Changes

"It is hoped that the EPA considers the comments which have been made and that the rules as finally promulgated be such that they will not interfere or impede with the production of oil and gas," reads the speech transcript from that meeting, which was given by Sam Shakely, then the manager of pollution abatement for the Oklahoma Corporation Commission.<ref>[https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2798425-IOGCC-1976-Meeting-SDWA.html "Comments on Underground Injection Control Provisions of Safe Drinking Water Act"], Interstate Oil Compact Commission Committee Bulletin; Volume XVIII, Number 2; December 1976</ref>

IOGCC also spearheaded an advocacy campaign on the ''Legal Environmental Assistance Foundation (LEAF) v. EPA'' case that wove its way up to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit. The 1997 U.S. Appeals Court ruling for that case said fracking was a form of underground injection and thus should be regulated by the EPA under the SDWA. IOGCC decried this decision in a press release, passed a resolution pertaining to it in 1997<ref>[https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2798475-RESOLUTION-97-901-LEAF-v-EPA.html IOGCC LEAF v. EPA Model Resolution]</ref> and then reauthorized it again in 2000,<ref>[https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2798897-IOGCC-Model-Resolution-Fracking-Tax-Incentive.html#document/p4/a288323 Resolution 97.901 (Reauthorized 2000) Resolution Pertaining to United States Court of Appeals LEAF v. EPA], Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission</ref> had a subcommittee workgroup dealing with the LEAF case,<ref>[https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1354693-iogcc-halliburton-loophole.html#document/p3/a288276 IOGCC "Compact Comments"], September 2005</ref> and devoted an entire portion of its website to the case and its advocacy efforts around it.<ref>[https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2798456-IOGCC-LEAF-v-EPA-Website-Section.html IOGCC LEAF v. EPA Website Section]</ref>