has to do with the operation of an EPA rule that purports to oblige public water systems to install a filtration system if they fail to meet certain regulatory standards by a prescribed deadline — an obligation that extends into the future indefinitely, and that does not account for the present and future safety of the system’s drinking water. Based on our reading of the Act, we find that the district court acted within its discretion by declining to order that the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA) install a filtration system. We therefore affirm its judgment. I. Background The facts surrounding this controversy are laid out in extensive detail in the district court’s two written opinions, United States v. Mass. Water Res. Auth., 48 F.Supp.2d 65 (D.Mass.1999) (MWRA /) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Mass. Water Res. Auth., 97
holding that district court had equitable discretion not to order filtration remedy for sdwa violation holding that district court may order hearing as remedy for termination of public employee without due process holding that the appropriate remedy for a public trial violation was a new suppression hearing not a new trial because the remedy should be appropriate to the violation holding that an award of back pay under title vii remains an equitable remedy to be awarded by the district court in its discretion recognizing constructive trust as appropriate equitable remedy