public input
and participation at the time of approving the first amendrnents to the Consent Decree.

If the Court is truly not going to "rubber stamp" the acts of the
Governments, then the Court has but one path, to address the UIC issue in
a

straishtforward and substantive

manner. The Court should affirm what the IJIC

law

is.

Should the Court abdicate this roll and openly defer to the Governments'

eroneous interpretation that the emplacement of waste water through a shaft into
subsurface tunnels is not underground injection, the Court would

be sanctioning a

meaning of the

tIC rules in direct contradiction

to LEAF-L

To paraphrase the Court in I{atural Resources Defense Council, Inc.

U.,S.

v.

8.P.A.,824 F.2d 1258,

l27I (C.A.1, 1987), waiting to enforce the

[Jnderground Injection Control rules and the Georgia Water Quality Control Act

until sometime in the future may well be too late to protect Atlanta,s ground water resources. The purpose of these laws and rules is to protect these resources by
acting now, in the

present. It

is to this end that NOCRAP (Newly Organized

Citizens Requesting Aquifer Protection); the Little Mountain Water Association, Inc'; and the South River Watershed Alliance, Inc. request this Court to declare

the

rules and regulations implementing Georgia's Underground Injection Control program are applicable to the City of Atlanta's activities of emplacing waste water through a shaft ("injection well") into subsurface excavated tunnels and caverns (cavities).

My clients acknowledge the potential difficulties associated with certain aspects arising out of their request. Nevertheless, this Court is particularly
obligated to interpret and apply federal law, especially in circumstances

of

controversy. We anticipate the Court's written opinion clarifying this matter in the
near future.

Respectfully,

f
cc: William A. Weinischke William Bush Sharon Stokes John Hennelly Susan Richardson Marc Goncher Juliet Cohen

lin Wright, Jr.