Phillips Petroleum Company, Phillips Oil Company v. United States Environmental Protection Agency

Phillips Petroleum Company and Phillips Oil Company (“Phillips”), petition this court to review an Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) regulation establishing an underground injection control program for the Osage Indian Mineral Reserve in Oklahoma. The underground injection control program regulation was established pursuant to the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974, Section 1401, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300f-300j-10 (1982) (“SDWA”). Issues raised by Phillips include: (1) whether the SDWA empowers the EPA to promulgate an underground injection control program regulation for the Osage Indian Mineral Reserve; (2) whether the EPA violated the Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 500-576 (1982) (“APA”), by declining to extend the informal rule comment period 30 days; and (3) whether the mechanical integrity requirement of the Osage underground injection control regulation was lawful. The EPA, in turn, challenges this court’s jurisdiction to entertain Phillips’ petition, asserting that review belongs to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

For the reasons discussed below, we hold that the Osage underground injection control regulation is reviewable in this court. We also hold that the SDWA empowers the EPA to promulgate underground injection control regulations for Indian lands. Phillips’ other contentions are without merit, and we therefore uphold the Osage injection program regulation promulgated by the EPA for the Osage Indian Mineral Reserve in its entirety.

I.

INTRODUCTION

A. The Safe Drinking Water Act.

The SDWA establishes a regulatory mechanism to insure the quality of publicly supplied drinking water. 1 Part C of the SDWA establishes a regulatory program designed to prevent the endangerment of underground drinking water sources. In particular, Part C envisions a joint federal-state system to regulate the discharge of pollutants by injection wells into underground water systems. 2 The EPA is directed to promulgate regulations establishing the minimum requirements for state underground injection control programs. Section 1421, 42 U.S.C. § 300h. 3 No injec *548 tion is to be allowed that may endanger “drinking water sources.” Section 1421(b)(1), 42 U.S.C. § 300h(b)(l). An injection is presumed to endanger drinking water sources if it might result in a public water system’s “not complying with any national primary drinking water regulation” or might otherwise adversely affect the public health. Section 1421(d)(2), 42 U.S.C. § 300h(d)(2).

Individual states may apply and receive approval (“primacy”) to implement their own underground injection control programs if they meet the minimum requirements established by the EPA’s regulations. Section 1422, 42 U.S.C. § 300h-l. 4

If a state fails to adopt or adequately enforce an approved underground injection control program, the EPA must install its own federally administered program for the state or that part of the state not covered by an EPA approved program. Section 1422(c), 42 U.S.C. § 300h-l(c).

As passed in 1974, the SDWA made no mention of Indian tribes or Indian lands other than to include an “Indian tribal organization” within the definition of “municipality.” Section 1401(10), 42 U.S.C. § 300f(10). In 1986, Congress amended Part E of the SDWA by adding section 1451 which specifically authorizes the Administrator of the EPA “to treat Indian tribes as States under this title.” Safe Drinking Water Amendments of 1986, Pub.L. No. 99-339, § 302, 100 Stat. 642, 665-66 (1986). 5

*549 Moreover, the 1986 amendments altered section 1422 of the SDWA to clarify the role of the EPA where Indian lands are concerned vis-a-vis. powers now permitted to the tribes:

If an applicable underground injection control program does not exist for an Indian Tribe, the Administrator shall prescribe such a program pursuant to subsection (c) of this section, and consistent with section 1421(b), within 270 days after the enactment of the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1986, unless an Indian Tribe first obtains approval to assume primary enforcement responsibility for underground injection control.

Pub.L. No. 99-339, § 302, 100 Stat. 666.

An Indian Tribe may assume primary enforcement responsibility for underground injection control consistent with the regulations the Administrator has prescribed pursuant to Part C and Section 1451 of the SDWA. Id. However, “[ujntil an Indian Tribe assumes primary enforcement responsibility, the currently applicable underground injection control program shall continue to apply.” Id.

B. Regulatory Framework and Phillips’ Participation.

In 1980, the EPA promulgated the national technical minimum requirements for all state underground injection control programs. 45 Fed.Reg. 42,472 (June 24,1980); 45 Fed.Reg. 33,290 (May 19, 1980). 6 Subsequently, the EPA proposed a regulation for promulgating EPA administered underground injection control programs for Indian lands that would satisfy the minimum requirements of section 1421, but also consider tribal preferences and allow maximum uniformity with adjacent state programs. 47 Fed.Reg. 17,578 (Apr. 23, 1982). In 1983, the EPA promulgated a final rule allowing the agency to prescribe “alternate” underground injection control programs for Indian lands. 40 C.F.R. § 144.2 (1985). 7

On December 2, 1981, the EPA approved Oklahoma’s application for underground injection control primacy for the entire state except the Osage Indian Reserve. 46 Fed. Reg. 58,488-89 (Dec. 2,1981). The State of Oklahoma made no attempt to assert jurisdiction over the Osage Reserve and does not contest the EPA’s authority to promulgate the Osage regulation. Thereafter, the EPA began to study and develop an underground injection control program for the Osage Reserve. The EPA held a public hearing on October 14, 1983, outlining the draft Osage and Indian lands underground injection control programs for Oklahoma. 48 Fed.Reg. 40,098-99 (Sept. 2, 1983). On May 11, 1984, the EPA published the proposed underground injection control rule for the Osage Reserve. Public comments were accepted for 45 days. Phillips participated in the public hearing and filed extensive comments, but requested a 30-day extension of the comment period. The EPA denied Phillips’ request and the final Osage underground injection control program was adopted on May 11, 1984. 49 Fed.Reg. 20,238 and 20,256-63 (May 11, 1984).

On January 10, 1985, Phillips filed a petition for review of the Osage underground injection control regulation in this court. The next day, Phillips filed an identical petition for review in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. That court is holding Phillips’ petition in abeyance until we determine whether we *550 have jurisdiction to hear the present case. Phillips Petroleum Co. v. EPA, No. 85-1026 (D.C.Cir.1985) (Order of March 11, 1985; modified May 23, 1985). On March 5, 1985, the EPA filed a motion to transfer the case to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. By Order dated April 9, 1985, we denied the motion to transfer, but directed the parties to address the jurisdictional issue in their briefs on the merits.

II.

JURISDICTION

The EPA contends that only the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia may consider Phillips’ petition. Phillips responds by arguing that judicial review of its petition falls under another section of the SDWA authorizing review in any appropriate circuit.

Prior to 1986, the SDWA’s review provisions read in part as follows:

A petition for review of—

(1) action of the administrator in promulgating ... any regulation for State underground injection control programs under section 300h of this title, or any general regulation for the administration of this subchapter may be filed only in ble United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit; and

(2) action of the administrator in promulgating any other regulation under this subchapter ... may be filed only in the United States Court of appeals for the appropriate circuit.

Section 1448(a), 42 U.S.C. § 300j-7(a).

The 1986 amendments of the SDWA changed the judicial review section with respect to the underground water provisions. The theory for that change is apparently that diversity of review provided by all the circuits is more valuable than developing expertise and uniformity by centralized review in the D.C. Circuit. 8 The judicial review provisions now read as follows:

A petition for review of—

(1) actions pertaining to the establishment of national primary drinking water regulations (including maximum contaminant level goals) may be filed only in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit; and

(2) any other action of the Administrator under this Act may be filed in the circuit in which the petitioner resides or transacts business which is directly affected by the action.

*551 Pub.L. No. 99-339, § 303, 100 Stat. 667 (amending section 1448 of the SDWA).

Subsection (a)(1) of section 1448 applies to Part B of the SDWA. Phillips’ petition relates to Part C which falls under subsection (a)(2) of section 1448 as “any other action of the Administrator” under the SDWA. Therefore, the 1986 amendments give us jurisdiction. The question is whether the newly conferred jurisdiction applies to previously filed but still pending petitions, such as Phillips’. We hold that it does.

The Supreme Court has held that “when a law conferring jurisdiction is repealed without any reservation to pending cases, all cases fall with the law.” Bruner v. United States, 343 U.S. 112, 116-17, 72 S.Ct. 581, 584-85, 96 L.Ed. 786 (1952); accord Ex parte McCardle, 74 U.S. (7 Wall) 506, 19 L.Ed. 264 (1868); Garrett v. Bamford, 582 F.2d 810, 817 (3d Cir.1978); Adams v. Brinegar, 521 F.2d 129 (7th Cir. 1975); Roger v. Ball, 497 F.2d 702 (4th Cir.1974); De Rodulfa v. United States, 461 F.2d 1240 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 949, 93 S.Ct. 270, 34 L.Ed.2d 220 (1972). “Conversely, a statutory expansion of jurisdiction suffices to vest power in federal courts to adjudicate cases which arose prior to enactment of the jurisdictional statute.” Garrett, 582 F.2d at 817. As the Supreme Court has consistently held, congressional alteration of the subject matter jurisdiction of federal courts results in retroactive application to pending cases. United States v. Alabama, 362 U.S. 602, 80 S.Ct. 924, 4 L.Ed.2d 982 (1960); Bruner, 343 U.S. at 116-17, 72 S.Ct. at 584-85.

The 1986 SDWA jurisdiction amendment “takes away no substantive right, but simply changes the tribunal that is to hear the case.” Hallowell v. Commons, 239 U.S. 506, 508, 36 S.Ct. 202, 203, 60 L.Ed. 409 (1916). Indeed, “Congress has not altered the nature or validity of petitioner’s rights,” Bruner, 343 U.S. at 117, 72 S.Ct. at 584-85; see also, McGee v. International Life Insurance Co., 355 U.S. 220, 224, 78 S.Ct. 199, 201-02, 2 L.Ed.2d 223 (1957), but has simply withdrawn jurisdiction from the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia and, in its place, vested jurisdiction over underground injection control programs in the “circuit in which the petitioner resides or transacts business which is directly affected by the action” of the Administrator, Pub.L. No. 99-339, § 303, 100 Stat. 667. Since the statutory changes are purely jurisdictional in nature and do not affect the ultimate availability of relief for the claims at issue, this court is the proper forum to entertain Phillips’ petition. 9

III.

APPLICATION OF PART C OF THE SDWA (PROTECTION OF UNDERGROUND SOURCES OF DRINKING WATER) TO INDIAN LANDS

Phillips first challenges the regulation in question by arguing that the EPA had no jurisdiction over Indian lands. 10 Brief for Petitioners at 14. Before examining that position, we note that this issue *552 cannot recur and in the future will be no more than a historical curiosity, probably confined to this case. The 1986 amendments to the SDWA resolve any doubt concerning coverage of the SDWA by expressly including Indian tribes. Pub.L. No. 99-339, § 302, 100 Stat. 665-66.

We must also address the EPA’s strenuous arguments that Phillips is foreclosed from asserting its jurisdictional challenge. The EPA makes two points: (a) Phillips did not first raise the issue before the agency as is normally required with respect to objections to proceedings of an administrative agency, United States v. L.A. Tucker Truck Lines, 344 U.S. 33, 37, 73 S.Ct. 67, 69, 97 L.Ed. 54 (1952); Unemployment Compensation Commission of Alaska v. Aragon, 329 U.S. 143, 155, 67 S.Ct. 245, 251, 91 L.Ed. 136 (1946); Wilson v. Hodel, 758 F.2d 1369, 1373 (10th Cir.1985); accord NLRB v. Thompson Transport Co., 406 F.2d 698, 701-02 (10th Cir.1969); Garvey v. Freeman, 397 F.2d 600, 611 (10th Cir.1968); and, (b) Phillips’ challenge is untimely because it was not brought within 45 days after the EPA promulgated 40 C.F.R. § 144.2, a general regulation articulating its jurisdiction over Indian lands. Section 1448(a), 42 U.S.C. § 300j-7(a); see generally American Association of Meat Processors v. Costle, 556 F.2d 875, 876-77 (8th Cir.1977) (Federal Water Pollution Control Act); Lloyd A. Fry Roofing Co. v. EPA, 554 F.2d 885, 892-93 (8th Cir.1977) (Clean Air Act); Granite City Steel Co. v. EPA, 501 F.2d 925, 926-28 (7th Cir.1974) (Clean Air Act); cf. Selco Supply Co. v. EPA, 632 F.2d 863 (10th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 1030, 101 S.Ct. 1740, 68 L.Ed.2d 225 (1981).

As the EPA points out, Phillips is raising the jurisdictional issue for the first time in its petition for review of the agency’s action. Such belated timing is unfortunate. Phillips has both known of and participated in the EPA’s rulemaking process with respect to Indian lands for a number of years without once challenging the agency’s jurisdiction. Doing so now appears to be little more than an afterthought. It is a disservice to the agency, other affected parties, and to an orderly rulemaking process to thus omit or delay such fundamental challenges, even if legally permissible.

However, we cannot overlook an issue of jurisdiction as basic as that asserted here. If the SDWA did not apply in relevant part to Indian lands when the EPA attempted to assume and exercise jurisdiction under the SDWA, we would take notice of that jurisdictional defect on our own initiative. Accordingly, we entertain the question of the reach of the statute. We do so in the exercise of our own discretion, in the interest of judicial economy, and to put the matter to rest in the context of this limited time period. Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U.S. 106, 96 S.Ct. 2868, 49 L.Ed.2d 826 (1976); United States v. Cheama, 783 F.2d 165 (10th Cir.1986); Pell v. Azar Nut Co., 711 F.2d 949 (10th Cir.1983); Gomes v. Williams, 420 F.2d 1364 (10th Cir.1970). It may be that Phillips’ legal arguments in favor of its right to bring up the issue at this late date also have merit. But in view of the exercise of our own discretion in the matter we do not find it necessary to explore in depth the positions of either party on the timeliness of the jurisdictional issue. 11

The nub of Phillips’ jurisdiction argument is that the EPA can only regulate under Part C of the SDWA where state governments can, but fail to do so. All parties agree that the Oklahoma state government has no power to prescribe an underground injection control program regulating the Osage Indian Reserve. Therefore, Phillips argues, the EPA has no power either. The matter is supposedly left by Congress to the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

*553 Phillips develops its position as follows.

The EPA grant of authority to prescribe underground injection control programs is codified as subsection (c) of section 1422, 42 U.S.C. § 300h-l(c), which provides:

(c) If the Administrator disapproves a State’s program (or part thereof) under subsection (b)(2) of this section, if the Administrator determines under subsection (b)(3) of this section that a State no longer meets the requirements of clause (i) or (ii) of subsection (b)(1)(A) of this section, or if a State fails to submit an application or notice before the date of expiration of the period specified in subsection (b)(1) of this section, the Administrator shall by regulation within 90 days after the date of such disapproval, determination, or expiration (as the case may be) prescribe (and may from time to time by regulation revise) a program applicable to such State meeting the requirements of section 300(h)(b) of this title.

As set forth in subsection (c), when a “State” fails to implement or maintain a program as required, then, and only then, the EPA shall prescribe a program “applicable to such State.” (emphasis added). Section 1422, 42 U.S.C. § 300h-1(a), requires that the Administrator of the EPA list the states subject to the SDWA. Oklahoma was listed. No Indian tribe or land was listed.

A major underlying premise of Phillips’ argument is that Part C of the SDWA refers only to states as sovereign political entities — not geographic areas. There is much to support that premise. “State” is always capitalized in the SDWA, and appears as a noun. Sections 1421 and 1422 of the SDWA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300h and 300h-l, concentrate on actions by state government entities (adoption and implementation of programs, issuance of permits, prohibitions, authorizations, inspections, monitoring, recordkeeping, reporting, and so on). State is defined by the SDWA, insofar as pertinent here, as referring only to “the several States.” Section 1401, 42 U.S.C. § 300f(13).

Phillips thus concludes that a literal reading of the statute shows it does not and cannot invest the EPA with jurisdiction over the Osage Mineral Reserve, or any other Indian land, reservation or tribe which is not under the jurisdiction of a state government. From a technician’s standpoint the argument is a strong one. The statute clearly reflects congressional concern with the state-federal partnership. It shows that the drafters did not expressly address the questions of Indian lands or Indian sovereignty, but were concentrating on the major thrust of the SDWA. The question is whether the argument is so strong that it absolutely precludes any interpretation of the statute which would allow it to apply to Indian lands; so strong that it compels the conclusion that the SDWA did not cover vast areas of the United States, until amended in 1986.

We are not persuaded by Phillips. Its view of the statute is too narrow. Considering the amount of oil and gas exploration and production on Indian lands from 1974 to 1986, the SDWA would be eviscerated in large part by Phillips’ interpretation. The statute is sufficiently ambiguous on its face to permit us to explore and apply congressional intent, search for national policy, and be guided by general legal precepts relating to Indian tribes and lands.

Where the words are ambiguous the judiciary may properly use the legislative history to reach a conclusion. And that method of determining congressional purpose is likewise applicable when the literal words would bring about an end completely at variance with the purpose of the statute, (citations omitted).

United States v. Public Utilities Commission, 345 U.S. 295, 315, 73 S.Ct. 706, 717-18, 97 L.Ed. 1020 (1953); see also Lindahl v. Office of Personnel Management, 470 U.S. 768, 105 S.Ct. 1620, 84 L.Ed.2d 674 (1985). It is readily apparent from the legislative history that the underground drinking water provisions of the SDWA apply throughout the country, border to border, ocean to ocean. It is triggered by area (state) designations by the Administrator, but its reach covers the country.

*554 Ambiguity in the statute appears in several ways. The definitions section of the SDWA refers directly to Indian tribal organizations in defining “municipality.” Section 1401, 42 U.S.C. § 300f. In turn, the definition of “person” includes “municipality” Section 1401(12), 42 U.S.C. § 300f(12). Both sections 1421 and 1422 of the SDWA, 42 U.S.C. § 300h and § 300h-l, contain provisions relating to “persons.” Thus, for example, section 1421(b)(l)(D)(ii) provides that a State program shall apply “to underground injections by any other person whether or not occurring on property owned or leased by the United States.” Section 1421(b)(1)(D), 42 U.S.C. § 300h(b)(l)(D) (emphasis added). Section 1421(d)(2), 42 U.S.C. § 300h(d)(2) provides:

(2) Underground injection endangers drinking water sources if such injection may result in the presence in underground water which supplies or can reasonably be expected to supply any public water system of any contaminant, and if the presence of such contaminant may result in such system’s not complying with any national primary drinking water regulation or may otherwise adversely affect the health of persons.

(emphasis added). 12 Section 1445, 42 U.S.C. § 300j — 4, authorizes inspection of the premises of “any supplier of water or other person” subject to criteria sufficiently broad to include Indian lands.

In addition, various parts of the statute can fairly be interpreted to mean that the term State (even though capitalized) refers to a geographic area, not necessarily a political entity. In section 1422(c), 42 U.S.C. § 300h-l(c), where the EPA is given the power to act, the statute states that an EPA prescribed program “shall apply in such State to the extent that a program adopted by such State which the Administrator determines meets such requirements is not in effect.” (emphasis added). Finally, sections 1421(b)(3)(A) and (c), 42 U.S.C. § 300h(b)(3)(A) and (c), provide:

(3)(A) The regulations of the Administrator under this section shall permit or provide for consideration of varying geologic, hydrological, or historical conditions in different States and in different areas within a State.

(C) Nothing in this section shall be construed to alter or affect the duty to assure that underground sources of drinking water will not be endangered by any underground injection.

(emphasis added). 13

We now examine congressional intent as an aid to interpreting the statute. That intent is so clearly expressed in legislative history and so strong that it is dispositive of the issue of the statute’s reach. When “interpreting a statute, the court will not look merely to a particular clause in which general words may be used, but will take in connection with it the whole statute (or statutes on the same subject) and the objects and policy of the law, as indicated by its various provisions, and give to it such a construction as will carry into execution the will of the Legislature.” Kakoszka v. Belford, 417 U.S. 642, 650, 94 S.Ct. 2431, 2436, 41 L.Ed.2d 374 (1974) (quoting Brown v. Duchesne, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 183, 194, 15 L.Ed. 595 (1857) (emphasis added). Similarly, the Supreme Court has recognized that statutes must be interpreted “not only by a consideration of the words themselves, but by considering, as well, the context, the purposes of the law, and the circumstances under which the words were employed.” District of Columbia v. Carter, 409 U.S. 418, 420, 93 S.Ct. 602, 604, 34 L.Ed.2d 613 (1973) (quoting Puerto Rico v. Shell Co., 302 U.S. 253, 258, 58 S.Ct. 167, 169-70, 82 L.Ed. 235 (1937).

*555 The SDWA was passed in 1974. The accompanying report from the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign commerce stated: “[T]he purpose of the legislation is to assure that the water supply systems serving the public meet minimum national standards for protection of public health,” H.R.Rep. No. 1185, 93d Cong., 2nd Sess. 1 (1974), U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 1974, p. 6454 (emphasis added), and Congress “anticipated that this list [of areas needing UIC programs] ... would include all 50 states,” Id. at 32. “Until relatively recently,” the report observes, “the fundamental elements of life — clean air to breathe, safe water to drink — have been taken for granted in the United States.” Id. at 4. The report proceeds in the most express terms to state “[t]hat the causes and effects of unhealthy drinking water are national in scope,” as evidenced by the spread of water-borne diseases, contagious and otherwise; and adverse impact on interstate commerce, travel, productivity, and other factors limiting the national economy. Id. at 8. Then the obvious but most significant point is made by the Committee:

Other factors also illustrate the need for national concern about unsafe drinking water. Underground drinking sources which carry contaminants may cross State boundaries. In general, water in the hydrologic cycle does not respect State borders.

Id. (emphasis added). Therein lies the difference between Phillips’ view of this legislation, and that of Congress. Phillips interprets the statute by emphasizing borders (state political entity versus Indian land). Congress emphasizes a national policy of clean water. So, therefore, must we in interpreting the statute.

In other contexts, the Supreme Court has recognized the existence of national policy in legislative acts. Bob Jones University v. United States, 461 U.S. 574, 593, 103 S.Ct. 2017, 2029, 76 L.Ed.2d 157 (1983) (“Over the past quarter of a century, every pronouncement of this Court and myriad Acts of Congress and Executive Orders attest a firm national policy to prohibit racial segregation and discrimination in public education.”); Barrentine v. Arkansas-Best Freight System, Inc., 450 U.S. 728, 735, 101 S.Ct. 1437, 1441-42, 67 L.Ed.2d 641 (1981) (“The national policy favoring collective bargaining and industrial self-government was just expressed in the National Labor Relations Act of 1935, 29 U.S.C. § 151, et seq. It received further expression and definition in the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, 29 U.S.C. § 141, et seq.”) (the Taft-Hartley Act); Vendo Co. v. Lektro-Vend Corp., 433 U.S. 623, 660, 97 S.Ct. 2881, 2902, 53 L.Ed.2d 1009 (1977) (discussing “overriding expressions of national policy embodied in statutes like the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871 or the Sherman Act of 1890”); see also Sinclair Refining Co. v. Atkinson, 370 U.S. 195, 217, 82 S.Ct. 1328, 1340-41, 8 L.Ed.2d 440 (1962) (discussing the Norris-Laguardia Act as “one of several statutes which, taken together, shape the national labor policy.”)

Finally, in adopting the SDWA, Congress expressly stated its concern that Indians should enjoy the benefits of clean drinking water as should all Americans, noting that:

The Indian Health Service ... operates a direct construction program to provide sanitation facilities to Indian and Alaskan natives. However, in the Committee’s view these grant programs to construct drinking water supply systems are not necessarily adequate to assure that safe drinking water will be available [to Indians], even from those systems which are constructed with such aid.

H.R.Rep. No. 1185, 93d Cong., 2d Sess. at 9, U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 1974, p. 6462.

We conclude, therefore, that there is no sound policy reason to exclude Indian lands from the SDWA’s application, and every reason to include them. As indicated above, the SDWA clearly establishes national policy with respect to clean water, including sources of underground water. To hold, as Phillips suggests, that the EPA did not have authority to promulgate un *556 derground injection control programs for Indian lands would contradict the clear meaning and purpose of the SDWA by creating, prior to 1986, a vacuum of authority over underground injections on Indian lands, leaving vast areas of the nation devoid of protection from groundwater contamination. Indeed, it is a well established canon of statutory construction that a court should go beyond the literal language of a statute if reliance on that language would defeat the plain purpose of the statute. Bob Jones University, 461 U.S. at 586, 103 S.Ct. at 2025.

The conclusion that the SDWA empowered the EPA to prescribe regulations for Indian lands is also consistent with the presumption that Congress intends a general statute applying to all persons to include Indians and their property interests. See Federal Power Commission v. Tuscarora Indian Nation, 362 U.S. 99, 116-18, 80 S.Ct. 543, 553-55, 4 L.Ed.2d 584 (I960). 14 Although this rule of construction can be rescinded where a tribe raises a specific right under a treaty or statute which is in conflict with the general law to be applied, Morton v. Mancari, 417 U.S. 535, 94 S.Ct. 2474, 41 L.Ed.2d 290 (1974); Donovan v. Navajo Forest Products Industries, 692 F.2d 709 (10th Cir.1982); United States v. White, 508 F.2d 453 (8th Cir.1974), no such right under statute or treaty has been demonstrated. To the contrary, the Osage Indian Tribe supports the EPA’s adoption of the injection program on the reserve. Doc. E-1084 (1980 Tribal Council resolution supporting the EPA's implementation of the program); Doc. D-1572 at 17-18 (Chief of Osage Tribe at June 1984 hearing supporting protection of groundwater by EPA). 15

*557 Finally, we have taken into consideration th