<DOC>
[110th Congress House Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:34613.wais]
SUSTAINABLE WATER SUPPLIES FOR THE WEST: PART 1 -- PROTECTING
GROUNDWATER RESOURCES
=======================================================================
OVERSIGHT FIELD HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER
of the
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
Tuesday, April 10, 2007, in Pomona, California
__________
Serial No. 110-11
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
index.html
or
Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
34-613 PDF WASHINGTON DC: 2006
---------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866)512-1800
DC area (202)512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail Stop SSOP,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia, Chairman
DON YOUNG, Alaska, Ranking Republican Member
Dale E. Kildee, Michigan Jim Saxton, New Jersey
Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Elton Gallegly, California
Samoa John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee
Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland
Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas Ken Calvert, California
Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey Chris Cannon, Utah
Donna M. Christensen, Virgin Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado
Islands Jeff Flake, Arizona
Grace F. Napolitano, California Rick Renzi, Arizona
Rush D. Holt, New Jersey Stevan Pearce, New Mexico
Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona Henry E. Brown, Jr., South
Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam Carolina
Jim Costa, California Luis G. Fortuno, Puerto Rico
Dan Boren, Oklahoma Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington
John P. Sarbanes, Maryland Bobby Jindal, Louisiana
George Miller, California Louie Gohmert, Texas
Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts Tom Cole, Oklahoma
Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon Rob Bishop, Utah
Maurice D. Hinchey, New York Bill Shuster, Pennsylvania
Patrick J. Kennedy, Rhode Island Dean Heller, Nevada
Ron Kind, Wisconsin Bill Sali, Idaho
Lois Capps, California Doug Lamborn, Colorado
Jay Inslee, Washington
Mark Udall, Colorado
Joe Baca, California
Hilda L. Solis, California
Stephanie Herseth, South Dakota
Heath Shuler, North Carolina
James H. Zoia, Chief of Staff
Jeffrey P. Petrich, Chief Counsel
Lloyd Jones, Republican Staff Director
Lisa Pittman, Republican Chief Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER
GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California, Chairwoman
CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington, Ranking Republican Member
Jim Costa, California Ken Calvert, California
George Miller, California Dean Heller, Nevada
Mark Udall, Colorado Doug Lamborn, Colorado
Joe Baca, California Don Young, Alaska, ex officio
Hilda L. Solis, California
Nick J. Rahall II, West Virginia,
ex officio
------
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Hearing held on Tuesday, April 10, 2007.......................... 1
Statement of Members:
Baca, Hon. Joe, Sr., a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 7
Napolitano, Hon. Grace F., a Representative in Congress from
the State of California.................................... 2
Prepared statement of.................................... 3
Solis, Hon. Hilda, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 4
Prepared statement of.................................... 5
Statement of Witnesses:
Araiza, Anthony W., General Manager, West Valley Water
District, Rialto, California............................... 45
Prepared statement of.................................... 46
Baca, Hon. Joe, Jr., Councilman, City of Rialto, California.. 8
Prepared statement of.................................... 10
Cantu, Celeste, Executive Director, Santa Ana Watershed
Project Authority, Riverside, California................... 11
Prepared statement of.................................... 13
Coffey, Brad, Water Treatment Section Manager, Metropolitan
Water District of Southern California, Los Angeles,
California................................................. 40
Prepared statement of.................................... 42
DeLoach, Robert A., General Manager/Chief Executive Officer,
Cucamonga Valley Water District, Rancho Cucamonga,
California................................................. 14
Prepared statement of.................................... 16
Martin, Robert E., General Manager, East Valley Water
District, Highland, California............................. 49
Prepared statement of.................................... 51
Newman, Penny J., Executive Director, Center for Community
Action and Environmental Justice, Riverside, California.... 20
Prepared statement of.................................... 21
Whitehead, Michael L., Director, San Gabriel Basin Water
Quality Authority, West Covina, California................. 52
Prepared statement of.................................... 53
Wyels, Phil, Assistant Chief Counsel, California State Water
Resources Control Board, Sacramento, California............ 24
Prepared statement of.................................... 26
Additional materials supplied:
Vargas, Hon. Grace, Mayor, City of Rialto, California, Letter
submitted for the record................................... 68
OVERSIGHT FIELD HEARING ON ``SUSTAIN-ABLE WATER SUPPLIES FOR THE WEST:
PART 1 -- PROTECTING GROUNDWATER RESOURCES''
----------
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Water and Power
Committee on Natural Resources
Pomona, California
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:00 a.m., at
California State Polytechnic University, 3801 West Temple
Avenue, Kellogg West Conference Center, Pomona, California,
Hon. Grace F. Napolitano [Chairwoman of the Subcommittee]
presiding.
Present: Representatives Napolitano and Baca.
Also Present: Representative Solis.
Mrs. Napolitano. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Would
you kindly take your seats? Can you hear me in the back? Thank
you.
Good morning, everybody. This is a meeting of the
Subcommittee on Water and Power, and it will come to order, so
there.
The purpose of the meeting of the Subcommittee is to hold
the first of what will be a series of field hearings on
sustainable water supplies for the west. That means the 17
western states served by the Bureau of Reclamation are under
this committee's jurisdiction. Today's hearing will be focused
on perchlorate contamination of our groundwater resources.
And I will begin with a brief statement, and I will
recognize other members of the Subcommittee for any statement
they may have. Additional material may be submitted by anybody
from this group in the audience for the record. We will leave
it open for 30 days--yes, 30 days to give you ample time to get
material into the record.
I was going to be brief but I'm a little bit long. When I
get to the panels, I'll tell you about that little colorful
thing that I've got in front of me. I want to, of course,
welcome our witnesses and thank them for being here, same for
our guests. And I do want to take a moment to thank Cal Poly
Pomona, President Mike Ortiz, his administration, and Doug
Glaeser--where are you?--who has been exceedingly helpful to
our needs in holding open rooms on this campus for meetings
that we need to have. And of course, the staff of Cal Poly.
This is being recorded and will be made available to anybody
who would like to avail themselves of it.
You have provided a perfect facility for a hearing, and on
behalf of myself, Chairman Nick Rahall, Chair of the House
Committee on Natural Resources, and my Ranking Member, Cathy
McMorris-Rodgers, who cannot be here because she is expecting
her baby. I thank you for your hospitality.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. GRACE NAPOLITANO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mrs. Napolitano. Last Thursday, Science Magazine published
results of a significant new study about water in Southwestern
United States. The study, which was reported in the
``Washington Post'', is directly relevant to our hearing this
morning, but this new study is not about perchlorate, it's not
about VOCs, nor chromium, nor other contaminates. Instead, the
new study is about climate change. It's about global warming
and how climate change may already be playing a role in the
current drought in the Colorado basin. Don't forget, the
Colorado affects seven states. It's about how rainfall in this
part of the country may further decline by another ten to 20
percent annually, placing further stress on our already
stressed water supply. According to one of our authors of the
study, government needs to plan for this right now, coming up
with new well-informed and fair deals for allocation of the
declining water resources.
Today's hearing is about water quality and contamination,
but what we have to remember is that water quality is a
critical part of our water supply. The quality of water we pump
from our wells is every bit as important as the quantity we
pump. If we lose hundreds of wells in California, which we
have, because of chemical contamination that can never be
cleaned up, there's really no difference than if we lost ten or
20 percent of our water supply to drought brought on by climate
change. Water quality and water quantity are both critical to
future sustainability of water supplies.
According to the California Department of Health Services
as of last month, perchlorate has been detected at or above the
reporting level of four parts per billion in 456 sources of
drinking water of more than 7,000 sources tested in California
since 1997. Roughly 100 water systems are affected. Los Angeles
County reported 177 sources of drinking water contaminated with
perchlorate with a peak level of 159 parts per billion. That's
very, very dangerous. San Bernardino County reported 95 sources
with a peak level of 820 parts per billion; Riverside County
reported 84 contaminated sources with a peak level of 73 parts
per billion; Orange County found 37 with peak levels of 11
parts per billion.
Several of the Regional Water Quality Control boards have
informed the state of additional locations of perchlorate in
groundwater that are not currently associated with
contamination of public drinking water. That is, they're not
being investigated, they're just letting them sit. Some of
these sites have very high levels of perchlorate and they
present a threat to existing and future water supply to
Californians. California pumps roughly 30 percent of its
drinking water from groundwater sources, and by any measure,
further groundwater contamination could significantly degrade
water quality and worsen scarcity problems in our region.
Our witnesses this morning include officials from many of
the major water supplies in Southern California, and I will be
asking not only this panel but the other panel, ``Do you
believe your agency is prepared for any further loss of water
supply, whether it is from chemical contamination or from
climate change or drought?'' And the second question, ``Would
you consider the current water supply for your service area to
be sustainable?''
All of our local governments, the Federal Government, all
our state governments, and all our water districts must work in
tandem in coalitions with those areas most in need due to
circumstances beyond their control. And I just made a statement
a little bit ago that we need the PRP's here too, potential
responsible parties. To do this, we need to bring out
information relevant to the reality of each area and work
together and prepare for any eventuality, such as a drought
brought on by global warning, et cetera.
Again, thank you for being here, and now I will move to
recognize my other members of the Subcommittee on Water and
Power. And I will start with the Congresswoman Hilda Solis, the
ranking by seniority. Ms. Solis.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Grace F. Napolitano
follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Grace F. Napolitano, Chairwoman,
Subcommittee on Water and Power
Good Morning. I want to welcome our witnesses and guests this
morning. I want to take just a moment to thank our very gracious
hosts--the Administration and staff of Cal Poly Pomona. You have
provided a perfect facility for our hearing this morning. On behalf of
myself and Congressman Nick Rahall, who is the Chairman of the House
Committee on Natural Resources, I thank you for your hospitality.
Last Thursday, Science Magazine published results of a significant
new study about water in the Southwestern United States. The study,
which was reported in The Washington Post, is directly relevant to our
hearing this morning. But this new study is not about perchlorate. It's
not about VOCs, or chromium, or other contaminants.
Instead, the new study is about climate change. It's about global
warming. It's about how climate change may already be playing a role in
the current drought in the Colorado River Basin. And it's about how
rainfall in this part of the country may further decline by another 10
to 20 percent annually, placing further stress on our water supply.
According to one of the authors of the study, governments ``need to
plan for this right now, coming up with new, well-informed and fair
deals for allocation of declining water resources.''
Today's hearing is about water quality and contamination, but what
we have to remember is that water quality is a critical part of our
water supply. The quality of the water we pump from our wells is every
bit as important as the quantity that we pump.
If we lose hundreds of wells in California because of chemical
contamination that can never be cleaned up, that's really no different
than if we lost 10 or 20 percent of our water supply to a drought
brought on by climate change. Water quality and water quantity are both
critical to the future sustainability of the water supplies.
According to the California Department of Health Services, as of
last month, perchlorate had been detected at or above the reporting
level of 4 parts per billion in 456 sources of drinking water, out of
more than 7,000 sources tested in California since 1997. Roughly 100
water systems have been affected.
<bullet> Los Angeles county reported 177 sources of drinking water
contaminated with perchlorate, with a peak level of 159 parts per
billion.
<bullet> San Bernardino County reported 95 sources with a peak
level of 820 parts per billion.
<bullet> Riverside County reported 84 contaminated sources with a
peak level of 73 parts per billion, and
<bullet> Orange County found 37 sources with a peak level of 11
parts per billion.
Several of the Regional Water Quality Control Boards have informed
the state of additional locations of perchlorate in groundwater that
are not currently associated with contamination of public drinking
water supplies. Some of these sites have very high levels of
perchlorate and may present a threat to existing and future water
supplies.
California pumps roughly 30% of its drinking water from groundwater
sources, and by any measure, further groundwater contamination could
significantly degrade water quality and worsen scarcity problems in the
region.
Our witnesses this morning include officials from many of the major
water supply agencies in Southern California. I will be asking each of
you:
<bullet> Do you believe your agency is prepared for any further
loss of water supply, whether it is from chemical contamination or from
climate change and drought?
<bullet> Do your consider the current water supply for your
service area to be sustainable?
______
STATEMENT OF THE HON. HILDA SOLIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Ms. Solis. Thank you. Good morning, and thank you, Madam
Chair, for hosting this hearing. I want to thank the witnesses
for being here as well today.
Considering what's going on, not even a week ago the New
York Times wrote about the importance in growth of western
water projects. The article titled, ``An Arid West no Longer
Waits For Rain,'' highlighted the pressures on our water
supplies by the realities of population growth, politics, and
the decrease in water availability from the Colorado River. The
article noted long-term projections that mountain snows, which
feed the Colorado River, will melt faster and evaporate in
greater amounts as global temperatures rise.
As evidence of this, the spring run-off for this year is
expected to be about half of its long-term average. The run-off
has only been above average in one of the last seven years. And
just this past Friday the international panel on climate change
released its second in a series of reports which looks at
global and regional impacts of global warming. The report found
that water resources in the western part of Northern America
will decrease as there will be less snow pack in the mountains
and summer river flows will decline. And a report published
last Thursday in the Journal of Science predicted that the
driest periods of the last century, the dust bowl, may become
the norm in the southwest within decades because of global
warming.
Concerns about the impact of global warming on our water
supply compounds the problem we're discussing today,
contamination also existing in groundwater supplies. And I'm
proud, through my position on the select committee on energy
and dependance and global warming, that we'll be able to focus
on sustainability of water as well. And for many of our
communities, the limited amount of available groundwater is
further complicated by contamination from perchlorate, mining
operations, volatile, organic compounds and other various
contaminates that we find in our groundwater.
The district that I represent is home to the first
perchlorate treatment facility located or known as the Baldwin
Park Operable Unit. And while the hearing today is not about
the source of contamination, it is known that 90 percent of
perchlorate is produced by Department of Defense and NASA.
There are at least 1,090 contaminated military sites in
California alone that need to be cleaned up. The California
Department of Health Services has estimated that perchlorate
has contaminated well over 276 drinking wells, 77 drinking
water systems in California alone. The ultimate price for our
communities is a price of taking these wells off line.
This is why I've introduced H.R. 1747, the ``Safe Drinking
Water For Healthy Communities Act of 2007''. This bipartisan
bill requires that the EPA establish a national primary
drinking water standard for perchlorate. I strongly believe
that without Congressional action, the EPA will continue to
delay to set a standard, largely because of the role they play
as a primary polluter. That includes the Department of Defense.
And by establishing a standard, we create security for our
water providers at a rate that is more reasonable as a viable
enforcement mechanism and knowledge that the task is safe. The
enforcement and remediation mechanism will help protect
groundwater supplies for future generations. No longer will
identifiable polluters such as the Department of Defense be
able to refuse to clean up contamination on installations which
pollute our aquifers.
I also believe that we must work with our water providers
to ensure that drinking water infrastructures are sustainable;
and the Federal investment is also inadequate. And I'm proud
that the Environment and Hazardous Materials Subcommittee,
which I sit on as Vice Chair, will be holding a hearing on
perchlorate in Washington, D.C. specifically regarding this
legislation later on in this month.
In addition to focusing on sustainability, we must ensure
that our most vulnerable communities, including minorities,
communities of color, and underserved and low income, have the
greatest threats removed from them. Environmental justice
communities are more likely to struggle to get action taken
when a problem with their water supply exists and less likely
to receive assurances that there will be a long-term solution.
Legislation I recently introduced also, H.R. 1103, the
``Environmental Justice Act of 2007'', will also help us
address this important issue. By codifying President Clinton's
executive order on environmental justice, we're ensuring that
communities without a voice will be heard. And as one of our
speakers here today, Penny Newman, I want to thank you for
being here and hope to hear more of your testimony today.
With that, I yield back to Madam Chair.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Hilda Solis follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Hilda L. Solis, a Representative in Congress
from the State of California
Good morning.
Thank you to our witnesses for joining us today.
Today is the beginning of a very important discussion about tile
sustainability of western water supplies.
Not even a week ago the New York Times wrote about the importance
and growth of western water projects.
The article, titled ``An Arid West No Longer Waits for Rain,''
highlighted the pressures on our water supplies by the realities of
population growth, politics and the decrease in water available from
the Colorado River.
The article also noted long-term projections that mountain snows
which feed the Colorado will melt faster and evaporate in greater
amounts as global temperatures rise.
As evidence of this, the spring runoff for this year is expected to
be about half its long-term average. The runoff has only been above
average in 1 of the last 7 years.
Just this past Friday the International Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) released its second in a series of reports which looks at global
and regional impacts of global warming.
This report found that water resources in the western part of North
American will decrease as there will be less snowpack in 3 the
mountains and summer river flows will decline.
And a report published last Thursday in the journal Science
predicted that the driest periods of the last century--the Dust Bowl--
may become the norm in the Southwest within decades because of global
warming.
Concerns about the impacts of global warming on our water supply
compound the problem we are discussing today contamination of existing
groundwater supplies.
I am proud that through my position on the/ Select Committee on
Energy Independence lb and Global Warming we will be able to focus on
sustainability of water.
For many of our communities, the limited amount of available
groundwater is further complicated by contamination from perchlorate,
mining operations, volatile organic compounds, and other contaminants.
Tile district I represent is home to tile first perchlorate
treatment facility, located/at the Baldwin Park operable units.
While the hearing today is not about the source of the
contamination, it is known that 90% of perchlorate is produced for use
by the Defense Department and NASA.
There are at least 1,090 contaminated military sites in California
alone that need to be cleaned up.
The California Department of Health Services has estimated that
perchlorate has contaminated 276 drinking water sources and 77 drinking
water systems in California alone.
The ultimate price for communities to pay is the ``price'' of
taking wells offline.
We must work together to ensure that our communities have access to
clean groundwater and safe drinking water. This is why I introduced
H.R. 1747, the Safe Drinking Water for Healthy Communities Act of 2007.
This bipartisan bill requires the EPA to establish a national
primary drinking water standard for perchlorate.
I strongly believe that without Congressional action the EPA will
continue to delay movement to set a standard, largely because of the
role of the primary polluter--the Department of Defense.
By establishing a standard, we create security for our water
providers and rate payers, a viable enforcement mechanism, and the
knowledge that the tap is safe.
This enforcement and remediation mechanism will also help protect
groundwater supplies.
No longer will identifiable polluters, such as the Department of
Defense, be able to refuse to clean up contamination on an installation
which pollutes our aquifers.
I also believe that we must work with our water providers to ensure
that drinking water infrastructure is sustainable and the federal
investment is adequate.
I am proud that the Environment and Hazardous Materials
Subcommittee, which I am Vice Chair of, will be holding a hearing on
perchlorate, specifically my legislation, when we return to Washington
at the end of April.
In addition to focusing on its sustainability, we must also ensure
that our most vulnerable communities, including minorities and low-
income, have access to safe water.
These communities and others like them, face even greater threats.
Environmental justice communities are more likely to struggle to
get action taken when a problem with their water supply exists and less
likely to receive assurance that there will be a long-term solution.
Legislation I introduced, H.R. 1103--the Environmental Justice Act
of 2007, will help address this issue.
By codifying the Executive Order on Environmental Justice, we are
ensuring that communities without a voice are heard.
As Penny Newman will testify today, access to safe and clean water
is an environmental justice issue.
For the sake of our communities, for their health and their
security, we must focus our attention on the sustainability of our
water supplies.
I look forward to working with my colleagues on this Subcommittee,
the Energy and Commerce Committee, and the Select Committee to bring a
renewed attention to sustainable water supplies and move forward in the
search for a solution which will benefit all.
Thank you and I yield back the balance of my time.
______
Mrs. Napolitano. Good, because you're over. Thank you so
very much. I would like to take your statement and put it into
the record, if you don't mind.
Congressman Joe Baca.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOE BACA, SR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Baca of California. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
First of all, I want to thank you for your leadership and
concerted effort and for having the field hearing here on the
sustainable water supply for the west and protecting the
groundwater resources. We feel it's very important to our
region and the State of California. Not only is it important to
the State of California, but we've addressed this for some
particular time, but your leadership is so important to a lot
of us. I want to thank my colleague Hilda Solis for also being
here. And here today I want to thank the witnesses for joining
us here today as well.
I understand the panel is associated with perchlorate
contamination in groundwater. I live with my family in the very
city, Rialto, that has one of the highest levels of
contamination. And the Inland Empire and Southern California
has suffered tremendously due to perchlorate. And we're not
here to say, you know, what's caused it or who has caused it.
We know that we're looking for a study that has been conducted
and hopefully that the study will come out and determine who
actually has caused the problem and look toward solutions. We
need to make sure the water supply is safe and secure and at
affordable costs because we owe it to our residents to make
sure we provide quality water.
Perchlorate has jeopardized the water supply of nearly
500,000 residents. The health dangers associated with
contaminated waters are enough reasons to fix the problem.
There has been traces of perchlorate in milk and in breast
milk. Newborn infants are put at dangers and at risks. And I'm
very fortunate because my kids, two of my children were born in
Rialto, and very fortunate that they didn't have any of the
risks associated with thyroid glands or the fetus, my wife
during that period of time. But who knows? It could have
affected my children and others who live in the area.
We need a solution. Cities, counties, private water
providers have no choice but to provide customers with clean
water to drink. There is a legal and moral obligation to
provide safe and healthy water. To date, these obligations are
in jeopardy. There is a greater cost. Perchlorate clean-up is
tremendously expensive, costing over 450,000 per acre per foot
of water. The economic cost of this area is almost as much of a
concern as availability of clean water. The City of Rialto has
a population of over 95,000 people in the area of 26,000 square
footage with a potential of ten to 20,000 more people over the
next five to ten years. So if you can look at it, even my city
with the possibility of growing in the need there--It is in the
heart of one of the fastest growing areas in the country.
Seventy-six percent of the population in this area are
minorities and have an average income of $43,600. This means
that increasing the consumer rate is not a practical option for
water agencies of the Inland Empire. The hard working families
in the area are not at fault, and I say they're not at fault,
and should not have to pay for a Federally created problem. I
state a Federally created problem, or a problem that no one
takes the responsibility for. And someone has to take the
responsibility for it.
For most of the accounts, 90 percent of perchlorate in
water comes from a Federal source. This includes the DOD, NASA,
and other Federal agencies. They have to live up to it. This
has been a huge problem and will require a huge solution. I am
grateful that Chairwoman Grace F. Napolitano is conducting this
field hearing, and I look forward to working toward a viable
solution for a viable problem, and I'm grateful that the
Chairwoman is taking positive steps toward a solution. I look
forward to working with her.
I yield back to you.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you. We try to stay to the five
minutes simply because we have so much testimony coming before
us. And Congressman Baca really stresses the fact that the
Federal, defense and others have created a lot of the problems.
The problem now is that they don't want to pay for it, simply.
Because we have been battling for over 15 years to get them to
clean it up, and this is not perchlorate, this is VOC's.
So understand that it's going to be a long haul, but we
need everybody's participation and input to make sure that
everyone understands the responsibility to the electorate, to
the citizens of being able to clean up the mess they made,
especially the PRP's, in conjunction with the PRP's, potential
responsible parties. Thank you so much. I want to state that
H.R. 1747, Ms. Solis's bill, there should be some copies in the
back. We'll try to give you some websites so you can pick up
any additional information that we're talking about today and
be able to access that.
To the witnesses in panel one, your statements will be
entered into the record, and all witnesses are asked to
summarize the high points of your testimony and limit your
remarks to five minutes. That way you can--it will go into the
record and you can then summarize and add to points that you
may have wanted to ensure that we make statements. The reminder
is right here. It's--you have your own, right? The red is stop;
the yellow is wrap it up; and the red--I mean the green, start
up. So with that, I want to thank you for being here, and we
will proceed to start with Mr. Joe Baca, Jr., and have him, the
councilman from City of Rialto, start off the panel.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOE BACA, JR.,
COUNCILMAN, CITY OF RIALTO, CALIFORNIA
Mr. Baca. Thank you, Madam Chair and members for holding
this hearing. I'm here as councilman but I'm also here as a
resident for the City of Rialto. I'm a lifelong resident of
Rialto who is concerned about the groundwater contamination,
how it impacts our local residents both financial and personal
well-being. Since I grew up and live in Rialto, I have a
personal connection to this issue.
The perchlorate contamination case in Rialto is not the
first of its kind. There was a previous case in the San Gabriel
Valley that provided a model for the Inland Empire. In 1992 a
coalition of cities and water agencies came together as a
coalition to push for Senate Bill 1679. This legislation
developed the San Gabriel Basin Water Quality authority. It was
an important step in cleaning up hazardous substances found in
their groundwater. What was the key issue about the
legislation? That a collaborative solution came about to their
partnership. It was not about different agencies searching for
their own solution; rather it was about what was best for the
region and best for the residents.
That is the hope that I have for the Rialto and Inland
regions. It is my hope that our cities and agencies follow
their lead in addressing the perchlorate plume in the
groundwater.
As a former chair of the State Assembly Select Committee on
perchlorate contamination, my focus has always been on tackling
the complex issues with perchlorate contamination of our
groundwater. I proposed developing standards to safely handle
the disposal of products containing perchlorate, charging a fee
to those companies who develop products with perchlorate in
order to fund perchlorate cleanup; and to use the state general
fund to assist with perchlorate contamination cleanup. This
legislation was a direct result of collaboration among cities,
water agencies, and grassroots organizations like Center for
Community Action and Environmental Justice and Libreria del
Pueblo.
However, my advocacy did not stop at legislation. After
researching perchlorate contamination, I was surprised to learn
that perchlorate products were being sold through E-Bay. I
became concerned that the public had free access to perchlorate
without knowing how it was properly being disposed. In a letter
to E-Bay North American President William Cobb, I asked the
cyber-giant to stop selling perchlorate on its online market.
After a few months, perchlorate was removed.
My efforts were preceded by Senator Nell Soto who also put
much of her focus on perchlorate contamination. In 2003,
Senator Nell Soto, the Chair of the Senate Select Committee on
Perchlorate Contamination authored Senate Bill 922. The
legislation forced water quality control boards to enforce
cleanup and abatement if there are findings of drinking water
contamination. It was not until recently that we learned about
the effects of human consumption of perchlorate. Recent studies
have shown that perchlorate interferes with absorption of
iodine. The thyroid gland needs iodine to make hormones such as
thyroxine that controls the metabolism in people and guide
nerve and brain development in fetuses and babies.
That is why the City of Rialto has taken a zero tolerance
policy on perchlorate contamination and have assessed a
perchlorate fee through the monthly water bill to assure that
drinking water does not have any detectable levels of
perchlorate, which, according to our current technology, is
less than four parts per billion. They also have done so with
the promise that residents will be reimbursed in the future.
While Rialto residents are enjoying safe drinking water,
they are doing so because they have personally financed the
cleanup of our contaminated wells. We need to find solutions
that allow cleanup of groundwater contamination in a timely
manner. The monthly $6.85 perchlorate fee, in addition to the
formula for big water users, is an added financial burden to
Rialto residents. Rialto residents are largely low income with
a median family income in the City of Rialto being $42,638.
They are barely making it through these difficult financial
times. They are struggling to meet the high cost of living that
has already been brought on by housing, utilities, and fuel.
Our residents depend on doing the right thing. We have to
draw a table of similar objectives with other agencies and
cities in order to obtain our ultimate goal. We cannot lose
sight of our main objective to offer quality drinking water to
our residents.
We must also look toward the future to assure our water
supply is not threatened. There's a lot of work ahead of us,
and as residents, we look forward to working with the Federal
Government and elected officials to make sure we have the
assistance we need. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Joe Baca, Jr. follows:]
Statement of Joe Baca, Jr., Councilman,
City of Rialto, California
I am a lifelong resident of Rialto who is concerned about the
groundwater contamination and how it impacts our local residents both
financially and their personal well being. Since I grew up and live in
Rialto, I have a personal connection to this issue.
The perchlorate contamination case in Rialto is not the first of
its kind. There was a previous case in the San Gabriel Valley that
provided a model for the Inland Empire. In 1992, a coalition of cities
and water agencies came together as a coalition to push for Senate Bill
1679. This legislation developed the San Gabriel Basin Water Quality
Authority. It was an important step in cleaning up the hazardous
substances found in their groundwater. What was key about the
legislation is that a collaborative solution came out of their
partnership. It was not about different agencies searching their own
solution; rather, it was about what was best for the region and its
residents.
That is the hope that I have for Rialto and the Inland region. It
is my hope that our cities and agencies follow their lead in addressing
the perchlorate plume in our groundwater.
As the former chair of the State Assembly Select Committee on
Perchlorate Contamination, my focus has always been on tackling the
complex issues with perchlorate contamination of our groundwater. I
proposed developing standards to safely handle the disposal of products
containing perchlorate; charging a fee to those companies who develop
products with perchlorate in order to fund perchlorate cleanup; and to
use the State General Fund to assist with the Perchlorate contamination
cleanup. This legislation was a direct result of collaboration among
cities, water agencies, and grassroots organizations, like the Center
for Community Action and Environmental Justice and Libreria del Pueblo.
However, my advocacy did not stop at legislation. After researching
perchlorate contamination, I was surprised to learn that perchlorate
products were being sold through E-Bay. I became concerned that the
public had free access to perchlorate without knowing how to properly
dispose of it. In a letter to eBay North America President William
Cobb, I asked the cyber giant to stop selling perchlorate on its online
market. After a few months, perchlorate was removed.
My efforts were preceded by Senator Nell Soto who also put much of
her focus on perchlorate contamination. In 2003, Senator Nell Soto, the
chair of the Senate Select Committee on Perchlorate Contamination,
authored Senate Bill 922. The legislation forced water quality control
boards to enforce clean up and abatement if there are findings of
drinking water contamination.
It was not until recently that we learned about the affects of
human consumption of perchlorate. Recent studies have shown that
perchlorate interferes with absorption of iodine. The thyroid gland
needs iodine to make hormones such as thyroxine that controls
metabolism in all people and guide nerve and brain development in
fetuses and babies.
That is why the City of Rialto has taken a ``zero tolerance''
policy on perchlorate contamination and have a assessed a perchlorate
fee through the monthly water bill to assure drinking water does not
have any detectable levels of perchlorate, which, according to our
current technology, is less than 4 ppb. They have done so with the
promise that we will be reimbursed in the future.
While Rialto residents are enjoying safe drinking water, they are
doing so because they have personally financed the clean up of our
contaminated wells. We need to find solutions that will allow us to
cleanup our groundwater contamination in a timely manner. The monthly
$6.85 perchlorate flat fee, in addition to the formula for big water
users, is an added financial burden for Rialto residents. Rialto
residents are largely low-income with the median family income in the
City of Rialto being $42,638. They are barely making it through these
difficult financial times. They are struggling to meet the high cost of
living that has already been brought on by the housing, utilities, and
fuel.
Our residents depend on us to doing the right thing. We have to be
able to draw upon similar objectives with other agencies and cities in
order to obtain our ultimate goal. We cannot lose sight of our main
objective to offer quality drinking water to our residents. We must
also look towards the future to assure our water supply is not
threatened.
There is a lot of work ahead of us. As residents, we look to our
federal government and its elected officials for assistance.
______
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you so very much. We appreciate
that. It goes into the record.
Next we have Celeste Cantu, Associate Director, Santa Ana
Water Project Authority, Riverside. Thank you very much, Ma'am.
STATEMENT OF CELESTE CANTU, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, SANTA ANA WATER
PROJECT AUTHORITY, RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA
Ms. Cantu. Good morning, Chairwoman Napolitano and members
of the Subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to appear
before you today and discuss the effects of perchlorate
contamination on groundwater supply in the Inland Empire.
Before I start with my prepared remarks, I would like to
underscore, each of you mentioned significant threats to water
quality in California and Western United States. We call them
the four horsemen of the Apocalypse, and they are drought of
the Colorado River; vulnerability on the Delta, the San Joaquin
Delta, inability to deliver imported water to this area;
climate change; and our own growth. And the question isn't that
we grow--we will grow, but the question is how we grow. Are we
going to grow in a way that interrupts the hydrology on our
land where we rely on groundwater so significantly, or are we
going to pave over paradise and render a situation where we
don't want our children to even want to live in this area? We
can change with good decisions today.
In preparation of the four horsemen of the Apocalypse--who
are coming. The clippety-clops, we hear them daily. They will
arrive. The question is will we be prepared for them? SAWPA has
convened approximately 250 people, all passionate experts in
all aspects of water throughout this entire watershed, to start
planning to make sure we're ready with their eventual arrival.
We see them and we can hear them and we can see them coming at
this point.
In the semi-arid environment of the Santa Ana watershed,
groundwater is a major source of the public's drinking water
supply. This is especially true in the Inland Empire, Riverside
and San Bernardino counties. Thus, any contamination of this
limited and precious resource is cause for concern. Perchlorate
has emerged in this watershed as a significant issue.
Perchlorate salts are highly soluble and, when applied to
soil, such as the application of fertilizer or waste material
left from the use of manufactured chemicals, will readily
dissolve and move through the soil to the groundwater. Prior to
1997, perchlorate had not been detected in low concentrations
in groundwater anywhere in the United States. This is because
the analytical method did not exist to detect perchlorate at
extremely low concentration. And it was not even known to be a
common contaminant. However, in 1997, laboratory analytical
methods were developed to allow detection at concentrations as
low as 4 micrograms per liter in water. In 2004, the California
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment established a
public health goal of 6 micrograms per liter of perchlorate in
drinking water.
The most common practice for removing contaminants from
groundwater involves removal of the groundwater by pumping
wells and treating the water at the well head. In 1997 when
perchlorate was first determined to be present in groundwater,
a viable treatment method for removing low concentrations in
groundwater did not exist. Since that time, specialized polymer
resins have been developed for the removal of low
concentrations by a process called ion exchange. However, the
capital and operation and maintenance costs of these ion
exchange systems are very expensive.
Perchlorate has been detected in about 175 municipal
drinking wells in San Bernardino, Riverside, and Orange
Counties. About 145 of these wells are in the Inland Empire and
the remainder are in Orange County. About 50 percent of the
municipal wells in the entire state that have detected
perchlorate are in these three counties. Most of the detections
throughout the state are very low concentrations, but over 80
percent of the wells in the Inland Empire and Orange County
with detectable levels of perchlorate are below 9 micrograms
per liter, and most of those are below 6.
All the wells are located in historic citrus areas;
therefore, it is likely that most of these wells contain
perchlorate from historic use of Chilean nitrate and also
industrial users. However, in the Redlands and Rialto areas,
where the highest concentration of perchlorate has been
detected, industrial operations have been identified as the
source. The California Regional Water Quality Control Board
Santa Ana Region has been the lead agency in addressing
perchlorate problems in these areas.
In 2002, four water purveyors in the Rialto area shut down
waters containing perchlorate, ultimately ceasing or limiting
the use of 22 wells. This created a potential water supply
shortage situation. The Regional Water Board pursued various
mechanisms to attain money to assist the four water purveyors
with funding for well head treatment. Approximately $10 million
has been provided to the water purveyors. Currently, ten of the
22 impacted wells have well head treatment. These efforts,
while significant, are far less than what is needed to address
the overall anticipated need for cleanup of perchlorate in the
Rialto area.
It is evident that there are two perchlorate groundwater
plumes in the Rialto area. Multi-port groundwater monitoring
wells have been installed, and extensive soil evaluations have
been conducted, five deep multi-level groundwater monitoring
wells up to 3 miles downgradient from the site. What we know is
of all the water consumed in this area, 66 percent of it is
from groundwater, and that is the groundwater that is being
contaminated.
We currently have a strategy of well head treatment, and it
is being addressed and is being treated. And at the current
level of 6 micrograms per liter, that well water can be treated
and blended and safely delivered for potable use. Groundwater
supplies, along with the current level of surface water
imports, provide the quality and quantity needed to meet
current water demands. But should any of the major water
sources be significantly reduced, such as the arrival of the
four horseman of the Apocalypse, be it imported water or
groundwater, or should a level of acceptable concentrations be
reduced, costs of treatment would be increased, making water
expensive, and supplies would be curtailed.
Mrs. Napolitano. You need to wrap up, ma'am.
Ms. Cantu. The legacy for perchlorate contamination is for
those that do not have any responsible parties. Where we do
have responsible parties, we need to pursue them aggressively.
Where we don't have responsible parties in terms of groundwater
contamination because of fertilizer, we need to look at
alternative sources for remediation.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Celeste Cantu follows:]
Statement of Celeste Cantu, General Manager,
Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority
Chairwoman Napolitano and members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate
the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the affects of
perchlorate contamination on groundwater supply in the Inland Empire.
In the semi-arid environment of the Santa Ana Watershed,
groundwater is a major source of the public's drinking water supply.
This is especially true in the Inland Empire area of Riverside and San
Bernardino Counties. Thus, any contamination of this limited and
precious resource is cause for concern. Perchlorate has emerged in this
watershed as a significant issue.
Perchlorate salts are highly soluble and, when applied to soil
(such as the application of fertilizer and waste material left over
from the use of manufactured chemicals), will readily dissolve and move
through the soil to the groundwater. Prior to 1997, perchlorate had not
been detected in low concentrations in groundwater anywhere in the
United States. This is because an analytical method did not exist to
detect perchlorate at extremely low concentrations, and it was not
known to be a common contaminant. However, in 1997, laboratory
analytical methods were developed to allow detection of perchlorate at
concentrations as low as 4 micrograms per liter (mg/l, or parts per
billion) in water. In 2004, the California Office of Environmental
Health Hazard Assessment established a public health goal of 6 ``g/l
for perchlorate in drinking water. As a result, the California
Department of Health Services is now proposing a drinking water Maximum
Contaminant Level (an enforceable regulatory standard) of 6 ``g/l for
perchlorate.
The most common practice for removing contaminants from groundwater
involves the removal of the groundwater by pumping wells, and treating
the water at the wellhead. However, in 1997, when perchlorate was first
determined to be present at low concentrations in groundwater, a viable
treatment method for removing low concentrations of perchlorate in
groundwater did not exist. Since that time, specialized polymer resins
have been developed for the removal of low concentrations of
perchlorate by a process called ion exchange. However, the capital and
operation and maintenance costs for these ion exchange systems are very
expensive.
Occurrence in groundwater
Since 1997, perchlorate has been detected in about 175 municipal
drinking water wells in San Bernardino, Riverside and Orange Counties.
About 145 of these wells are in the Inland Empire, and the remainder is
in Orange County. About 50% of the municipal wells in the entire State
that have detected perchlorate are in these three counties. Most of the
detections throughout the State are in very low concentrations. Over
80% of the wells in the Inland Empire and Orange County with detectable
levels of perchlorate are below 9 ``g/l, and most of those are below 6
``g/l. All the wells are located in historical citrus areas. Therefore,
it is likely that most of these wells contain perchlorate from the
historical use of Chilean nitrate. However, in the Redlands and Rialto
areas, where the highest concentrations of perchlorate have been
detected, industrial operations have been identified as the source. The
California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region, has
been the lead agency addressing perchlorate problems in these two areas
Rialto
In 2002, four water purveyors in the Rialto area shut down wells
containing perchlorate, ultimately ceasing or limiting the use of 22
wells. This created a potential water supply shortage situation. The
Regional Water Board pursued various mechanisms to obtain money to
assist the four water purveyors with funding for wellhead treatment.
Approximately $10,135,000 has been provided to the water purveyors.
Currently, 10 of the 22 impacted wells have wellhead treatment. These
efforts, while significant, are far less than what will be needed to
address the overall anticipated needs for cleanup of perchlorate in the
Rialto area.
It is evident that there are two perchlorate groundwater plumes in
the Rialto area. Multi-port groundwater monitoring wells have been
installed, and extensive soil investigations have been conducted. Five
deep multi-level groundwater monitoring wells up to three miles
downgradient from the site
Conclusion
While currently the contamination is costly, it is being addressed,
and treated. At the current levels of 6 micrograms per liter, well
water can be blended and safely delivered for potable use. Groundwater
supplies along with current level of surface water imports provide the
quantity and quality needed to meet water demands at the current and
anticipated population levels. But should anyone of the major water
sources be significantly reduced, be it imported water or groundwater
or should be level of acceptable concentrations be reduced, costs of
treatment would be increased, making water expensive and supplies could
be curtailed.
Chairwoman Napolitano and members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate
your interest in the long term sustainability of the water supply in
this rapidly growing and developing watershed.
Thank you
[NOTE: A map attached to Ms. Cantu's statement has been retained in
the Committee's official files.]
______
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, ma'am. Try to stay within the
five minutes, please, because we want to be sure everybody has
an opportunity to make their presentation.
Mr. Robert DeLoach, General Manager, Chief Executive Office
of Cucamonga Water District in Rancho Cucamonga. Welcome, sir.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT DeLOACH, GENERAL MANAGER, CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER, CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT, RANCHO CUCAMONGA,
CALIFORNIA
Mr. Deloach. Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the
Subcommittee. In addition to representing the Cucamonga Valley
Water District, I'm also here on behalf of the Chino Basin
Watermaster in the capacity as Chairman of the Water Quality
Committee. In that capacity as well as my agency, we rely on
groundwater to meet our essential drinking water needs. The
Chino basin alone is one of the largest and most critical
groundwater aquifers in the Santa Ana watershed, if not the
entire state.
Throughout all of Southern California, there is tremendous
pressure on local groundwater producers to maximize the use of
groundwater supplies which, in virtually every case, is the
cost effective alternative to costly imported water deliveries.
To give you the sense of the magnitude of the demand within the
Chino basin, this past year alone, basin producers for
municipal drinking water purposes produced over 124,000 acre
feet. Agriculture and industrial use consumed in excess of
35,000 acre feet as well. However, as groundwater producers,
we're beginning to feel like we're being squeezed on three
sides by the Federal Government.
First, most of our groundwater supply is being threatened
by perchlorate and other VOC contamination, much of which is
the direct result of some Federal action or policy. Second, our
imported water supplies are being reduced as a result of
different actions either resulting from restrictions on the
Colorado River or through the State Water Project in CalFed.
And last, as this committee is all too familiar with,
particularly Chairwoman Napolitano, the U.S. Department of
Interior is severely limiting funding through Title 16 programs
for our recycled water projects. Recycled water is a critical
component of supplementing or augmenting our local groundwater
supplies. Over the past five years, local water producers in
the Chino basin have invested over $95 million to develop
recycled water infrastructure which can now treat and
distribute over 8,000 acre feet of recycled water and
throughout the basin.
With all that being said, reductions in recycled water
funding, the cost effectiveness and availability of imported
water supplies, the focus of your subcommittee hearing today,
that I'm sure the effects of perchlorate in DOC contamination
in local groundwater supplies, the extent of the perchlorate
problem contaminating much of our groundwater supplies, then
the watershed is staggering with almost 500,000 acre feet of
water contaminated or impacted. In the Chino basin alone, 39
out of 115 groundwater production wells have detectable limits
of perchlorate with more than one in three exceeding the
California--State of California's action level.
There are several agencies within the Chino basin region as
well as others throughout the entire watershed that do not have
access to alternate sources of water such as imported water
supplies due to either the physical characteristics of their
system or because of the extreme costs associated with doing
that. In the case of the City of Rialto, I think it's already
been mentioned, they've lost up to 9,000 gallons a minute per
day of groundwater production and they have no alternate source
such as imported water.
The committee will undoubtedly hear from others today
describing the options available for treatment, the costs
associated with that, all of which are extremely costly and in
some cases cost prohibitive, and cannot be borne on the backs
of local rate payers. In a report produced by SAWPA a couple of
years ago that indicated the treatment cost within the
watershed associated with perchlorate and other VOC
contamination ranged from $300 million to $1 billion.
At this point, I believe it's important to make a
distinction of the type of perchlorate we found within the
Chino basin. Until recently, we pointed our collective fingers
almost exclusively at the Department of Defense and other
aerospace-related industries as the culprit. And to be sure, it
appears that the lion's share of the perchlorate and the VOC
contamination throughout the watershed is, in fact, related to
some DOD legacy. However, in the past several years in the
Chino basin, we've been able to use isotope testing technology
that conducts, if you will, DNA mapping of perchlorate. And by
doing so, we've identified another source than just the Chilean
fertilizer which is imported literally by the boatloads for
cheap nitrate fertilizer for the citrus crops of our region.
Irrespective of the source, the treatment and methodology
and the costs associated with treatment, the cleanup remains
the same; very costly. Madam Chair, convening this hearing is
another step encouraging awareness of the magnitude of the
problem facing groundwater producers, and the assistance we
need to assure that our groundwater resources are maintained
and secure for future generations. In the past, our agency, as
well as members of these two committees convening here today,
have supported this subcommittee on a variety of bills related
to perchlorate cleanup such as Congressman Baca's H.R. 4606
just a couple of years ago. We're encouraged that you have
chosen to tackle this difficult important issue, and we applaud
you for doing so.
Thank you for allowing me to speak before you today.
[The prepared statement of Robert DeLoach follows:]
Statement of Robert A. DeLoach, General Manager/
Chief Executive Officer, Cucamonga Valley Water District
Introduction
Chairman Napolitano, Representative Baca and Representative Solis.
My name is Robert DeLoach. I am the General Manager/CEO of the
Cucamonga Valley Water District, (CVWD). Our District is retail water
and sewer agency located in Rancho Cucamonga, California, serving a
population of approximately 175,000 people in the western portion of
San Bernardino County within the Santa Ana Watershed.
Our agency receives approximately 50% of its water supply from the
State Water Project through the Inland Empire Utilities Agency a member
agency of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD).
Approximately 40% of our locally developed water supply comes from two
local groundwater basins and the remaining 10% comes from local
mountain sources as surface water. Our primary source of groundwater is
the Chino groundwater basin one of the largest groundwater basins in
the state covering over 240 square miles. In addition to our agency the
Chino Basin provides groundwater supplies to the City of Ontario, City
of Chino, City of Chino Hills, City of Pomona, City of Fontana, City of
Upland, the Monte Vista water District and the West Valley Water
District, as well as a variety of industrial and agricultural uses.
CVWD is the majority shareholder of the Fontana Union Water Company
and in that capacity we manage an extensive array of groundwater rights
within the Rialto and Colton Basins as well as the Chino Basin. We also
have extensive surface water rights within the Lytle Creek region in
the northern portion of the Santa Ana Watershed.
Today, I appear before this committee on behalf of the Cucamonga
Valley Water District, and the Chino Basin Watermaster and on behalf of
Fontana Union Water Company.
Perchlorate and VOC's and Groundwater Production within the Chino Basin
Region
Throughout the Santa Ana Watershed, which consists of 41 individual
groundwater basins, 16 have perchlorate or other volatile organic
compound (VOC) contamination and approximately 30 wells have been shut
down due to the contamination. Overall it is estimated that some 170
wells in the watershed are at risk due to perchlorate contamination
within the various groundwater basins due to Federal activities.
Approximately 550,000 acre feet may be impacted in the watershed. In
the Chino Basin alone, where in 2006 groundwater production exceeded
120,000 acre feet, 39 of the 115 wells, have detectable levels of
perchlorate. More that one in three exceeds the current State of
California ``action level'' for perchlorate.
The incidence of perchlorate in the region and in particular the
Chino Basin and the Rialto/Colton basins has two primary sources of
introduction. In most cases we associate the incidence of perchlorate
in groundwater as emanating from the defense and aerospace related
industry. The use of perchlorate either as ammonium or potassium
perchlorate is used in the manufacture of propellant for rockets and
missiles, and in the manufacture of fireworks or related type uses.
Nationwide more than 90 percent of all perchlorate manufactured, or
roughly 20 million pounds per year is purchased by defense and
aerospace industries. The defense and aerospace industries have
disposed of perchlorate in various states across the countries since
the 1950's with many of these states reporting perchlorate
contamination in their groundwater.
It is important to note that the primary industry in the Chino
Basin region dating back to the early 1900's was and remains although
to a lesser degree, agriculture. With advancements in science and
technology recent studies indicate that perchlorate may originate from
natural resources and some types of commonly applied fertilizers that
contain Chilean Nitrates. The Chino Basin Watermaster has conducted
isotope testing to determine the ``place of origin'' of the perchlorate
contamination within the entire groundwater basin. These tests are
ongoing but sufficient evidence exists that indicates that that both
synthetic based and fertilizer based perchlorate exists with the basin.
The existence of perchlorate represents major concerns for local
water providers in terms of both water supply and cost. Estimates for
remediation, with the typical ``pump and treat'' technology using Ion
Exchange range from $1.0-$3.0 million per production well as the
initial capital investment. The initial capital expenditure while
staggering does not reflect the operation and maintenance costs which
can exceed $500,000 per well on an annual basis. It is estimated that
across the entire Santa Ana Watershed the costs to maintain existing
well production could range from $300 million to $1.0 billion. It is
important to note that such an investment would not produce a single
drop of new water. This is water supply already in production.
Treatment of perchlorate as already has been noted represents
tremendous financial impacts to local water providers many of which
provide water to economical depressed areas. Attempting to recover or
underwrite these costs on the backs of our local ratepayers is at best
unreasonable and at worst unacceptable. Even in those instances where
the perchlorate levels are low enough to be able to treat by blending
contaminated water with higher quality water the availability and cost
of the ``blend'' water may be prohibitive. In many instances this
``blend water'' supply is imported water from the State Water Project
which has already been treated to drinking water standards approved by
the California Department of Health which is in most cases the most
costly supply of available water to local water producers. In the long-
term this practice of using imported water to blend down the
contamination levels to drinking water standards is problematic as will
be described below in greater detail.
Federal Policies, Federal Actions Impacting the Region's Groundwater
Resource
At present, imported water supply to the Chino Basin region exceeds
57,000 acre feet annually. This Santa Ana Watershed region and
specifically the Chino Basin is one of the fastest growing areas of the
nation. Today imported water deliveries to all of southern California
are being reduced through actions of the Federal Government.
Statewide, annual allocations from the Colorado River have been
reduced by 800,000 acre feet which heavily impact the Metropolitan
Water District. Although CVWD does not directly take deliveries of
Colorado River water, this action by the Federal government places
added pressure on the Metropolitan Water District and any retail water
provider who depend on MWD to meet their water supply requirements At
the same time water supplies from the California State Water Project
are being reduced or restricted as well due in part through the Federal
actions and policies associate with the CALFED program.
The reduction of imported water supplies has placed an added burden
and reliance on our local groundwater supplies. Agencies throughout the
Santa Ana Watershed including the Chino Basin are attempting to deal
with this new reality by developing alternative sources of water supply
such as recycled water. With an investment of over $95.0 million over
the past six years agencies within the Chino Basin have developed over
8,000 acre feet of a new drought proof and reliable source of water.
This quality is expected to double this next year.
Despite the obvious economical and water supply benefits of
recycled water to augment our groundwater supplies we are faced with
two new realities: first, the U.S. Department of the Interior proposes
to ``devolve'', or to eliminate the Title XVI water recycling program
which should be the financial backbone for funding recycled water
projects. Secondly, much of our groundwater is contaminated through the
actions of the Federal Government. As already has been stated, over 90%
of the perchlorate as well as volatile organic compounds (VOC's) in
groundwater comes from DOD related activities. These actions equate to
what we describe as the ``Federal squeeze-play''. Imported water is
being reduced while our groundwater supplies are contaminated.
In addition to the limitations noted previously on delivery of
imported water to the region, the ability for retail water providers to
actually increase their imported water supplies is in many instances
limited by the physical characteristics of their respective delivery
systems. In the case of the City of Rialto, five of the City's wells
are contaminated with perchlorate affecting approximately 9,000 gallons
per minute (GPM) of flow, and are without an alternative source of
supply because they do not have a physical connection for imported
water. Funding a new connection to the imported water system and then
constructing a treatment plant to treat the water is also cost
prohibitive for this community. Fontana Water Company which is adjacent
to the City of Rialto recently constructed a 25 million gallon per day
treatment plant at a cost exceeding $35.0 million.
The Chino Basin Watermaster and Agency Coalitions Addressing
Perchlorate
The Chino Basin Watermaster manages the groundwater basin pursuant
to a court ordered judgment for the benefit of groundwater producers
within the Chino Basin. As previously mentioned the producers consist
of a three user groups the largest being local municipal producers that
depend on the Watermaster and the basin to meet the bulk of their
drinking water requirements. The second largest group is the
agriculture community which has transitioned from citrus and vineyard
production and other food product crops to Confined Animal Feeding
Operations (CAFO's), or dairy cattle. The smallest group consists of
industrial users who rely on locally produced groundwater for various
manufacturing and process water requirements.
Each of these producer groups make up the management structure of
the Watermaster. Their objective is to ensure that each producer is
able to produce both the quantity and quality of water to meet the
water supply needs to the greatest extent possible from the basin. In
so doing the Watermaster produced a management plan entitled the
Optimum Basin Management Plan or OBMP.
The OBMP contains several program elements the first being the
requirement to develop a comprehensive monitoring plan for the basin
including monitoring of groundwater quality. That effort produced
mapping of perchlorate and other VOC's which has been used in
coordination with the producers and the Regional Water Quality Control
Board to develop a comprehensive strategy to deal with the
contamination. Included as Exhibit A is a sample of the type of
monitoring work and mapping conducted by the Watermaster to identify
the scope of the contaminate problem including isotope mapping.
Watermaster also formed a Water Quality Committee, of which I serve as
Chairman, which consisted of local producers, MWD and the Regional
Board. The Committee has worked with our team of consultants and
produced the following efforts:
<bullet> Continued groundwater monitoring of perchlorate and other
water quality parameters including water levels to determine the effect
of pumping on known and defined plumes,
<bullet> Identified treatment technologies and their effectiveness
at the wellhead,
<bullet> Utilizing the isotope technology conduct analysis of
existing perchlorate plumes to identify the source of the contaminate,
<bullet> Analyzed cost impacts for well head treatment,
replacement water and related capital improvements related to
remediation or dilution of perchlorate to drinking water standards,
<bullet> Identifying appropriate technical actions necessary to
address the perchlorate problem including providing technical and
administrative support to the Regional Board and with groundwater
management groups from outside the Chino Basin, and
<bullet> Identification of potential responsible parties or
industries including agriculture that may have contributed to the
perchlorate contamination.
In addition to the efforts of Watermaster to manage the water
quality issues related to perchlorate and VOC contamination in the
Basin, several other groups have been formed within the Santa Ana
Watershed to investigate perchlorate related issues in the watershed.
Regional Board Perchlorate Task Force
<bullet> Organized through the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality
Control Board in cooperation with EPA Region 9.
<bullet> Formed to investigate Potential Responsible Parties for
perchlorate contamination and mapping within the Rialto-Colton Basins.
Inland Empire Perchlorate Task Force
<bullet> Formed to negotiate a solution to the perchlorate
problems incurred by Fontana Water Company and the West Valley Water
District.
Mayor's Advisory Committee of Water Contamination (Perchlorate)
<bullet> Formed to advise the mayor and city council on
perchlorate contamination issues in the City of Rialto
Mr. Chairman, the Cucamonga Valley Water District along with the
Chino Basin Watermaster takes our respective roles in groundwater basin
management and water supply very seriously. Perchlorate is a serious
problem and has impacted our local groundwater resources and the local
economy. We are looking for solutions that can be implemented now.
Throughout the entire region there is a need to fully characterize the
various contamination plumes in a coordinated fashion or assist
existing entities such as the Watermaster in their ongoing efforts. We
need to coordinate on data collection and monitoring to identify
movement of the various contaminate plumes, contained and ultimately
cleaned up. We need to identify water supply alternatives that are cost
effective and reliable such as developing funding for recycled water.
Our agency remains committed to doing all that we can to ensure
that our groundwater supplies are protected in a cost effective manner.
We appreciate the efforts your committee have undertaken to conduct
this hearing and solicit information regarding this issue.
Thank you Madam Chairwoman for your time and consideration.
______
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. DeLoach. And of course,
thank you Ms. Solis, because she's attacking the issue of
perchlorate from the other side. But before I move on, I'd like
to recognize and again thank President Mike Ortiz, standing in
the back, who just joined us. Thank you for allowing us to use
your facilities, sir. It's very nice--we're very much enjoying
it. Thank you.
And I'd also like to introduce the staff in case, after the
meeting, you want to talk to some of the staff who really does
most of the work. On my left is Steve Lanich who is the
Director of Personnel for the Subcommittee, and--where are you,
Kiel? Kiel, hiding back there, he's Minority subcommittee staff
who is joining us, and he's listening out to any of the
comments you may hear in the background. And also to my Chief
of Staff Daniel Chao behind me, Amelia Wang, my District
Director and Joe, who is my Legislative Director. And Emily,
where are you? Oh, I'm sorry. Emily, another staff of this
efficient subcommittee, very, very capable young people. And
Steve has over 20-some odd years on water, so you know he knows
the subject. I want to introduce you to them so you understand
what we do in Washington and how we do it and why we do it with
this personnel. All right. I'd like to move on to Penny
Newman----
Mr. Baca of California. Madam Chair, weren't you on campus
here on Saturday as well with Dr. Ortiz?
Mrs. Napolitano. Yes, so were you. That's why I say thank
you to the President. We brought in the congressional institute
to talk to over 200 youngsters from the local high schools and
middle schools on some of the grant scholarships and trying to
help them learn how to stay in school, how to go to university,
and how to become successful leaders. So thank you, sir.
With that, Penny Newman, Executive Director, Center For
Community Action and Environmental Justice in Riverside, I have
read your testimony. It's very interesting. Welcome.
STATEMENT OF PENNY NEWMAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR
COMMUNITY ACTION, ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE, RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA
Ms. Newman. Thank you. It's a pleasure to appear before
you, and I thank you for the opportunity to add our testimony
to this very important issue.
I'd also like to introduce two of my staff people who are
here. That's Jan Mendez and Nina Diaz who are working our San
Bernardino office on the perchlorate issue. Still can't hear
me?
Mrs. Napolitano. That's good.
Ms. Newman. CCAEJ, as it's commonly called, is one of the
oldest and most accomplished environmental justice
organizations in the nation, having begun our work in 1978 as a
small neighborhood community group focused on California's Top
Priority Superfund Site, the Stringfellow Acid Pits.
It's through our involvement with Stringfellow that we
first became introduced to perchlorate. In 1999 and 2000, they
did testing for the chemical for the first time with that site
and discovered that overnight, our plume had expanded by more
than five times from what we originally thought. It now went
from Glen Avon into two more communities, Pedley and Mira Loma
extending 6 miles to the Santa Ana River. This discovery also
found that dozens of families had been drinking contaminated
water with perchlorate without their knowledge. The State of
California through the Department of Toxic Substance Control,
moved quickly to provide bottled water and started the process
of connecting people to another water system.
One of the things that we found very disturbing about
perchlorate was because it was so mobile and moved so quickly,
that it contaminated a wide area, but that we're also beginning
to see how it uptakes into our food chain. Crops such as sweet
lettuce, alfalfa, and cucumbers have been found to have
perchlorate in them. For Latino communities, who rely on
staples such as nopales to augment their nutrition value, it
has the same characteristics. No one is doing a study on this.
That means that our low-income Latino communities are relying
on this as an addition to their nutrition and a possibility of
intake in perchlorate that way. So it's not just whether you
live in an area that is contaminated, like Rialto or
Stringfellow, but also the food that we're drinking--or eating.
In 2004, CCAEJ along with the Environment California, a
statewide research and policy organization partnered in our
Inland Valley Perchlorate Community Relief Project to focus on
the contamination in Rialto. We were alarmed that in high
income, predominantly white communities like Redlands, it took
less than a year to get cleanup and abatement ordered. Yet, in
Rialto, working class, 65 percent Latino population, it is
going on over ten years and still no cleanup and abatement
order has been issued. Despite the responsibility and years of
negotiations, neither Goodrich Corporation nor Black & Decker,
those named by U.S. EPA as dischargers have agreed to clean up
the mess they have created. While the companies delay, many of
the citizens of Rialto are having to step forward to pay for
their clean water.
That delay continues today. In fact, instead of meeting to
develop comprehensive cleanup plans, Goodrich and Black &
Decker are conducting prolonged depositions in an attempt to
harass, intimidate, and abuse agency staff and my own
organization. The interrogations consist of aggressive yelling,
brow-beating, verbal attacks, and threats to the point of
bringing some people to tears in the hallway. The attacks
continue with subpoenas for extensive document production even
though dates for submitting evidence have been outlined and
scheduled for the administrative hearing. Even though
Constitutionally protected, the corporations continue to press
for funding sources and our membership lists for our community-
based organization.
The goal is clear. They have stated both verbally and in
writing that if we simply withdraw as a designated party, all
of this will stop. We've made a commitment to the residents of
Rialto that we are going to ensure that their voice is heard in
this area on an equal level with the polluters, the agencies,
and the cities, and we're not going to back down.
In 2006, it became even more clear how dangerous this
situation was when tests that were mandated for Goodrich to
conduct discovered an alarming spike in the levels. Between
April of 2005 and April of 2006, the levels rose from 53 parts
per billion to over 10,000, the highest in the State of
California. While these delays continue, it is the community of
Rialto that pays the price. With strong leadership and efforts
from local officials such as Mr. Baca, there has been some
Federal funding coming forth. But to address this problem in a
comprehensive way and a cleanup price of over 300 million, we
have to hold the polluters responsible. As my mother always
told me, if you make the mess, you clean it up. If we expect
that for responsibility in our children, we should expect no
less for our corporations.
Our aquifers and water sources are a precious commonwealth
for all of us. We cannot allow them to continue to be polluted.
It is a resource for all of us no matter what our income or
status in the community. Our first item that this committee can
do as individuals or as a committee is to write a letter to the
State Water Resources Board endorsing the strong cleanup and
abatement order that has been drafted. We've had great input
into this, and I think it will provide a model around the
country for the way that we should be pursuing. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Penny Newman follows:]
Statement of Penny J. Newman, Executive Director,
Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice
Chairwoman Napolitano, Honorable Members of the subcommittee, I
thank you for the opportunity to address this committee on this
important issues.
My name is Penny Newman, Executive Director for the Center for
Community Action and Environmental Justice. CCAEJ is one of the oldest
and most accomplished environmental justice organizations in the nation
having begun our work in 1978 as a small neighborhood group fighting
for the cleanup of California's top priority Superfund site, the
Stringfellow Acid Pits.
Perchlorate in Groundwater
It is through our involvement with the Stringfellow site that in
2000, we became acquainted with perchlorate when testing discovered the
chemical in the aquifer below the site. That discovery, expanded
overnight the contaminated plume seeping from the site by more than 5
times. (Exhibit 1). Instead of the pollution being confined to the
community of Glen Avon it now affected 2 more communities--Pedley and
Mira Loma--extending it more than 6 miles to the Santa Ana River. With
this discovery dozens of families were found to be drinking water from
their private wells contaminated by perchlorate. The State of
California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) moved quickly
to provide bottled water to affected residents and began the process of
connecting homes to another water system.
The response by DTSC in quickly addressing the perchlorate
contamination in Glen Avon sadly seems to be an anomaly rather than
standard practice both by DTSC and other state agencies. For example,
in the community of Norco residents find that contamination from the
Wyle Labs has placed their homes and water resources at risk as well.
Perchlorate is one of the noted contaminants along with TCE which has
volatized through the soil and concentrated in homes--prompting, in at
least one case, emergency action due to the high levels. (Exhibit 2).
In the Norco case agencies have been slow to respond as staff turnover
and even agency turnover has produced a lack of historical memory and
repetition for residents of having to reprove and re-discuss the same
issues over and over. Progress on this site has been frustratingly slow
for affected residents who feel they have been put in the position of
conducting the tasks public agencies should be doing.
Across the county line in San Bernardino in the City of Rialto,
perchlorate has had a major impact on the city and its residents. One
young woman relates her story. She moved to Rialto, buying her dream
house and sending her kids to school down the street, the town seemed
the perfect place to raise three young children. Much to her horror, in
March of 2003 she discovered that water from wells contaminated by
rocket fuel from operations of Goodrich Corp and Black & Decker, is
piped to her home.
Upon investigating this alarming situation further, she discovered
that despite the companies' combined yearly revenues of more than $5
billion, the corporations have to date failed to clean up the mess they
created more than forty years ago. As a result, she and 100,000 other
residents in the diverse, working class community just east of here
have had their clean water stolen from them.
Perchlorate travels easily in water, allowing spills to rapidly
enter water supplies, and persists for many decades underground.
Through careless handling, use, storage and disposal of perchlorate
over the last six decades, the military and its contractors have
extensively polluted California's drinking water sources. State
agencies have discovered perchlorate pollution in more than 350
California water sources, including the Colorado River and hundreds of
municipal wells. Perchlorate contaminates the drinking water supply of
16 million Californians. The contamination extends into more than 10
counties, San Bernardino, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, Ventura,
Tulare, Orange, Santa Clara, Sonoma and San Diego (Exhibit 3).
According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Research and Development the vast majority of perchlorate in the United
States is synthetic associated with use in rocket propellants,
explosives, road flares, air bags, electronic tubes lubricating oils,
leather tanning, fabrics, electroplating, aluminum refining, rubber
manufacture, and the production of paints. As a consequence of their
widespread use and water solubility, huge amounts of perchlorate have
leached into surface and groundwater used as drinking water source.
Southern California relies heavily on its underground aquifer
system for a majority of its drinking water. As perchlorate continues
to migrate into our underground aquifers, our backup water source is
the Colorado River. In the 1950s, large amounts of perchlorate were
made at factories owned by American Pacific and Kerr-McGee corporations
outside Las Vegas, in an area draining into Lake Mead and the Colorado
River. Dumping, spills and explosions left the area around these
factories heavily contaminated. It is estimated that more than 20
million pounds of the chemical remain in the sediments downstream from
the factories. Wastewater from the city of Las Vegas carries the
perchlorate downstream to Lake Mead. In 2004, 200 to 300 pounds of
perchlorate leached into Lake Mead every day.
With the current pace of cleanup and with natural flushing of the
river, it is estimated that the lower Colorado River will remain
contaminated with perchlorate for the next 50 years.
Perchlorate in Food
The impact of perchlorate is not limited to drinking water.
Perchlorate also concentrates in leafy vegetables like lettuce, which
creates a concern for consumers of Imperial Valley crops irrigated with
Colorado River water. Tests by scientists and advocacy organizations
like the Environmental Working Group have confirmed that plants,
especially broad-leaf varieties, concentrate perchlorate from the
environment. Scientists have found perchlorate in plant tissues at
levels up to 100 times higher than in nearby water sources. In 2004,
The Food and Drug Administration released a study finding perchlorate
in 90 percent of 128 lettuce samples and in all but three of the 104
milk samples, with average levels ranging from six parts per billion in
milk to 12 parts per billion in Romaine lettuce. These results raise
the possibility that perchlorate contamination is much more widespread
than regulators currently know, and that exposure is wide spread across
the country.
Perchlorate is highly mobile in water and can persist for decades
under typical ground and surface water conditions. Research has also
shown that perchlorate can concentrate in crops such as wheat, lettuce,
alfalfa, and cucumbers thereby resulting in much greater exposures than
might be predicted by water or fertilizer concentrations. Newer data
have shown perchlorate contamination to be widespread in store-bought
fruit, vegetables, cow's milk, beer and wine. Perchlorate has been
found in human breast milk at levels up to 92 ppb, and was found in
every one of 2820 urine samples the Centers for Disease Control
recently tested for perchlorate. Nopales, a staple in the Latino
communities, has similar characteristics of those vegetables found to
uptake perchlorate easily such as lettuce. A concern for low income
Latino communities that rely on the tasty succulent as a major food
source is that perchlorate levels will be high in this crop as well.
Perchlorate is a potent competitive inhibitor of the sodium-iodide
symporter (NIS), interfering with the normal uptake of iodide into the
thyroid gland, as well as normal transport of iodide across the
placenta and into the lactating mammary gland. Iodide uptake inhibition
can result in decreased capacity to synthesize thyroid hormones. In the
developing fetus and infant, adequate thyroid hormones are necessary
for normal brain development. Subtle alterations of thyroid hormone
during pregnancy--even within the normal range--have been associated
with decreased intellectual and learning capacity in childhood.
In 2004, CCAEJ and Environment California, a statewide research and
policy organization, partnered in our Inland Valley Perchlorate
Community Relief Project and began focusing on the Rialto
contamination. We were alarmed that in high income, predominantly white
(72%) communities like Redlands, a Cleanup and Abatement Order (CAO)
was issued by the Regional Water Board against the polluter in less
than one year. Yet in Rialto a working class community that is 64.7
percent Latino, ten years have passed since the discovery of the
pollution. But despite their responsibility and years of negotiations,
neither Goodrich Corp. nor Black & Decker have agreed to clean up the
mess they have created. While the companies delay, many citizen of
Rialto drink water that is polluted by rocket fuel. According to data
supplied to local and state water officials, water from drinking water
wells contaminated at up to three times the safety levels issued in
other states is piped to homes in the city.
That delay continues today. In fact instead of meeting to develop a
comprehensive clean up plan, Goodrich and Black & Decker are conducting
prolonged depositions in an attempt to harass, intimidate and abuse
agency staff and public interest advocates. The interrogations consist
of aggressive yelling, browbeating and verbal attacks to the point of
bringing some people to tears in the hallway. The attacks continue with
subpoenas for extensive document production even though dates for
submitting evidence have been outlined in a schedule for the
Administrative Hearing. Even though constitutionally protected the
corporations continue to press for funding sources and membership lists
of our community-based, non-profit organization.
And while the delays continue, several other wells unusable due to
contamination, in this drought-prone area brings the city to the brink
of running out of water. While the pollution continues to move, the
polluters continue to delay and deny responsibility. In the meantime,
it is the residents who have been forced to pay water bill price hikes
and surcharges to pursue the polluters for clean water. The residents
are hit twice. First, their water supply is destroyed by the polluters
actions and irresponsibility. Secondly, those most unable to afford
it--the residents of Rialto--are the only ones having to pay.
In 2006, new mandated pollution tests conducted by Goodrich
corporation and submitted to state water officials in July reveal an
alarming spike in contamination that threatens to send a new pulse of
toxic perchlorate pollution into Rialto drinking water wells. Levels of
perchlorate pollution in well PW-2, located close to the historic
Goodrich perchlorate disposal pit spiked sharply in 2006--from an April
2005 concentration of 53 ug/L to an April 2006 concentration of
10,000ug/L. the highest level reported in the state.
A potential explanation for this spike in perchlorate levels is
that heavy rains increased the level of the water table, dissolving
perchlorate contamination that persist in the oil around the Goodrich
``burn pit''. Once dissolved, the perchlorate would have traveled into
local groundwater, creating a new ``pulse'' of contamination. This new
pulse threatens wells down gradient from well PW-2.
While delays continue in taking aggressive action to stop the
migration of perchlorate in the aquifer more and more water is
destroyed and taken out of use as a common public drinking water
source. With the strong leadership and efforts by local officials some
federal funding has been forth coming to begin to address the problems.
But the real answer is in making the polluters pay for the ecological
disaster their mismanagement and irresponsibility have created. It is
only through the polluters pay principle that enough resources will be
available to correct the situation and save our water resources. It is
inherently unfair to use taxpayers money to fund the cleanup created by
the corporations' actions. As my mother always told me, ``If you make
the mess, you clean it up.''
Our aquifers and water resources are a precious common wealth for
us all. All life relies upon this resource. We cannot accept
irresponsible actions by anyone to pollute this precious resource.
Clean drinking water should not be dependant upon one's ability to buy
filters or bottled water. It is a resource for us all no matter ones
income or status in the community. A first step to achieving this goal
is joining us in endorsing our petition to the Water board for a strong
Clean up and Abatement Order. (Exhibit 5)
Thank you for the opportunity to address this committee regarding
this important issue.
[NOTE: The exhibits listed below have been retained in the
Committee's official files.]
<bullet> Exhibit 1. Perchlorate Plume from Stringfellow Acid Pits
<bullet> Exhibit 2. Off site contamination from Wyle Labs in Norco
California
<bullet> Exhibit 3. Number of Perchlorate Contaminated Wells by
County
<bullet> Exhibit 4. Groundwater contamination/Perchlorate plumes
and contaminated wells in the Inland Valleys of Riverside and San
Bernardino.
<bullet> Exhibit 5. Sample letter endorsing Clean up and Abatement
Order in Rialto.
______
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Ms. Newman. We will move on to
the last witness on this panel, Mr. Phil Wyels, Assistant Chief
Counsel, State Water Resources Control Board from Sacramento.
Welcome. Thank you for coming, sir.
STATEMENT OF PHIL WYELS, ASSISTANT CHIEF COUNSEL, STATE WATER
RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD, SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA
Mr. Wyels. Thank you, Madam Chair and members. As Assistant
Chief Counsel for the California State Water Resources Control
Board, one of my duties is to provide legal representation and
counsel to the California Regional Water Quality Control
Boards. The regional water boards and the State Water Board are
in California, the primary agencies with regulatory
responsibility over the quality of the water resources in the
state. Among the other authorities, the water boards have the
authority to issue cleanup and abatement orders to compel
persons who have caused or permitted discharges of waste that
have resulted in water pollution or contamination to
investigate and remediate those discharges. When exercising
that authority in situations where the discharge of waste has
adversely affected other entities' water supplies, the water
boards can require those persons who have discharged their
waste to provide water--to provide replacement water supplies
to the affected water users.
When the water boards are exercising their authority to
compel investigation and remediation of groundwater pollution,
they are acting in a quasi-judicial capacity. They conduct an
adjudicative hearing to determine whether the weight of the
evidence supports a finding that the potential responsible
party did, in fact, discharge the waste resulted in the
groundwater pollution. After the Water Board determines which
parties are responsible for the investigation or remediation,
the Water Board continues to maintain jurisdiction to oversee
the investigation and remediation including approving the final
cleanup plan and setting the groundwater cleanup levels.
On those occasions where the groundwater pollution has
directly affected an existing water supply, the water boards do
have the authority to require replacement water supplies. This
can be in the form of providing well head treatment, paying
money to the water suppliers so they can obtain additional
water, or directly obtaining additional water for the
suppliers. One issue of particular relevance in discussing the
requirement of responsible parties to provide replacement water
supplies is the necessary level of pollution in the supply
wells before the responsible parties are required to provide
that replacement water.
The State Water Board issued a precedential order in 2005,
the result of an appeal filed by another perchlorate
manufacturer in a different part of the state. And in that
order, the State Water Board decided that as a matter of
policy, the regional boards should only require the responsible
parties to provide replacement water supplies for public health
purposes if the pollutant concentrations at the supply wells
exceeded drinking water standards. Where drinking water
standards have not yet been adopted as with perchlorate, the
State Water Board directed the regional water boards to defer
to the expertise of the Department of Health Services and
another sister agency, the Office of Environmental Health
Hazard Assessment to determine what levels would be safe. That
level currently has been set at 6 parts per billion by the
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment level, and
that is below what the regional water boards currently use. The
Department of Health Services in California recently proposed
to adopt a state maximum contaminant level of 6 parts per
billion for perchlorate.
The regional water boards do have the ability to require
replacement water supplies if necessary to protect other uses
of water or if necessary to prevent the acceleration of the
groundwater plume's migration due to the operation of municipal
supply wells. And on occasion, the regional water boards have
found it necessary to restrict the use of water supply wells
where the continued pumping of those wells is causing nearby
groundwater plumes to spread. In these cases, the responsible
parties, including notably the Department of Defense, have
generally been very resistant to providing water supplies. As
you might imagine, the regional water boards have typically
found that it's much more cost effective to prevent the spread
of pollution.
With respect to the local perchlorate plume, the Santa Ana
Regional Water Board has been devoting much of its staff's time
to this very important problem over the last several years. The
Regional Board has been working in close cooperation with the
City of Rialto to develop the evidence to support its case
against certain potential responsible parties. The responsible
parties have filed numerous appeals with the State Water
Resources Control Board in courts prior to this hearing,
however, and the State Water Board recently decided that it
will take over responsibility to conduct the hearing.
That administrative hearing is scheduled to take six full
days starting as soon as next month. At the conclusion of that
hearing, I expect that the State Water Board will issue an
order determining which parties are responsible for
investigation and remediation of the major source area of
perchlorate. The State Water Board is also being asked by the
Regional Board to order some or all of the responsible parties
to provide water supplies to the affected water supply users.
I'd just like to conclude by explaining that the Regional
Water Board is grateful for the tremendous support that the
City of Rialto has provided by way of its Federal litigation,
and the Regional Board also appreciates the assistance that the
United States Environmental Protection Agency has provided. And
we hope that they will be able to continue in that role.
Unfortunately, my understanding is that the Department of
Defense has been less than cooperative at the Rialto site, so
any encouragement that the Subcommittee can provide in that
regard would be very much appreciated.
That concludes my testimony. Thank you for convening this
hearing on this important topic, and thank you for letting us
speak.
[The prepared statement of Phil Wyels follows:]
Statement of Phil Wyels, California State Water Resources Control Board
Thank you for the invitation to testify before the Water and Power
Subcommittee of the House Natural Resources Committee. My name is Phil
Wyels. I am an Assistant Chief Counsel for the California State Water
Resources Control Board; my duties include providing legal counsel and
representation to the nine California Regional Water Quality Control
Boards. My testimony today will focus on two primary issues. First, I
will describe those agencies' general approach in overseeing
remediation of groundwater pollution, including requiring the persons
responsible for creating the pollution to provide replacement water
supplies to affected water users. Second, I will explain those
agencies' roles in addressing the Rialto-area perchlorate groundwater
contamination.
In California, the agencies that have primary responsibility over
the quality of the state's water resources are the State Water
Resources Control Board and the nine California Regional Water Quality
Control Boards, which are commonly referred to as the State Water Board
and the Regional Water Boards. The Water Boards are comprised of
gubernatorial appointees who oversee a professional staff that includes
engineers, geologists, and scientists. The Water Boards have broad
quasi-legislative and quasi-adjudicative authority to regulate all
discharges of waste that can affect the quality of the state's
groundwater or surface waters. This includes administering both the
federal Clean Water Act's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System permit program, as well as a state's Porter-Cologne permit
program that regulates discharges that are beyond the scope of the
NPDES permit program. In addition, the Water Boards have the authority
under state law to compel persons who have caused or permitted
discharges of waste that have resulted in water pollution or
contamination to investigate and remediate their discharges. When
exercising that authority in situations where the discharge of waste
has adversely affected other entities' water supplies, the Water Boards
can require those persons who discharged the waste to provide
replacement water supplies to the affected water users.
As a general rule, it is the Regional Water Boards that conduct
most of the direct regulation of waste discharges and oversight of
groundwater remediation, while the State Water Board hears appeals from
parties challenging the Regional Water Boards' orders. Occasionally,
however, the State Water Board itself will act as the finder of facts
and issue orders in the first instance. In addition to the Water
Boards, there are several local, state, and federal agencies that play
varying roles in overseeing investigation and remediation of various
types of contamination in California.
When the Water Boards are exercising their authorities to compel
investigation and remediation of groundwater pollution, they are acting
in a quasi-judicial capacity. They conduct an adjudicative hearing to
determine whether the weight of the evidence supports a finding that
the potential responsible parties did in fact discharge the waste that
resulted in the groundwater pollution. After the Water Board determines
which parties are responsible for the investigation and remediation,
the Water Board continues to maintain jurisdiction to oversee the
investigation and remediation, including approving the final cleanup
plan and setting final groundwater cleanup levels.
On those occasions where the groundwater pollution has directly
affected an existing water supply, the Water Boards have the authority
to require the responsible parties to provide replacement water
supplies to the affected water suppliers. This can be in the form of
providing wellhead treatment, paying money to the water suppliers so
that they can obtain additional water, or directly obtaining additional
water for the suppliers. The state law that provides this authority was
amended in 2004, and now specifies that any replacement water is
required to be the same quality that the groundwater was prior to the
discharge of waste. Incidentally, State Senator Nell Soto, who has been
heavily involved in the local perchlorate groundwater pollution issues,
sponsored that amendment to California Water Code section 13304.
One issue of particular relevance in discussing the requirement for
responsible parties to provide replacement water supplies is the
necessary level of pollution in the supply wells before the responsible
parties are required to provide replacement water. The State Water
Board issued a precedential order in 2005 that resolved an appeal filed
by Olin Corporation, a perchlorate discharger south of San Jose. The
State Water Board decided that, as a matter of policy, the Regional
Water Boards should only require the responsible parties to provide
replacement water supplies for public health purposes if the pollutant
concentrations at the supply wells exceed drinking water standards.
Where drinking water standards have not yet been adopted; as with
perchlorate, the State Water Board directed the Regional Water Boards
to defer to the expertise of the California Office of Environmental
Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), a sister state agency that conducts
human health risk assessments. OEHHA had determined that perchlorate in
drinking water does not pose adverse effects on human health at or
below 6 micrograms per liter, so the State Water Board concluded that
the dischargers should not have to provide replacement water supplies
for human health purposes until the perchlorate at the supply wells was
above 6 micrograms per liter. The California Department of Health
Services recently proposed to adopt a state Maximum Contaminant Level
of 6 micrograms per liter for perchlorate.
The State Water Board's precedential Olin order left open the
possibility, however, that the Regional Water Boards could require
replacement water supplies at lower pollutant levels if necessary to
protect other uses of water or if necessary to prevent the
acceleration, of the groundwater plume's migration due to the operation
of municipal water supply wells. On occasion, the Regional Water Boards
have found it necessary to restrict the use of water supply wells where
the continued pumping of those wells is causing nearby groundwater
plumes to spread. In these cases, the responsible parties, notably
including the Department of Defense, have generally been very resistant
to providing replacement water supplies. As you might imagine, the
Regional Water Boards have typically found that it is much more cost
effective to prevent the spreading of the pollution.
With respect to the local perchlorate plume, the Santa Ana Regional
Water Board has been devoting much of its staffs' resources to this
very important problem over the last several years. The Regional Water
Board staff, in cooperation with the City of Rialto, has been
collecting evidence and developing a case to determine which entities
are responsible for the pollution, especially from a 160-acre site in
Rialto that is believed to be one of the primary source areas.
The original intent was for the Regional Water Board staff to
present this information to the Regional Water Board at an adjudicatory
hearing. The potential responsible parties filed numerous appeals with
the State Water Board and the courts prior to the hearing, however, and
the State Water Board decided earlier this year that it would take over
responsibility for conducting the hearing. That hearing is scheduled to
take six full days, starting next month. At the conclusion of the
hearing, I expect that the State Water Board will issue an order
determining which parties are responsible for investigation and
remediation of that major source area. The State Water Board is also
being asked to order some or all of those responsible parties to
provide replacement water supplies to the affected water supply users.
The State Water Board has named six parties to the adjudicatory
hearing. Those parties are the Santa Ana Regional Water Board staff who
are advocating for the adoption of an order, the City of Rialto, which
has been providing invaluable assistance to the Regional Water Board
staff, two local environmental justice organizations, and the potential
responsible parties. Because this is a judge-like hearing, there is an
ethical wall between all of the parties and the State Water Board.
Therefore, as an attorney that represents the Regional Water Boards, I
am not in a position to know how the State Water Board views the
evidence that has been submitted to it to date. I do expect, however,
based on the potential responsible parties' tactics to date, that the
hearing will be heavily contested and that some, if not all, of the
parties will turn to the courts to attempt to overturn any State Water
Board order that concludes that they are responsible for the
perchlorate pollution.
In the meantime, the Regional Water Board is grateful for the
tremendous support that the City of Rialto has provided by way of its
federal litigation against a multitude of potential responsible
parties. Through that litigation, for example, Rialto has been able to
take literally hundreds of depositions of former employees of some of
the potential responsible parties, arid in so doing has helped develop
key evidence regarding historic perchlorate handling practices. The
Regional Water Board also appreciates the assistance that the United
States Environmental Protection Agency has provided, and hopes that it
will be able to continue in its support role. Unfortunately, my
understanding is that the Department of Defense has been uncooperative
at the Rialto site, so any encouragement that the Subcommittee can
provide in that regard would be very much appreciated by the Regional
Water Board staff.
Once again, thank you for the opportunity to provide this testimony
to the Subcommittee, and I would be pleased to answer any questions you
might have.
______
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you so very much, Mr. Wyels. I
couldn't agree with you more, and that's one of the reasons
we're having the hearings and being able to get more
information received. I'm glad to hear that you're going to be
having that hearing hopefully next month. And I'd love to have
staff come in and sit in on it. Does your agency work with
Federal EPA?
Mr. Wyels. We do. There are actually a number of agencies
involved in various water pollution cleanups throughout the
state. U.S. EPA has been involved in somewhat of a support
role. They're letting the state take the lead, which so far is
working, slowly albeit. And yes, they have provided direct
support on this particular case.
Mrs. Napolitano. Oh, what about the defense department? Are
they part--are you inviting them to be there so they can hear
the findings and be more aware of the effect it has on the
populace?
Mr. Wyels. The Regional Water Board has asked the
Department of Defense to assist in the investigation; so far my
understanding is they have largely declined for this particular
site. They are not one of the named responsible parties for the
order that the State Board would be considering. That's from a
different source area. And so yes, the hearing is open to the
public. I couldn't tell you whether they plan to attend or not.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you. Do we have a representative
from Federal EPA here? Would you stand, sir, and state your
name?
Mr. Villasenor. Sure. Andre Villasenor, U.S. EPA with the
L.A. field office.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you for coming, and thank Laura for
allowing you to come because I just called her yesterday. Thank
you, sir. And the reason I asked them to send somebody is so
they can listen to the testimony of the people of the water
agencies and the state and the local agencies to get a better
idea of what is really happening in our backyard. So thank you.
As a witness on this panel, Mr. Wyels, Mr. Araiza of the
West Valley District believes that state and Federal
intervention is needed. Do you agree with the assessment? And
if so, what Federal or state entity do you believe should take
the lead role?
Mr. Wyels. At this time, the State Water Board has asserted
itself as the agency that is adjudicating the determination
about liability and cleanup responsibility, and they are on
track to conduct the hearing next month. So I'm hopeful,
despite all of the delay efforts and sort of the aggressive
defense moves, that they will proceed at the hearing.
Mrs. Napolitano. OK. You state some of the major
impediments are the inability of the Federal Government to own
up to its responsibility, one, that namely the PRP's, and the
list goes on in regard to what litigation and other things that
are happening. What can we do? What can the Federal Government,
in conjunction with the states and locals, do? Because the only
ones that win are the attorneys.
Mr. Wyels. I agree. I'm not one of those attorneys,
unfortunately. I'm on salary. No, the answer, Madam Chair, is
with respect to the Department of Defense, Congress can
certainly encourage them to be much more forthright and
forthcoming in terms of providing funds and resources to not
only investigate, but also to take responsibility for the
discharges for which they are responsible. We have been pleased
with U.S. EPA's role to date to the extent that they can obtain
additional funding to increase the level of support they
provide. That would be wonderful.
Mrs. Napolitano. Well, if we can get Federal EPA to sit
with the groups in this area and begin to understand the
severity of the local problem, whether it's Rialto or--well,
the rest of the Inland Empire, and work with them as they did
with the San Gabriel Valley cleanup, I think we will be in a
better position and be able to force the PRP's to the table so
that at least the process can get moving in being able to
address especially those areas that are really affected. I
have--let's see. Celeste Cantu, how has the perchlorate
contamination affected the quality and sustainability of the
Santa Ana Watershed?
Ms. Cantu. Up to this moment with the treatment expenses
that they're implementing, the supply is being maintained. It
is getting more and more precarious, particularly as other
factors such as precipitation change due to global warming or
lack of reliability of imported water come into focus better,
we realize how precarious we might actually be. But with the
treatment that is going on at this moment and with the limit of
6 that we have to work with at this moment, we are able to
sustain a water supply. Should any of those factors change,
however, it would be increasingly vulnerable and it would be
hard to feel very secure that we would have a reliable source.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you. Mr. DeLoach, and then I'll let
my other colleagues have a go at it. How much has the State
Water Project supplies been reduced by pumping restrictions in
recent years? And how does this translate to water supply
reductions in the Chino basin and the State Water Project?
Mr. Deloach. Well, currently in the Chino basin alone area,
we've seen no reductions. Our current--our imports are about
37,000 acre feet a year, but we fear that that's going to be
reduced somewhat. And for many of us that is the lion's share
of our water supply. For us it represents over half of our
water supply. So any reduction on it will be detrimental unless
we can develop alternate sources. But we're planning now that
there will be reductions within the next five to ten years.
Mrs. Napolitano. OK. Because of the issue with the fish
getting into the----
Mr. DeLoach. The Delta pumps.
Mrs. Napolitano [continuing]. Pumps. Right. There was going
to be some changes, and we have not heard yet as to what those
are going to be. And that should possibly affect the water
supplies to this region.
Mr. Deloach. It will.
Mrs. Napolitano. And then Mr. Baca, you're up.
Mr. Baca of California. A series of questions. I guess I'll
start with the first one, with the council member from the City
of Rialto, since I happen to know him.
What action is the city taking to address water supply and
potential public health problems arising from perchlorate
contamination, in your opinion as a resident of the City of
Rialto?
Mr. Baca. We have a few things that Rialto has done. First
of all, we shut a few of our wells to make sure that we're not,
you know, asserting perchlorate to our residents, and we've
also adopted a zero tolerance policy. And to define a zero
tolerance, what it is is a policy that we will serve less than
the technology available. So based on technology today, we're
serving 4 parts per billion or less. And we're also in the
process, we filed 41 lawsuits, we're participating in the state
hearing, and pushing for a cleanup and abatement order. And the
other thing we're doing too is we're requesting Federal funding
and looking for an alternative water supply. One of the things
that we push for is the Bunker Hill basin in the Inland Empire,
we're looking at joining with other water agencies to make sure
that we have an alternative water supply.
But most of all, the biggest concern to me is the amount of
bills--the amount of money that the residents are paying. So
for example, I have a bill here, the bill here is $83.28, and
the amount of fees that we're charging per residence is $15.63.
That's roughly 17 percent of their bill. So those that are on
fixed income or low or moderate income have a difficult time
paying these bills. So that's just one of the concerns and one
of the highlights I wanted to make sure we bring to this
committee.
Mr. Baca of California. Thank you very much. And I know
that Penny Newman indicated that based on the population--and
that's a district that I represent, the 43rd Congressional
District. This is the poorest district of any congressional
member in the State of California with the highest number of
minorities. Well, not the highest number of minorities, but the
poorest district anyway, with 42 percent Hispanic and roughly
between 14 to 16 percent African American. Penny, what impact,
do you know, does it really have in terms of a minority
community, because for them it becomes very difficult in terms
of having quality of water and then looking at their payments
too? Could you explain the difficulty it is for many of the
minorities? And especially the effects for many of the women
who are now having children and they can't afford to go out and
buy bottled water. They're relying on the water that's
currently in that area.
Ms. Newman. I had one mother talk to me about the position
they're in of trying to decide whether to be able to buy school
shoes for their children or pay their water bill. And that's a
situation that families should not be in. And I think that we
overlook the stress that's put on families living in that
situation. We may have discovered the perchlorate in 1997, but
we don't know how long it was there previous to that. So there
were families that were probably drinking contaminated water
throughout that whole time. So when young women are getting
pregnant, they're concerned about what they're doing to their
child. When they're breast feeding, they're concerned about
what are they passing on to their child.
And that's a quality of life issue, that is an issue that
we should not be subjecting families to have to worry about.
Most people in California don't have to worry about that. I
mean, they know that their water is good or they can buy
bottled water or another water source, get filters, whatever.
For low income communities, that's not an option for them, so
they have to rely on public agencies to ensure that what
they're getting is safe.
Mr. Baca of California. I'm going to have to squeeze one
more question in because my time is up and Madam Chair really
sticks to her time. This is the time she controls. The next
question I have is for Ms. Cantu. How important a role do you
believe imported water will play in replacing perchlorate
contaminated water supply in the future?
Ms. Cantu. Well, I hope it's not a very important role at
all because it's not going to be a reliable source. Currently I
think we import about 23 percent of our water in this
watershed. Both of those major sources, Colorado River and the
Delta supplies, are vulnerable. They're vulnerable for many
different ways, so I do not think it would be prudent to rely
on that as an important replacement source at all.
Mr. Baca of California. OK. Thank you. One other question,
and I'll just ask all of you, any one of you that want to
answer, is there an end to this? Is there really a solution to
the perchlorate problem, to really solving it, or will we
continue to always have a perchlorate problem that will exist
no matter what? I mean, we can look at resources and funding,
we can look at who has the problem, but will there be an end to
this at one point, where quality of water will be there, where
our residents don't have to deal with it? Can anybody try to
attempt that, or will someone?
Ms. Newman. I can certainly jump in. I think that we have
to, that we don't have a choice. We have a limited amount of
groundwater available to us. As we heard, we can't rely on
outside sources. Colorado River has perchlorate in it, we can't
rely on it. And I think if we're going to survive as a society,
we have to be able to provide one thing that is dependant for
life, and that's our water. We have to be able to do that. We
can't use those basins as storage basins when we import water
because the perchlorate will stay in that basin unless we take
it out. So I think this has to be a priority for us and we have
to step forward and do a cleanup to the furthest extent
feasible.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you. Congresswoman Solis.
Ms. Solis. Yes. I have a question for Mr. Wyels. I
understand that you work in conjunction with many of the
different water authorities across the state. And my question
is more centered on what, in fact, is the water quality
authority doing in terms of looking at the mining industry? We
have several large industries in the San Gabriel Valley, and of
course here in Riverside area as well. And I've often wondered
about the lack of role in terms of water quality authority to
help gage if there's any pollutants that are entering into our
water tables, particularly in the San Gabriel Valley.
Mr. Wyels. Congresswoman Solis, the Regional Water Board,
the Santa Ana Regional Water Board has authorities beyond just
those that we discussed earlier to require cleanup of the
discharges they have already created. They also have brought
authorities to regulate any discharge of waste that can affect
water quality. And so with respect to mining, the regional
boards have the authority to, and do in fact, regulate
discharges associated with active mining sites and in addition
to looking at historic mining sites for remediation. So the
short answer is that we have plenty of authority to regulate,
and I believe that we are actually doing a sufficient job in
terms of current regulations that are designed to prevent
creating new problems as we go.
Ms. Solis. Do you think there could be more done on the
part of the Federal Government and EPA to help and assist in
investigation and monitoring?
Mr. Wyels. Again, there's no question, we can use all the
help we can get in terms of inventories, past practices in
terms of looking at what groundwater areas have already been
contaminated. There's no question that we don't have enough
resources to go out and sample broad strokes of California's
groundwater. So the answer is yes.
Ms. Solis. So I think that's a big issue here too is the
lack of ability on the part of agencies like yours and the
Federal Government to release funding to do that kind of
investigation and monitoring, because oftentimes you hear about
it after there's actually been the contaminants that have been
seeping into the water table.
My next question is for Penny, Penny Newman. I mentioned
the Environmental justice proposal that we're putting forward.
What are your thoughts on that? Would that help communities
like Rialto and other communities in the San Gabriel Valley or
areas where there are large swaths of minorities under
populations that have heavy industry?
Ms. Newman. Now, I think you've certainly taken the lead on
environmental justice issues, and we followed your leadership
along the way and really applaud your efforts. I think, you
know, the recognition that there are communities who
disproportionately share the burden of pollution in our society
is beginning to be recognized. And I think for communities in
that situation, it's not just the general population, these are
real hot spots that have multiple sources of contamination.
It's the air, it's the groundwater, it's their homes. It is
surrounding them, the environment. It is everything around
them.
And I think, you know, an effort to identify these
communities and what the characteristics are and then set up a
special task force that would, number one, stop any further
facilities from coming in that may add to that pollution, kind
of put a moratorium on that, and put together a response team,
much like we do with natural disasters. Where the different
agencies come in, coordinate their efforts to reduce--start
reducing the level of pollution, not just stopping where we're
at, but really start doing things to reduce it, and to put
forward some efforts that would entice clean industry and start
giving jobs to these communities to start helping them rebuild
their communities and really put forth an effort on that in
specific areas. And it's not hard to identify an EJ community,
you just have to look around. They're there, it's pretty
obvious.
Ms. Solis. Thank you. My next question is for Mr. DeLoach.
You mentioned fertilizers and the impact that's having in this
particular area. Can you shed some light on that? And the cost,
who should be held responsible for that?
Mr. Deloach. And I think as I was speaking with staff
earlier, I may need to find some amended comments from my
testimony because for the longest time, I think once we
identified that it was, in fact, cheap nitrate fertilizer
imported from Chile, the natural assumption was that the U.S.
Department of Agriculture or some affiliated agency helped with
the importation. We're not sure that that is, in fact, the
case. There seems to be some indication through the import
taxes and tariffs that took place back in the 1920s, 1930s, and
1940s in the large farming co-ops that there was some role of
the Federal Government. But irrespective of whether it's
Chilean fertilizer or a DOD related contaminant, the treatment
and methodology is the same, and the cost is basically the
same, extremely expensive.
Ms. Solis. Thank you.
Mrs. Napolitano. Ask one more question. We'll go a second
round.
Ms. Solis. For Ms. Cantu, how do you feel about the Federal
Government's role in terms of the U.S. EPA holding, setting, or
attempting to set a standard for perchlorate cleanup? Is that
something that the Federal Government should be involved in or
should states be allowed to continue to move ahead as
California has? I mean, is it helpful to maybe have a clearer
standard at the Federal level?
Ms. Cantu. Most of the pollution that we've seen
historically has been contained within a state, so that a state
jurisdiction could be consistent from throughout the state. The
Kerr-McGee historic contamination that affected myself and Mr.
DeLoach in that we grew up drinking undiluted, unblended water
from the Colorado River that was heavily polluted and
perchlorate levels that nobody could even dream about now, came
from between two states. But that's pretty rare. In fact, I
think that's the only case. So since we find these localized,
it makes sense to have each state set its own standards to
reflect the wills and the values of the people in that
community. California is moving toward setting a final
standard, they've done a lot of work historically. I think
that's been good work to date.
Ms. Solis. Unfortunately, other states in the union don't
follow suit, and that's where we have the dilemma in terms of
trying to set some standards, and even trying to get Department
of Defense to be responsible. They won't even come to the table
or attend any hearings that we had in our subcommittee. And
it's very unfortunate, but now hopefully that will change.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you. We'll start a second round of
questioning for this panel. My first question will be to Ms.
Cantu. H.R. 813, ``Santa Ana River Water Supply Act of 2007''
would, among other things, authorize the lower Chino Valley--
lower Chino dairy area the contamination demonstration and
reclamation project. To what extent could this proposed project
upset pressures on existing water supplies from perchlorate
contamination and other causes of supply restrictions?
Ms. Cantu. Perchlorate is the contaminant of concern that
we're here to discuss today, but salt is--just everyday salt is
a major concern in this watershed as well. One of the goals for
a sustainable community in this watershed is that we reach salt
balance, that we're able to take out to the ocean as much salt
as we are bringing in through importations. It is also critical
for our sustainability. Perchlorate is one major concern that
we're focused on, but we ought not to forget the others, and
salt is one of those. So it's critically important.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you. Mr. DeLoach, your testimony
states that you will soon double your water recycling, and
hopefully we'll be able to get the administration to change
their tune because I'm working on that heavily.
Mr. Deloach. Thank you.
Mrs. Napolitano. What is the potential for further
increasing water reused in the basin? And have you been
successful in obtaining state or Federal funding for water
reuse efforts?
Mr. Deloach. Thank you very much. Yes, we have been in the
Chino basin through the Inland Empire Utilities Agency, State
Revolving Fund monies have been tapped, and other state
sources. We're doing about 8,000 acre feet a year currently. We
expect that number over the next five to ten years to exceed
12,000 acre feet. We're actually in the process now where we're
actually beginning to import--or actually recharge local
groundwater basins that have been heavily blended with either
state project water or surface water runoff which we're
capturing so that we can get every available drop of water
resource back in the ground for local water producers. It's the
most inexpensive source water that we have, and as you know it,
the only drought-proof source that we have.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you. Let's see. Ms. Newman, Exhibit
3 of your testimony shows a number of wells contaminated by
perchlorate listed by county. Has the source of contamination
been positively identified for each of the wells? And could you
provide this committee with that information?
Ms. Newman. I can certainly provide it. It's public record,
it's on the DHS website. And I don't think in all of the
situations that they've been identified, and certainly I think
the dischargers would argue that they haven't been proven
beyond a reasonable doubt to be the discharger, but they're
certainly in most instances a source that you can look to just
by looking through historic data.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you. We look forward to seeing that
piece. Or if you can give us a website, the staff can get to
them and we'll pull them out.
Mr. DeLoach, H.R. 122, the ``Inland Empire Regional Water
Recycling Initiative,'' which would authorize the Inland
Empire, Cucamonga Valley recycling project, passed the House.
How would this legislation assist in addressing water supply
shortages resulting from perchlorate contamination? And I would
also ask is the state being a partner in any way?
Mr. Deloach. We anticipate that the state will in fact be a
partner. There is an application for additional state fund
dollars to assist us in development of those projects. The
project component of the bill that's related to my agency will
produce an additional 5,000 acre feet a year of recycled water
to areas that we just cannot reach because they both were built
on an alluvial fan. And pumping the water up those hills is
very costly in terms of electricity demand. The Inland Empire
Utilities Agency piece is another component of their larger
region-wide program. That will do close to 20,000 acre feet, I
believe, and they're both critical pieces of the puzzle.
Mrs. Napolitano. Good. Do you know if the fertilizer you
referred to is still being produced and imported into the
United States?
Mr. Deloach. As far as being produced and actually being
imported into the United States, no.
Mrs. Napolitano. Excellent. Thank you. Coming right along,
Mr. Baca, do you have questions for the second round?
Mr. Baca of California. Thank you very much. First question
is for Robert DeLoach. Generally what has been the cost to the
district to address perchlorate contamination? And to what
extent has perchlorate contamination in groundwater affected
the operation and treatment cost and users fee for the
district?
Mr. Deloach. Treatment costs not only in our area but I
mean the entire Chino basin, Congressman, the capital costs are
somewhere in the million dollars per well to do a typical well
head treatment. The annual O&M costs just to operate that
system and the grind disposal or whatever's associated with
that can be anywhere up to three or $400,000 a year. In some
cases, I believe, as we get further east into the Rialto area,
that is cost prohibitive just because of the types of
contamination and the amount of contamination. In our area
Cucamonga Valley Water District, the levels are such that we
can actually blend the very costly state imported state project
water and blend it down to below the state action level.
Mr. Baca of California. What do you estimate the cost to be
in your area?
Mr. Deloach. I'm not sure at this moment. I'd have to get
back to you on that.
Mr. Baca of California. Any figure. What would it be?
Mr. Deloach. We're probably looking at, on an annual basis,
less than two to $3 million a year.
Mr. Baca of California. OK. My next question, then, along
the same lines is since we have quite a few contaminated wells
in my city, the City of Rialto, the 22, this question would be
for the City of Rialto, council member from Rialto. What is
your estimate based on the cost and the cleanup for that area?
And I know that this is a high ball figure, but this is where
we're looking at entities that are responsible, not only to the
Federal Government, but also the private sector that was
involved in that has caused a lot of the contamination in the
immediate area. What would it be for estimated costs, you know,
if we were looking at trying to solve the problem in short
range? And I guess we would only look at the short range
because we don't know what the long range term would be based
on the population because this could be ongoing. The council
member from Rialto, Joe Baca Junior, what's your estimate of
what that would be?
Mr. Baca. You know, based on our attorneys' numbers, the
total cost for the total cleanup in the City of Rialto could be
anywhere from $100- to $300 million. But a concern is obviously
if we keep putting on these well head treatments, it's just a
temporary fix. I think Penny brought up a good point; unless we
really go in there and clean the whole thing up, it's going to
be ongoing costs. And as Robert mentioned, you know, it's about
a million and a half per well head treatment, and anywhere from
$300- to $500,000 per year. So it's an ongoing cost. And that's
a concern that we're just passing these costs on to residents,
but, you know, the estimates have been between $100- and $300
million. Unless we really go in and clean it all up, I mean,
the costs are just going to be ongoing.
Mr. Baca of California. And I guess this goes for all the
panels here, and an aggressive step for this panel and the
other is: What we need to take, you know, from our Federal
Government and from our committee is the kind of legislation,
and whether it's Mrs. Solis'--Congresswoman Solis' legislation
or other panels' legislation that basically says that we need
to come back and really take drastic steps and look at
solutions, not only at what we need to do now, but in terms of
what we need to do in terms of the future to make sure that we
have good quality of water to protect a lot of our individuals.
The next question I would have is for, I guess, Ms. Cantu.
What specifically could the Federal Government--it's along the
same lines--do to support watershed protection efforts related
to perchlorate contamination?
Ms. Cantu. Specifically for perchlorate would be
encouragement or requirement by the Department of Defense to
step up and remediate and clean the contamination that they are
responsible for. That would go far in the State of California,
not just from this watershed, but throughout the state, to
clean up the situation.
Mr. Baca of California. All right. I think you know well
that the hardest thing is for them to admit that they did it
based on, you know, everybody's afraid of lawsuits. Once they
admit that they've caused the problem, then there's the
probability of lawsuits. So they never want to admit that they
caused the problem. But at least to clean it up is very
important.
I know my time is just about expired, but the next question
then I would have is for--I guess for Ms. Newman. In your
opinion, what are the key areas for the Federal Government in
addressing perchlorate contamination?
Ms. Newman. I agree, the Department of Defense really needs
to step forward, and that can only be done through, you know,
Federal action. States don't have much power in that situation.
But I think you can also set an example on the recognition of
the perchlorate problem, where it is taking place, and the need
to really move forward. And we only have one state that has set
a standard, and that's Massachusetts at 2 parts per billion.
That should tell the rest of the states that there is a reason
to not have it at 6, but let's get it down.
The evidence that is coming out is so strong. The Center
for Disease Control study recently indicated that very small
levels will affect human beings. We can't afford to sit back
and wait for dead bodies and then the epidemiological studies.
We'll have damaged populations. And so we really need to take
an aggressive measure. And I think that many of the states are
looking to the Federal Government to help with that and setting
that leadership.
Mr. Baca of California. Thank you. I know that my time is
expired, but for the record, I'd like to state that both
Senator Feinstein and Senator Boxer are very much concerned
with this issue and want to take aggressive steps in trying to
look for solutions to the problems to remedy the situation. And
I know that they're working in conjunction with all of us
members here in the State of California, both in the northern
portion and the southern portion. They're looking at how we
might remedy the situation and hopefully we can continue to
work together.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Congressman. One of the things
that a lot of people, especially students in the audience,
knows is that California--Southern California sources of water
are from three areas; California aqueduct State Water Project
of course, the Colorado River, and then our groundwater basins.
And one of those goals, you are going to have horrendous impact
for our water quality, and that's one of the reasons that the
dam was established to indeed be able to help provide should an
earthquake cut us off from the aqueduct and some other sources
of water, at least we'd have some of that water.
However, if you do not have potable water, if you don't
recycle the water, if we don't clean up the aquifers, if we
don't look at the perchlorate, saline and all the other
contaminants, California's economy will drop because that
affects where you live, the ability to deliver the water to not
only the residents but to businesses that will provide the jobs
and thus provide the economy. So it's a great issue, it's a big
issue, it's a very important issue, and yes, Joe, I see your
finger. Go ahead.
Mr. Baca of California. Madam Chair, along the same lines,
one of the things that we really have got to consider as we
look at the cleanup of the perchlorate contamination and
remediation of the water supply is global warming and the
impact it's going to have. So that's why this becomes very
critical right now, because as scientists and others have said,
global warming means that we could have less water in terms of
the future. And if we don't begin to look at cleaning this
water, the impact it's going to have on us.
Mrs. Napolitano. Yes, sir. And please remind the
Administration, there is global warming.
One of the sad facts, and I say that because I've been in
water also for a number years, is that many of our community
water systems, the water wells are not tied into either the
aqueduct or to the Colorado River, and hence, cannot blend
their water, and so they're stuck with contaminants. And we
need to begin to look at how do we work in tandem to be able to
help those communities develop the ability, not only to clean
up their contaminated wells, but also to tie into other sources
of water for the future benefit of the communities. With that,
thank you, panel. It's been very--wait a minute. I didn't give
you a chance, did I? I'm sorry. I keep forgetting my manners.
Ms. Solis. Yes. A question for Penny. When you hear about
contaminants affecting your community, do you feel that there
are sufficient tools and information or grants that you can
utilize to help provide that information to the community?
Ms. Newman. No. I mean, there never is the grants for
community-based organizations that are the most affected by
these issues, and it's very difficult for communities to find a
way to participate in the discussions on what the solutions
are. And certainly the residents who are most affected know
what the solutions are and what they should be, and they have a
right to participate in that. As we're finding with this
hearing that's coming up in May with the state board, we had
applied and received authority to be a designated party in
that. What we found is we're up against all the attorneys for
Goodrich and Black & Decker, we don't have any attorneys.
And so it seems very unfair that to participate in a public
setting, that communities, and low income communities like
ours, are hampered because they don't have access to the high-
powered attorneys. They don't have that ability to play on the
same level. So the grants and stuff would be extremely helpful
in gaining information, access to information, access to the
forms in which these issues are discussed in helping to frame
the solutions that come forward.
Ms. Solis. I don't know if you're aware, but under the Bush
administration, he expects to cut back on public information
regarding sites that are--well, even chemical plants and things
like that that may be exposing different contaminants in
surrounding areas. And they would very much like to not have to
publicize that. They think it's a burden on businesses. And in
fact, they're also holding back on funding for public
information that's made available through libraries, through
the EPA. So I would just underscore that the public really
needs to help send a message to this administration who
strongly feel that those tools are being taken away that you do
something with it. Thank you very much.
My next question is for Mr. Wyels. And I wanted to ask you
when will the State Department of Health Services be prepared
to announce a final maximum of contaminant level for
perchlorate?
Mr. Wyels. The Department of Health Services put out a
proposed rulemaking for public comment and concrete to close, I
believe, in October or so 2006. So I'm expecting that they will
be coming forward with their rule virtually any day, certainly
within the next several months.
Ms. Solis. So is there any reason why it's taking so long?
It seems to be----
Mr. Wyels. I must admit, I'm not privy to their internal
process.
Ms. Solis. And a follow-up question; are any financial
assistance programs available for removing perchlorate from the
groundwater available through state water bonds or other state
resources?
Mr. Wyels. The State Water Board does have some limited
funding available for problems like perchlorate contamination.
It's a limited amount of money. The State Water Board did, in
fact, send several million dollars to the City of Rialto when
the crisis first hit. I don't think the state board is in a
position to do that again because that was fairly significant.
Ms. Solis. So isn't there a role that the Federal
Government can play here?
Mr. Wyels. Absolutely.
Ms. Solis. Perhaps provide assistance?
Mr. Wyels. Yes.
Ms. Solis. Or--and could you give me a sense, because
obviously we have--we're running at deficit spending too at the
Federal Government, but also holding responsible parties
accountable, maybe having EPA provide more full enforcement?
Mr. Wyels. Yes. EPA certainly is one of our main partners
in the fight against groundwater pollution and finding
responsible parties and having them pay for the damage they've
caused. So I'm sure that they could use more funding, all of
the state agencies and Federal agencies are very committed but
very understaffed personnel trying to do this work.
Ms. Solis. And I have one last question here. This is for
Mr. Robert DeLoach, and it's with respect to the Metropolitan
Water District of Southern California. I think over the past
decade, they've added significant water supply capacity in
anticipation of the reduction in the Colorado River supplies
and, in response to the Delta pumping restrictions, has
actually met their actions to help stabilize the Chino basin
supplies.
Mr. Deloach. Well, I think most of what you'll hear about
Metropolitan doing will be related to the Colorado River, the
Imperial Valley and mining the All American Canal and issues
such as that. That's the Colorado River system. The State Water
Project system, as the Congressman is well aware, developed the
Diamond Valley Lake for emergency purposes only. We hear from
time to time that there are discussions that that could be used
for short-term deliveries to offset demands. I'm not aware that
anything is done specifically for the Chino basin, although
with aging infrastructure, we're seeing more and more
opportunities for catastrophic, if you will, breakdowns in that
system. We're going to be shut down for nine days starting next
week as a result of a portion of the line becoming almost
inoperable.
So those types of things we're going to be faced with more
and more every year, and that will greatly curtail, if not
eliminate imported water for a short duration and period of
time.
Ms. Solis. Thank you.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you. There's some real heavy duty
stuff coming our way, the pumps being reduced. If we have
drought, continuing the drought cycle that we're in, if we have
contamination of aquifers, I mean, this whole area--and I'm
talking Southern California, just in this area, is going to
find themselves in a lot of water shortage problems. And just
as a last question to Mr. Wyels, given the fact that there was
just a water bond passed, how are we not looking at using some
of that funding to be able to help address the issue of
perchlorate?
Mr. Wyels. Actually, that's not an area that I work in, so
I couldn't give you a very direct answer to how the money's
being used. I do know some of it's available through the
resource agency in California and other dollars are available
through California Environmental Protection Agency. But I
couldn't tell you more. There may be some people at the table
who do have some more about----
Mrs. Napolitano. OK. We'll look forward to getting some of
those answers from some of my colleagues. Assemblywoman Wolk
was Chair of Parks, Water, and Wildlife and working with us,
and we'll hopefully be able to work in tandem to help bring
some of the funding--match funding.
Thank you, panel. Thank you for your presentations and for
your being so kind in sitting through the round of questions
and for your involvement. And I'd like to now move forward to
the second panel.
I would like to welcome Brad Coffey, Water Treatment
Section Manager of the Metropolitan Water District in Los
Angeles, Anthony Araiza, General Manager-Secretary of West
Valley Water District in Rialto, Bob Martin, General Manager,
East Valley Water District, Highland, and Michael Whitehead,
Board Member, San Gabriel Basin Water Quality Authority in West
Covina. And Dr. Robert Krieger, Personal Chemical Exposure
Program, Department of Entomology, University of California,
Riverside will be submitting written testimony for the record.
And welcome, panel, and we will begin this round with Mr. Brad
Coffey, Water Treatment Section Manager of Met.
STATEMENT OF BRAD COFFEY, WATER TREATMENT SECTION MANAGER,
METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT, LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA
Mr. Coffey. Thank you. On behalf of the Metropolitan Water
District of Southern California, I wish to thank the committee
for the opportunity to appear before you.
In 2006, the California Department of Health Services
proposed a maximum contaminant level for perchlorate at 6 parts
per billion. We expect a final maximum contaminant level this
year. Metropolitan Water District is the nation's largest
provider of treated drinking water. We import from the Colorado
River and Northern California through the State Water Project.
Metropolitan delivers on average more than one and a half
billion gallons of water every day to its 26 customers known as
member agencies. Those agencies, in turn, sell that water to
more than 300 subagencies or directly to consumers. In all,
over 18 million Southern Californians rely on Metropolitan for
some of or all of their water supply.
Water volumes in California are frequently expressed as
acre feet, an agricultural term for the amount of water needed
to cover one acre with water one foot deep. That is 326,000
gallons. Translated to domestic use, one acre foot of water
provides the yearly water needs for two families. Regional
groundwater basins yield approximately 1.4 million acre feet of
water per year, which is roughly 90 percent of the local
supplies to Southern California. Most of this is recharged
naturally, but about 200,000 acre feet per year of this
groundwater is replenished through imported supplies.
One consequence of perchlorate in local drinking water
wells is increased demands for deliveries from Metropolitan,
either to offset local lost production or to blend down higher
concentrations of perchlorate. To assess these effects,
Metropolitan conducted a reconnaissance-level survey of its
agencies to determine the potential impact of the proposed
perchlorate standard. The findings are as follows: 62 percent
of Metropolitan's member agencies have detected perchlorate in
243 drinking water wells in the region. Importantly, 42 percent
of those agencies have detected perchlorate higher than the
proposed maximum contaminant level of 6 parts per billion.
Agencies have reported shutting down about five percent of
their groundwater sources, that is 40 wells out of
approximately 800, due to perchlorate contamination and have
lost at least 70,000 acre feet per year of groundwater
production. The affected agencies have also had to increase
their purchase of imported water supplies for blending.
Metropolitan began a perchlorate investigation in June of 1997,
once it was detected in the Colorado River aqueduct. Extensive
water test sampling showed that perchlorate entered the River
at the Las Vegas wash near Henderson, and the contamination
source was identified as Kerr-McGee, a chemical manufacturer in
Henderson, Nevada.
The physical and chemical nature of the perchlorate ion
precludes the effectiveness of typical groundwater treatment
technologies. The optimum technology depends on the perchlorate
concentration, presence in concentration of co-contaminants,
and other water quality parameters. Compared to the operations
and maintenance cost of groundwater from a typical domestic
well, which is about $125 per acre foot, perchlorate treatment
can increase the cost five-fold. Thus, treatment options are
available to cover groundwater supplies contaminated with
perchlorate; however, it's difficult to predict whether
treatment will be pursued to recover all lost production since
local agencies will decide based largely on costs, ability to
identify potentially responsible parties for cleanup, and
availability of alternative supplies.
Metropolitan responded to perchlorate within our state
admission to provide the service area with adequate and
reliable supplies of high quality water. I'll briefly describe
these efforts. First, the cleanup at Henderson Nevada. Once
perchlorate was detected in the Colorado River, Metropolitan
worked with local state and Federal agencies to advocate for a
rapid and complete cleanup at Henderson. Remediation began in
1998 and will continue for decades. As a result of the cleanup,
perchlorate entering the River has been reduced by 85 percent.
Metropolitan also uses integrated resources planning to
ensure adequate and reliable supplies to its service area. One
strategy is for us to store imported water during wet years in
groundwater basins for use during subsequent dry years. To make
this strategy feasible in groundwater basins with perchlorate
contamination, Metropolitan has funded treatment to ensure the
stored groundwater can be used. Groundwater recovery projects,
another integrated resources planned strategy, produced new
water through treatment technologies that removed undesirable
constituents.
In some cases, local agencies are reluctant to make the
capital investments necessary to recover the degraded water. In
this program, agencies may seek financial assistance from
Metropolitan to offset the cost to the extent that recovering
the water has a regional benefit. In summary, perchlorate
contamination of local groundwater basins remains a serious
threat to local water supplies. Some agencies, particularly
those who rely heavily on groundwater or are not within
Metropolitan's service area, find that mitigation for
perchlorate, though technically feasible, induces a large
financial burden.
The Metropolitan Water District, through its regional
approach to water supply planning, has helped to mitigate the
issue by advocating for rapid cleanup of the Colorado River, by
planning for water quality uncertainties, and by funding local
groundwater projects. While our actions detailed here have
reduced the regional water supply affected by perchlorate, the
traditional supplies of communities are still threatened. We're
encouraged by the community's interest in perchlorate and
recognize that much work remains to be done. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Brad Coffey follows:]
Statement of Brad Coffey, Water Treatment Section Manager,
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
On behalf of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
(Metropolitan), I wish to thank Chair Napolitano, Representative Baca,
and Representative Solis of the Subcommittee on Water and Power for the
opportunity to appear before you this morning. My name is Brad Coffey,
and I serve as the Water Treatment Manager for Metropolitan.
Perchlorate Background
Ammonium perchlorate is used as a main component in solid rocket
propellant, and is also found in some types of munitions and fireworks.
Ammonium perchlorate quickly dissolves and becomes highly mobile in
groundwater. Unlike many other groundwater contaminants, perchlorate
neither readily interacts with the soil matrix nor degrades in the
environment. The primary human health concern related to perchlorate is
its effects on the thyroid. Perchlorate interferes with the thyroid's
ability to produce hormones required for normal growth and development.
In 2006, the California Department of Health Services proposed a
maximum contaminant level for perchlorate at 6 micrograms per liter
(mg/L) or parts per billion (ppb), which is equal to the California
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment's public health goal.
The public health goal is the concentration that does not pose any
significant risk to health. A final maximum contaminant level is
expected in 2007.
Metropolitan Background and Regional Water Supply
Metropolitan is the nation's largest provider of treated drinking
water. Each day during a normal year, the district moves more than 1.5
billion gallons of water through its distribution system, delivering
supplies to 26 member agencies. Those agencies, in turn, sell that
water to more than 300 sub-agencies or directly to consumers. In all,
over 18 million Southern Californians rely on Metropolitan for some or
all of the water they use in their homes and businesses. These people
live within Metropolitan's six-county service area, which encompasses
5,200 square miles in Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino,
San Diego and Ventura counties.
Metropolitan imports water from the Colorado River and Northern
California through the State Water Project. Metropolitan's member
agencies then deliver to their customers a combination of local
groundwater, local surface water, recycled water, and imported water
purchased from Metropolitan. For some, Metropolitan supplies all the
water used within that agency's service area, while others obtain
varying amounts of water from Metropolitan to supplement local
supplies.
Metropolitan typically provides between 45 and 60 percent of the
municipal, industrial, and agricultural water used in its service area.
The remaining water supply comes from local wells, local surface water,
recycling, and from the city of Los Angeles' aqueduct from the eastern
Sierra Nevada.
Perchlorate Discovery
Metropolitan began monitoring for perchlorate in June 1997 when it
was detected in the Colorado River Aqueduct. Extensive sampling within
the Colorado River watershed in July and August of the same year
indicated that the perchlorate originated in the Las Vegas Wash, and
the most likely source was the Kerr-McGee (now TRONOX) chemical
manufacturing site located in Henderson, Nevada.
Perchlorate levels in Colorado River water at Lake Havasu peaked at
9 ppb in May 1998; however, concentrations have decreased significantly
in recent years as a result of aggressive clean-up efforts at
Henderson, Nevada. Since October 2002, perchlorate concentrations at
Lake Havasu have remained less than the proposed standard of 6 ppb, and
the concentration has been consistently non-detectable (less than 2
ppb) since June 2006.
No detectable amount of perchlorate was ever found in the State
Water Project system.
Effect on Local Supplies
Water volumes in California are frequently expressed as acre-feet,
an agricultural term for the amount of water needed to cover one acre
with water one foot deep (326,000 gallons). Translated to domestic use,
one acre-ft of water provides the yearly water needs for two families.
Regional groundwater basins yield approximately 1.4 million acre-
ft/year, which accounts for 90 percent of Southern California's local
supplies. Most of this usage recharges naturally, but approximately
200,000 acre-ft/year are replenished through imported Colorado River
and State Water project supplies.
Perchlorate in local groundwater basins originates largely from
local sources. The vast majority (approximately 90 percent) of
locations where perchlorate has been detected in the groundwater are
associated with the manufacturing or testing of solid rocket fuels for
the Department of Defense and the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration, or with the manufacture, storage, handling, or disposal
of perchlorate. Past agricultural practices using fertilizers laden
with naturally occurring perchlorate have also been implicated in some
areas.
One consequence of perchlorate in local drinking water wells is
increased demand for deliveries from Metropolitan, either to off-set
lost production or to blend down higher concentrations of perchlorate.
To assess these effects, Metropolitan conducted a reconnaissance-level
survey of its member and retail agencies to determine the potential
impact of a perchlorate standard of 6 ppb. Sixteen (62 percent) out of
Metropolitan's 26 member agencies and 32 (18 percent) out of 173
retail/contracting agencies have detected perchlorate in 243 drinking
water wells. The survey indicates that 11 (42 percent) of the member
agencies and 27 (16 percent) of the retail/contracting agencies have
perchlorate detections higher than 6 ppb. While two agencies detected
perchlorate in the range of 100-300 ppb, more than 60 percent of the
agencies detected perchlorate at less than 10 ppb.
These agencies reported shutting down approximately five percent of
their groundwater sources (40 wells out of 819) due to perchlorate
contamination and lost at least 70,000 acre-ft/year of groundwater
production. Affected agencies also had to increase their purchase of
imported supplies for blending. In the longer term, many of these
agencies are considering various options for removing or reducing
perchlorate concentrations, including blending and treatment, to
recover some or all of lost production.
Available Treatment Technologies
The physical and chemical nature of the perchlorate ion precludes
the effectiveness of typical groundwater treatment technologies such as
air stripping, carbon adsorption, or ultraviolet light oxidation.
Perchlorate treatment technologies may be classified into two main
categories of destructive or removal technologies. The main destructive
process is biological reduction, which can be accomplished either
within the soil formation (in-situ) or at a pump-and-treat facility
(ex-situ). Typical physical removal processes include ion exchange,
membrane filtration (including reverse osmosis and nanofiltration), and
electrodialysis. Physical removal processes all require subsequent
disposal of removed perchlorate.
The optimum treatment technology depends on the perchlorate
concentration, the presence and concentration of co-contaminants, and
other water quality parameters. For example, nitrate--which is also
widely present in the region--influences the perchlorate treatability
because of its similar chemical structure and its occurrence at
concentrations thousands of times greater than perchlorate. For
biological destruction of perchlorate contamination within the
groundwater formation, site-specific hydrogeologic conditions such as
depth, soil permeability, and groundwater flow velocity are also
important.
In general, biological destruction is less expensive than physical
removal processes. For example, the cost of ex-situ biological
reduction is approximately $100/acre-ft for a low-nitrate site and
$400/acre-ft for a higher nitrate site. In contrast, ion exchange
ranges from $150/acre-ft to greater than $500/acre-ft. Compared to the
operations and maintenance cost of groundwater from a typical domestic
well ($125/acre-ft), perchlorate treatment can increase the cost five-
fold.
Thus, treatment options are available to recover groundwater
supplies contaminated with perchlorate. However, it is impossible to
predict whether treatment will be pursued to recover all lost
production since local agencies will make those decisions based largely
on cost considerations, ability to identify potentially responsible
parties for cleanup, and the availability of alternative supplies.
Metropolitan's Response
Metropolitan's mission to provide its service area with adequate
and reliable supplies of high-quality water resulted in a number of
related efforts that mitigate the impact of perchlorate contamination
in the region. These efforts are described below.
Henderson, Nevada, Cleanup. Once perchlorate was detected in the
Colorado River in 1997, Metropolitan began working with the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, the Nevada Department of Environmental
Protection, and the Southern Nevada Water Authority to advocate for a
rapid and complete cleanup of perchlorate at the Henderson, Nevada
site. Remediation activities began in 1998 and will continue for
decades. As a result of the cleanup, the mass loading of perchlorate
entering the Colorado River has been reduced by 80-85 percent and
perchlorate has not been detected in Colorado River water at
concentrations greater than 2 ppb since June 2006. Thus, the public
health implications are reduced and less water is required by the
agencies for blending down local contributions of perchlorate.
Perchlorate Action Plan. In January 2002, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency released a draft risk assessment for perchlorate that
led to the eventual public health goal and draft maximum contaminant
level for perchlorate of 6 ppb. In June 2002, Metropolitan responded by
initiating Perchlorate Action Plan to comprehensively address
perchlorate. Elements of the plan included: monitoring, resource
assessment, tracking health effects studies, tracking remediation
efforts, modeling, legislative and regulatory strategies, and outreach
activities.
Groundwater Conjunctive Use. One of the strategies employed by
Metropolitan's Integrated Resources Planning is storage of surplus
water available during wet years in groundwater basins for use during
water supply shortages. The target for this dry-year conjunctive use is
300,000 acre-ft/year of water supply by 2020. To make this strategy
feasible in a number of groundwater basins with perchlorate
contamination, Metropolitan has funded ion exchange treatment to ensure
that stored groundwater can be pumped and used for municipal water
supply. Metropolitan has invested nearly $100 million in groundwater
conjunctive use projects within its service area in partnership with
its member agencies and groundwater basin managers
Groundwater Recovery. Groundwater recovery projects use a variety
of treatment technologies to remove undesirable constituents such as
nitrates, volatile organic chemicals, perchlorate, color and salt. In
many cases, expensive processes are required, and agencies are
reluctant to make the capital investments necessary to recover the
degraded water. In those cases, agencies typically seek financial
assistance to offset costs to the extent that recovering degraded water
has a regional benefit. Once treated, however, recovered groundwater
may be delivered to potable water systems.
Metropolitan currently funds recycling and groundwater recovery
projects through the Local Resources Program. The Local Resources
Program is a performance-based incentive program instrumental in
helping the region implement local resource targets. Metropolitan has
invested over $121 million and partnered with member agencies on dozens
of recycling groundwater recovery projects.
Summary
Perchlorate contamination of local groundwater basins remains a
serious threat to local water supplies. Some agencies, particularly
those who rely heavily on groundwater or are not within Metropolitan's
service area, find that mitigation for perchlorate--though technically
feasible--induces a large financial burden. The Metropolitan Water
District, through its regional approach to water supply planning has
helped to mitigate the perchlorate issue by advocating for rapid
cleanup of the Colorado River, planning for water quality
uncertainties, and funding local groundwater recovery projects. Though
much work remains to be done, the supply impacts from perchlorate
contamination have been planned for or addressed to minimize the threat
to the region's overall supply.
______
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Coffey.
Next we have Anthony Araiza, Manager-Secretary of the West
Valley Water District in Rialto.
STATEMENT OF ANTHONY W. ARAIZA, GENERAL MANAGER, WEST VALLEY
WATER DISTRICT, RIALTO, CALIFORNIA
Mr. Araiza. Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the
committee. I'm here today to discuss a groundwater pollution
crisis that is threatening public health, environment, water
supplies, and general economic growth of a significant segment
of the Inland Empire. West Valley is one of four water
purveyors in the affected region. The other three water
purveyors include Fontana Water Company and the cities of
Rialto and Colton. Fontana Water Company is regulated by the
California Public Utilities--regulated by the Public Utility
Commission, and Rialto and Colton are governed by city
charters. West Valley is an independent special district that
has an elected board of directors.
The pollution which is polluting the groundwater aquifers
on which West Valley and other area water providers rely
presents an imminent and substantial endangerment to health and
the environment. Due to the crisis, the citizens of the
affected area are paying for enormous costs associated with the
investigation and cleanup of pollution. Most of these citizens
are hardworking, blue-collar families that should not have to
do this, and do not have the ability to pay for such expensive
investigation and cleanup. Unfortunately, as I describe later
in my testimony, neither the Federal Government or the state
regulatory agencies responsible for investigating and directing
cleanup of this pollution crisis have taken any action which
may resolve this decade-old problem.
I have personally been involved in responding to the
contamination since we first learned of it. Regrettably, as is
evident from the lack of progress in this last decade, the
regulatory agencies charged with responsibility for overseeing
the crisis including the U.S. EPA have been absent and have
simply failed to bring a solution to the problem. Part of this
reason for the ineffective response may be a lack of creating
new strategies to deal with a complex issue involved in my
area, which includes over 60 years of operations of dozens of
responsible parties covering a fairly wide geographic area.
Modern times require new ways of approaching serious
problems. However, instead of smart and creative problem
solving, I have witnessed firsthand bureaucratic and legal
roadblocks to finding a solution. West Valley's assessment is
that this matter needs the immediate and close attention of the
Federal Government, and specifically the U.S. EPA, to bring
about the changes to the investigation process so that the
rational, reasonable solution is identified, pursued, and
achieved very soon. I base this assessment on my personal
experience with the California regulatory agencies currently
involved and my knowledge of what U.S. EPA has been able to
accomplish in other areas where groundwater supplies have been
severely polluted.
The perchlorate pollution has forced West Valley and other
impacted water agencies to shut down or restrict the use of
over 22 groundwater production wells in the area representing
approximately 52 percent of the region's water supply. It is
also West Valley's assessment that more groundwater production
wells may be shut down in the near future as pollution
continues to spread unchecked. The West Valley has purchased
and is currently operating several perchlorate treatment
systems. These systems include ion-exchange systems and
biological remediation systems. The perchlorate treatment
technologies act to strip perchlorate from drinking water
before it is served to the customers.
The costs associated with the perchlorate pollution and the
related treatment technology are staggering. West Valley
estimated costs to purchase and operate and maintain
perchlorate treatment technologies over a ten-year period is
approximately $35 million. This does not include investigation
and administrative costs. The combined costs to the four
impacted water purveyors to investigate and conduct a cleanup
of the pollution will be in the hundreds of millions of
dollars, which only increases by order of magnitude if the
pollution continues unchecked. Due to these significant costs,
it is imperative that the oversight of the investigation of the
pollution be strong and efficient. Unfortunately, as I will
explain further, that has not been the case in our area.
There is not a doubt that this is a complex problem;
however, in my opinion, the crisis is being exacerbated by a
cumbersome bureaucratic process. Currently, the agency directly
responsible for overseeing the investigation of the pollution
is the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board. At one
time, the U.S. EPA was assisting as a backup to the Regional
Board, but in the last few years the U.S. EPA, and the many
enforcement tools granted to it by Congress, has been
completely absent from the picture. During the course of the
investigation, the regional board's effectiveness has been
limited due to a small staff and limited resources.
Most important, through no fault of its own, the Regional
Board structure is not suited for such a serious and complex
enforcement case, which is managed in public hearings by a
nine-member civilian board who naturally are often influenced
by the local politics of their area. I have more in my
statement, but I see my time is up. But----
Mrs. Napolitano. Just wrap it up.
Mr. Araiza. Basically we feel that the U.S. EPA needs to
step in and be a more forceful tool that can be utilized in the
cleanup of this area. We feel that the Regional Board has been
hampered, they've been stopped by the polluters in court time
and time again. It's costing the citizens of our local area
millions and millions of dollars to fight these polluters, and
the tools that U.S. EPA has need to be utilized to bring these
people to the table.
[The prepared statement of Anthony W. Araiza follows:]
Statement of Anthony W. Araiza, General Manager,
West Valley Water District
Introduction
My name is Anthony Araiza and I am the General Manager and
Secretary of the West Valley Water District. I am here today to discuss
a groundwater pollution crisis that is threatening the public health,
environment, water supplies and general economic growth of a
significant segment of the Inland Empire.
West Valley is located in the County of San Bernardino
approximately 54 miles east of Los Angeles. West Valley is a public
agency formed on January 8, 1952 and established under Division 12 of
the California Water Code. Since its inception, West Valley has been
engaged in financing, constructing, operating, maintaining and
furnishing water service to its customers. For Fiscal Year 2005-2006,
West Valley's service area had a population of 62,400. West Valley is
governed by a five-member Board of Directors that is elected at large
from the registered voters living within the water district's
boundaries.
West Valley is one of four water purveyors in the affected region.
The other three water purveyors include the Fontana Water Company and
the Cities of Rialto and Colton. Fontana Water is regulated by the
California Public Utilities Commission and Rialto and Colton are
governed by their city charters.
By way of background, I have worked for West Valley for 44 years
and have 25 years of experience in agency administration. I am directly
responsible for overseeing the operation and maintenance of West
Valley's drinking water supply wells. I am also responsible for
directing all investigations and responses to incidents of chemical
releases or pollution that impact West Valley's drinking water
supplies, including the current perchlorate pollution problem.
The perchlorate pollution, which is polluting the groundwater
aquifers on which West Valley and other area water providers rely,
presents an imminent and substantial endangerment to health and the
environment.
Due to this crisis, the citizens of the affected area are paying
for the enormous costs associated with the investigation and cleanup of
the pollution. Most of these citizens are hardworking blue-collar
families that should not have to, and do not have the ability to pay
for such expensive investigations and cleanup. Unfortunately, as I
describe later in my testimony, neither the Federal nor the State
regulatory agencies responsible for investigating and directing cleanup
of this pollution crisis have taken any action which will resolve this
decade old problem.
I have been personally involved in responding to the contamination
since we first learned of the contamination. Regrettably, as is evident
from the lack of progress in the last decade, the regulatory agencies
charged with responsibility for overseeing this crisis, including the
USEPA, have been absent or have simply failed to bring about a solution
to the problem.
Part of the reason for this ineffective agency response may be the
lack of creative new strategies to deal with the complex issues
involved in my area, which includes over 60 years of operations by
dozens of responsible parties covering a fairly wide geographic area.
Modern times require new ways of approaching serious problems.
However, instead of smart and creative problem solving, I have
witnessed firsthand bureaucratic and legal roadblocks to finding a
solution. West Valley's assessment is that this matter needs the
immediate and close attention of the federal government, and
specifically the USEPA, to bring about changes to the investigation
process so that a rational, reasonable solution is identified, pursued
and achieved, very soon. I base this assessment on my personal
experience with the California regulatory agencies currently involved
and my knowledge of what the USEPA has been able to accomplish in other
areas where groundwater supplies have been severely polluted.
Extent of Pollution, Cost for Cleanup and Treatment Activities
The perchlorate pollution has forced West Valley and the other
impacted water agencies to shut down or restrict the use of twenty-two
(22) groundwater production wells in the area, representing
approximately 52% of the region's water supply. It is also West
Valley's assessment that more groundwater production wells may need to
be shut down in the near future as the pollution continues to spread
unchecked.
West Valley has purchased and is currently operating several
perchlorate treatment systems. These systems include ion-exchange
treatment systems and bioremediation systems. The perchlorate treatment
technologies act to strip perchlorate from drinking water before it is
served to customers.
The costs associated with the perchlorate pollution and related
treatment technologies are staggering. West Valley's estimated cost to
purchase, operate and maintain perchlorate treatment technologies over
a ten year period is approximately 35 million dollars. This number does
not include investigation and administration costs. The combined costs
to the four impacted water purveyors to investigate and conduct a
cleanup of the pollution will be in the hundreds of millions of
dollars, which only increases by orders of magnitude if the pollution
continues unchecked.
Due to these significant costs, it is imperative that the oversight
of the investigation of the pollution be strong and efficient.
Unfortunately, as I will explain further, that has not been the case in
our area.
Regulatory Oversight
There is no doubt that this is a complex problem. However, in my
opinion, the crisis is being exacerbated by a cumbersome bureaucratic
process. Currently, the agency directly responsible for overseeing the
investigation of the pollution is the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality
Control Board. At one time, the USEPA was assisting as a back up to the
Regional Board, but in the last few years, USEPA (and the many
enforcement tools granted to it by Congress) has been completely absent
from the picture.
During the course of its investigation, the Regional Board's
effectiveness has been limited due to its small staff and limited
resources. Most important, through no fault of its own, the Regional
Board structure is not suited for such a serious and complex
enforcement case, which is managed in public hearings, by nine civilian
board members, who naturally are often influenced by the local politics
of their area.
The Regional Board's process is subject to challenge at multiple
levels, whether the Regional Board acts or fails to act. Imagine the
U.S. Attorney's Office or a local District Attorney with such an
unwieldy, awkward and restrained ability to act.
To be accurate, the Regional Board has issued some investigation
orders and other directives for information. However, an objective
review will show that for the entire time it has been investigating
this pollution problem--at least seven years--the Regional Board has
not pursued a comprehensive regional strategy that takes into account
the 60 years of contamination from multiple sources where these sources
are impacting drinking water wells miles apart.
Instead, the Regional Board is looking at individual sources of
contamination on a case-by-case basis. This approach leads to multiple
distractions described below and, in my view, is not adequate and is a
lot of motion with little tangible action. This should be self evident
since after over so many years, the regional perchlorate contaminant
plumes have not been assessed, nor is the extent of the contamination
known.
Also, I have witnessed the Regional Board's efforts being
constantly undermined by responsible parties that are taking advantage
of the process by challenging every step the board takes. These legal
proceedings are causing significant delays in assessing the scope of
the problem, all the while the pollution continues to spread. It is
estimated that the combined legal costs to date for all parties is over
50 million dollars.
On top of this, just last month, the Regional Board yielded control
of a portion of the investigation to the State Water Resources Control
Board. In fact, the Assistant Executive Officer for the Regional Board
told our technical consultant that Board Staff is so overwhelmed with
the many legal proceedings involving one portion of the problem that
until the State Water Board hearing is complete, he will take no action
on any of the other perchlorate-related investigation activities
currently before the Regional Board.
My blunt assessment is that this case has reached the point where
serious help and intervention is needed to review the situation and
consider options to help get this under control and restore the
public's confidence in the State's oversight and regulatory role over
water supplies. Pressure on USEPA to re-engage and exercise their
jurisdiction would be a good first step.
No state agency has the enforcement capabilities or know-how to get
the job done the way USEPA handles complex cleanup jobs. Equally
important is the fact that USEPA is the only agency that can coordinate
impacts on multiple regions, which this case ultimately will have.
USEPA also should have an interest in protecting the federal funds that
are being provided to this region. Without such help, nothing will
change and hundreds of thousands of local citizens will continue to
suffer the consequences of a stalled, time consuming and expensive
effort currently underway.
Potential Regulatory Solutions
West Valley believes there is a regulatory solution. Due to the
complex nature of the problem, it appears timely and prudent for the
USEPA to reengage substantially in the investigation. The USEPA has
experience handling large, complex pollution cases such as this that
involve and affect many entities and persons.
More precisely, the USEPA handles many large complex cases
throughout Southern California, including serious groundwater
contamination problems in San Bernardino, Baldwin Park, Burbank, South
El Monte and the San Gabriel Valley operable units. To date, these
large complex USEPA-led groundwater investigations have been very
successful. It is frustrating and somewhat disturbing that this
pollution crisis has not received the same level of involvement from
USEPA even though the people impacted by the pollution in the Inland
Empire are of limited economic means and less political means to help
protect their interests.
In this case, if USEPA had a greater role in the investigation, if
not a lead agency status, it could engage all responsible parties in a
manner apparently not available to the Regional Board. The Regional
Board, which, as you know, is a political body, can only act when it
meets and it must act at regularly scheduled meetings which requires
compliance with the California Brown Act and usually involves other
cumbersome procedures. This process naturally makes the investigation
very slow moving and it is hard for the Regional Board to take decisive
action and react to changes in circumstances.
As I have explained in my testimony today, the parties involved in
this case have witnessed several responsible parties using
administrative procedures to delay resolution while continuing to push
off indefinitely their own liability. If the USEPA were more heavily
involved or simply put in charge, it would not need to wait for
regularly scheduled hearings or follow time consuming administrative
procedures which doe not get to the substance of the problem, let alone
a solution.
To be very clear, I believe the USEPA, with the assistance of state
regulatory agencies, could begin immediate talks with all parties about
how to identify the scope of and deal with the problem. Such
flexibility will dramatically decrease the time and costs associated
with investigating the pollution and lead to solutions in a greatly
reduced time frame.
In sum, the current lead agency regulators must continue the
investigation with the resources available and consider additional
enforcement tools which are available. Most importantly, the USEPA must
step forward and take over the matter, or, at least, become involved in
supervising the characterization of the contamination and its ultimate
cleanup before it is too late and the contamination spreads to dozens
more wells and impacts thousands more lives.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the perchlorate pollution in the Inland Empire is a
water pollution crisis. There is urgent need for the USEPA to step in
and develop and manage a regulatory approach that is not subject to
constant legal challenge and also looks at the regional problem as a
whole.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today and I am
available to answer any questions.
______
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, sir. I appreciate your
testimony.
Mr. Bob Martin, General Manager, East Valley Water District
in Highland.
STATEMENT OF BOB MARTIN, GENERAL MANAGER, EAST VALLEY WATER
DISTRICT, HIGHLAND. CALIFORNIA
Mr. Martin. Thank you. Madam Chairwoman, members of the
Subcommittee. I want to thank you for holding this field
hearing this morning. The timing of this hearing is significant
because all of us began hearing about the perchlorate problem
in our drinking water supply almost ten years ago. It was
around Memorial Day of 1997. During these ensuing years, we
have all struggled with this issue, first because there was no
proven way to remove perchlorate from our drinking water
supplies, and then we're dealing with the enormous cost now
associated with constructing and operating perchlorate removal
facilities.
My district was involved in much of the preliminary
research involving treatment technologies and it has sponsored
four national conferences over the past seven years where we
have brought stakeholders from local state and Federal sectors
together to better understand this challenge. I might add that
we're also going to be sponsoring a conference next year to
continue this effort. As the State of California prepares to
issue a final MCL for perchlorate, I hope that the Congress,
under the leadership of your subcommittee, can move forward
with new local and Federal partnerships that will help us to
address the issue of how to treat and remove perchlorate from
our drinking water supply without overly burdening our
customers with water bills they cannot pay.
All of us at the witness table face the challenge of
removing perchlorate from our drinking water supplies. But the
nature of this challenge does and can differ from each
location. In the East Valley Water District, our needs are met
primarily by groundwater from the Bunker Hill groundwater
basin, from which we draw about 80 percent of our water supply.
The remaining 20 percent comes from the Santa Ana River which
originates in the San Bernardino mountains.
In approximately 2001, a series of our well tests confirmed
that East Valley Water District did indeed have perchlorate in
our drinking water supply, and we tested positive in eight of
our 21 wells. I did have a contact level of perchlorate at
levels ranging anywhere from 4 parts per billion up to 16 parts
per billion. Based upon our investigations, though, we can find
no indication that our service area has been the location of a
defense-related facility or of a private sector facility. Based
upon research conducted by our Regional Water Quality Control
Board, that's the Santa Ana region, we have concluded that our
perchlorate problem can be traced back to the fertilizer that
was earlier mentioned that was brought in from South America
during the early part of the 20th century. It was used on
orange groves and crops that are now part of our service area.
Since these deliveries were made generations ago and land
ownership has changed, often many times, we see little hope in
securing funding help from principal responsible parties. This
means that the customers of my district will have to bear the
cost of building and operating complex perchlorate treatment
systems. When we found perchlorate in our drinking water
supply, the next question to answer was whether the U.S. EPA or
the State of California might respond by setting a standard for
perchlorate and what that standard might be. East Valley has
closely participated in the Federal and state dialogue with
regard to this issue over the past several years since many
millions of dollars of capital costs will be depended upon what
that standard will say.
When it became apparent that the State of California would
proceed with an MCL, my board began committing itself to
financing, design, and construction of treatment facilities
that would allow us to meet this pending MCL. But I must tell
you that removing perchlorate from our drinking water supply is
going to represent the single most costly project the agency
has ever undertaken. We estimate that the design and
construction of the necessary treatment facilities will require
us to spend an initial $50- to $60 million with many years of
additional operation and maintenance costs to follow.
Many of our customers are on fixed or limited incomes, and
considering the improbability of identifying the PRP, the
result will be these customers will have to bear the full costs
of treatment. This initial capital outlay alone could add $15
to $20 per month to a typical customer's water bill. This,
indeed, will be a very heavy burden for many of the people that
we serve and may be expected to only increase over the years
because of the high O&M costs associated with perchlorate.
It is our hope in East Valley that we can work with this
committee, our local water agency colleagues, and our
congressional delegation to expand on the work that you've
already done and create a perchlorate cleanup partnership which
will allow us to cooperate together and assure the safety of
our drinking water supply. We at East Valley cannot trace our
perchlorate contamination to the activities of the Federal
Government or other contractors, but we have the same
responsibility to serve safe water to our customers and to do
so under arrangements that they can afford.
We believe that when a drinking water supply or--we believe
that a local and Federal cleanup partnership would be of great
benefit to people we serve, and I urge you to continue to
pursue authorizations and appropriations that would make such a
partnership a reality.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Bob Martin follows:]
Statement of Robert Martin, P.E., General Manager,
East Valley Water District
Madam Chairwoman, Congressman Baca, Congresswoman Solis, and
Members of the Water and Power Subcommittee, I am Robert Martin,
General Manager of the East Valley Water District in San Bernardino.
Thank you for holding this field hearing today. I know that I am joined
by all of my water colleagues at the witness table and all of those in
the Inland Empire in expressing our deep appreciation for the interest
and the leadership that this Subcommittee has shown with regard to the
challenges we all face in securing the water resources needed for the
future of our region and throughout the West. The timing of this
hearing is significant because all of us began hearing about
perchlorate in our drinking water supply almost ten years ago, around
Memorial Day of 1997. During these ensuing years, we have all struggled
with this issue, first because there was no proven way to remove
perchlorate from drinking water, and then with the enormous costs
associated with constructing and operating perchlorate removal
facilities. The East Valley Water District has sponsored four national
conferences over the past seven years bringing stakeholders from the
local, state, and federal sectors together to better understand the
nature of this challenge. As the State of California prepares to issue
a final MCL for perchlorate, I hope that the Congress, under the
leadership of your Subcommittee, can move forward with new local/
federal partnerships that will help us to address the issue of how to
treat and remove perchlorate from our drinking water without overly
burdening our customers with water bills which they cannot afford to
pay.
All of us at the witness table face the challenge of removing
perchlorate from our drinking water supplies. But the nature of this
challenge can differ with each location. The problems that my agency
faces with perchlorate may be traced back to the changing pattern of
land use in our service area over the past hundred years. When the East
Valley Water District was founded in 1954, much of our nearly 33 square
mile service area in the eastern part of the San Bernardino Valley were
orange groves. Over the years, with the creation of the City of
Highland and the rapid urbanization of our region, we have grown to
where we serve the water and wastewater needs of approximately 70,000
customers. This number continues to grow as housing tracts replace most
of the remaining orange groves in the easternmost portion of our
service area. Our needs are met by groundwater from the Bunker Hill
Basin from which we draw about 80% of our water supply with the
remaining 20% coming from surface water that originates in the San
Bernardino Mountains.
Both our groundwater and our surface water supply have always been
considered to be of high quality. We have watched as our colleague
agencies in the region have wrestled with perchlorate contamination
that has been traced to a number of sources, frequently associated with
defense, or defense contractor facilities or even private sector
facilities such as fireworks manufacturers. Then, in 2001, a series of
well tests confirmed that East Valley Water District had perchlorate in
8 of our 21 wells at levels ranging from 4 parts per billion (ppb) to
16 parts per billion (ppb). Based upon our investigations, we can find
no indication that our service area has been the location for a defense
related facility or of a private sector facility. Based upon research
conducted by our regional water quality control board (Santa Ana
Region), we have concluded that our perchlorate problem can be traced
back to fertilizer brought in from South America in the early 20th
century and used on orange groves that are now part of our service
area. Since these deliveries were made generations ago and land
ownership has changed, often many times, there is little hope of our
securing funding help from principal responsible parties. This means
that the customers of the East Valley Water District will have to bear
the cost of building and operating complex perchlorate treatment
systems.
When we found perchlorate in our drinking water supply, the next
question to answer was whether the USEPA and the State of California
might respond by setting an MCL for perchlorate and what that MCL might
be. East Valley has closely participated in the federal and the state
dialogue with regard to this issue over the past several years since
many millions of dollars of capital costs at our utility depended upon
the standards set by our Federal and State regulators. When it became
apparent that the State of California would proceed with an MCL, and
when we received guidance with regard to what this might be, my Board
began committing itself to financing, design, and construction of the
treatment facilities that would allow us to meet the California
perchlorate MCL. Our East Valley mission statement calls on us ``to
provide our customers with a safe and reliable water supply that is
delivered at a fair and cost effective price'' and we are fully
committed to meeting that high standard.
But I must tell you that removing perchlorate from our drinking
water supply represents the most costly single action that my agency
has ever undertaken. We estimate that design and construction of the
necessary treatment facilities will require us to spend an initial $50-
60 million with many years of additional Operations and Maintenance
(O&M) costs to follow. Many of our customers are on fixed or limited
incomes. Considering the improbability of our identifying a PRP, the
result will be that these customers will have to bear the full cost of
treatment. This initial capital outlay alone could add $15-$20 per
month to a typical customer's water bill. This will be a very heavy
burden for many of the people that we serve and this burden may be
expected to increase over the years because of the high O&M costs
associated with Perchlorate treatment.
We have followed with interest and deep appreciation the efforts of
Congressman Baca and Senator Feinstein to secure passage of the
California Perchlorate Contamination Remediation Act in the 109th
Congress. We also deeply appreciate the leadership of you, Chairwoman
Napolitano and the Water and Power Subcommittee with regard to this
issue. You have all helped to give voice to the fact that our region,
our State, and our nation cannot prosper without the assurance of an
adequate, safe, and affordable water supply. In the past, these sorts
of major challenges have been met through the creation of local/federal
partnerships. It is our hope at East Valley that we can work with this
Committee, our local water agency colleagues, and our Congressional
delegation to expand on the work that you have already done and create
a perchlorate cleanup partnership which will allow us to cooperate
together and assure the safety of our drinking water supply. We at East
Valley cannot trace our perchlorate contamination to the activities of
the federal government, federal contractors, or entities completely in
the private sector. But we have the same responsibility to serve safe
drinking water to our customers and to do so under arrangements that
they can afford. We believe that when a drinking water supply is
secured that the entire nation benefits. A local/federal cleanup
partnership would be of great benefit to the people we serve and we
urge you to continue to pursue authorizations and appropriations that
would make such a partnership a reality.
______
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, sir. I appreciate your
testimony.
Mr. Michael Whitehead, Board Member, San Gabriel Basin
Water Quality Authority, West Covina. Thank you for being here,
sir.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL WHITEHEAD, BOARD MEMBER, SAN GABRIEL BASIN
WATER QUALITY AUTHORITY, WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA
Mr. Whitehead. Thank you, Madam Chairman, members of the
committee. I've submitted fairly detailed prepared testimony
and remarks with a good deal of factual information, and if it
is acceptable to you, I'll submit on that. But I would like to
add a few observations about that, and in particular with
respect to the San Gabriel Valley where I spent the last 30
years of my life managing water systems and water supplies.
Mrs. Napolitano. We'll accept that for the record.
Mr. Whitehead. Thank you. I spent 30 years of my life
dealing with water supplies in the San Gabriel Valley, and the
good news in the San Gabriel Valley is that we have this vast
underground aquifer which supplies and is capable of supplying
over a million people that live and work in the San Gabriel
Valley from local groundwater supplies--a local, abundant,
renewable, sustainable water supply. That's the good news. The
bad news is that much of it is polluted, polluted so much, in
fact, that the U.S. EPA named it a Federal Superfund site years
ago and set about, I think, observantly or affirmatively doing
something about that. But even so, that took a long time. And
the state legislature formed the San Gabriel Basin Water
Quality Authority specifically for the purpose of addressing
groundwater contamination in the Valley.
And we've gotten a good start on that. We've had your
support and the support of the entire San Gabriel Valley
delegation. Also Mr. Baca has been very influential in
supporting our efforts in getting the Federal Government to
step up and take responsibility for this long and unfortunate
legacy of Cold War Era defense-related discharges into the
aquifer that's contaminated this rich, abundant, local,
renewable supply. It has bedeviled us. The perchlorate problem,
as my colleagues have mentioned, is extraordinarily difficult
to deal with, very expensive to deal with. It is, in my
estimation, extraordinarily unfortunate that our public
officials have failed to take a stand on what the drinking
water standard ought to be.
This contaminant has been known to be out there for more
than ten years, and as a manager in the water supply industry,
it is imperative that we have standards, that we have standards
that we can design water systems to comply with. And quite
frankly, the lack of a standard has left us with our hand out
to the Department of Defense, which routinely brushes it aside
saying, ``A little bit of perchlorate never hurt anybody.'' But
the fact of the matter is perchlorate represents a clear and
present public health and safety crisis and has to be
addressed. And with your support, support you've given the San
Gabriel Basin Groundwater Restoration Fund and our efforts to
increase the authorization there, we are extraordinarily
grateful for your leadership and support on that.
I'd like to yield whatever time I have remaining. My
colleagues from the Authority have a very brief video clip that
was broadcast on public television recently that describes a
near catastrophic problem with perchlorate in the City of
Monterey Park that was aided immensely by the funding that was
provided through your efforts.
[The prepared statement of Michael Whitehead follows:]
Statement of Michael L. Whitehead, Director of the San
Gabriel Basin Water Quality Authority
Good morning, Madam Chairwoman, Committee members, and staff. My
name is Michael Whitehead and I am a member of the Board of Directors
of the San Gabriel Basin Water Quality Authority. Let me express my
appreciation to Congresswoman Grace F. Napolitano, Congressman David
Dreier, Congresswoman Hilda Solis, Congressman Adam Schiff,
Congresswoman Lucille Roybal-Allard, and Congressman Gary Miller for
their unwavering support and efforts in helping to restore the San
Gabriel Groundwater Basin.
The San Gabriel Basin underlies 167 square miles of the San Gabriel
Valley. The San Gabriel Basin holds hundreds of thousands of acre-feet
of local, renewable, public drinking water supplies. In fact, the San
Gabriel Basin provides a reliable, local drinking water supply for the
more than one million people who reside and work in the San Gabriel
Valley.
Beginning in the early 1980s, industrial contaminants have been
discovered in the groundwater in the San Gabriel Basin aquifer. Those
contaminants are the unfortunate legacy of unregulated discharges from
defense-related industries during the cold-war era of the 1950s, 1960s,
and 1970s. Contaminants such as Perchlorate, Volatile Organic
Compounds, and other industrial chemicals in the groundwater led to the
closure of many dozens of drinking water wells in the San Gabriel
Valley. The resulting crisis led to the United States Environmental
Protection Agency placing the San Gabriel groundwater basin on the
EPA's National Priorities List. In other words, the Basin became one of
the nation's largest superfund sites. But that allowed the EPA to take
necessary investigatory and enforcement actions to identify the
potentially responsible parties and to develop information needed to
formulate groundwater cleanup plans. Though the EPA's actions have been
extraordinarily helpful, the EPA did not undertake the job of cleaning
up the Basin itself, and it has been in no position to provide funding
to local agencies for that purpose.
To satisfy the need for a locally-based entity to provide
leadership and unified planning, the California State Legislature in
1993 created the San Gabriel Basin Water Quality Authority to plan,
coordinate, and accelerate the San Gabriel Basin groundwater cleanup
efforts. Since its inception, the Water Quality Authority has developed
and funded projects that have removed over 20 tons of contaminants and
treated over 312,000 acre-feet of groundwater in the San Gabriel Basin.
The Water Quality Authority has been aided by two federal
programs--the San Gabriel Basin Restoration Fund (``Restoration Fund'')
and the Title XVI program. These two programs have been a catalyst in
the success of our remediation efforts. Both programs have enabled us
to continue the collaborative approach of merging groundwater cleanup
with restoring public drinking water supplies. It has allowed us to
leverage federal dollars and local funding to bring all parties,
including the parties potentially responsible for the contamination, to
the table and work in a manner that addresses multiple issues at the
same time.
Through the leadership of Congresswoman Napolitano, Congressman
David Dreier, and the members of the San Gabriel Valley Congressional
Delegation, Congress created the Restoration Fund in December of 2000.
The Restoration Fund is providing $75 million in federal matching
funding for groundwater restoration projects in the San Gabriel Basin
and $10 million for projects near the Whittier Narrows in the Central
Basin. The Restoration Fund has provided urgently needed funding for
local groundwater remediation efforts to assure reliable, safe drinking
water supplies for our community. Congresswoman Napolitano, together
with Congressman Dreier and their colleagues moved decisively to
establish the Restoration Fund as a means of expediting the remediation
of the very valuable local groundwater supplies.
The Restoration Fund has provided an incentive for the Responsible
Parties in the San Gabriel Basin to participate in the cleanup and
reach funding agreements with the Water Quality Authority and the
affected local water suppliers. The funding has also allowed the Water
Quality Authority and the affected water suppliers to fund projects
even before Responsible Parties could be identified or when Responsible
Parties are no longer viable, cannot be located, or are recalcitrant.
Without this additional federal funding, the likelihood for additional
well closures would be great, leaving only the option of turning to
costly and already overburdened imported water supplies.
In light of the remarkable success of the Restoration Fund and its
profound impact on the local cleanup efforts, Congressman David Dreier
and his colleagues in the San Gabriel Valley Congressional Delegation
have introduced H.R. 123. H.R. 123 would increase the ceiling on the
Restoration Fund by $50 million for a total authorization of $135
million. This additional funding would allow us to continue the
progress we've made and allow us to avoid enormously costly litigation
that only serves to delay the cleanup of local drinking water supplies.
Similarly, the Title XVI program has provided the San Gabriel Basin
with the ability to provide much needed wellhead treatment, stem the
flow of contaminants, stabilize water rates, and most importantly
deliver safe and reliable drinking water to the residents of the San
Gabriel Valley.
In 2004, Congresswoman Napolitano and her colleagues in the San
Gabriel Valley Congressional Delegation introduced and passed H.R. 1284
which increased the ceiling on the San Gabriel Basin Demonstration
Project by $6.5 million. This increase resulted in a total
authorization of $44.5 million for local cleanup efforts. The
additional funding has allowed the Water Quality Authority to maintain
the crucial momentum toward implementing groundwater cleanup we've seen
in the San Gabriel Basin.
In the time period since the Restoration Fund and Title XVI program
were made available to the Water Quality Authority, thirty-four
projects have been allocated funding. Twenty projects have been built
and another eight are currently under construction with completion
expected by the end of summer.
For example, with the completion of four major groundwater cleanup
projects developed and implemented through the Water Quality Authority
with the cooperation of local water suppliers, participating
Responsible Parties, and the U.S. EPA, we will be removing perchlorate
and other toxic chemicals from groundwater at the rate of 24,000
gallons per minute on a 24/7 year-round basis. These projects will
continue to provide safe drinking water to residents and businesses in
Baldwin Park, La Puente, West Covina, the City of Industry, and
surrounding areas for decades to come without burdening the public with
higher water bills.
Without the funding for the treatment facilities, local water
suppliers would have been forced to shut down more water wells due to
rapidly migrating contamination. The well closures would have forced
local water suppliers to become reliant on imported water, which would
come mainly from the Colorado River. And as you know, California's
allotment from the Colorado River water is being cut back. This would
have severely impaired our ability to provide water for the residents
and businesses in the San Gabriel Valley.
Water from wells in the San Gabriel Valley is relatively
inexpensive to pump and supply to homes and businesses. The current
price for an acre-foot of treated, ready-to-drink Colorado River water
in the high-demand summer period is approaching $500. The typical cost
to pump, treat, and deliver an acre-foot of local San Gabriel Basin
groundwater is $65 to $250 depending on the levels and types of
contamination being treated.
It is vital that we restore the San Gabriel Basin aquifer which as
I mentioned is an essential, local, renewable water supply. Once we are
able to remediate the contamination it is our belief that the San
Gabriel Valley will be able to use the groundwater aquifer to meet
most, if not all, of our local water needs. Removing harmful
contaminants from our communities' groundwater supply will allow local
water suppliers to better meet the needs of local residents for safe
drinking water at affordable rates and makes certain that the
groundwater basin is able to meet the water supply needs of future
generations.
The federal assistance provided by the Restoration Fund and the
Title XVI program have allowed us to carry out our mission of
facilitating groundwater cleanup and providing a clean, reliable
drinking water supplies for the more than one million residents of the
San Gabriel Valley.
Thank you for allowing me to testify on the successes of the San
Gabriel Basin Water Quality Authority and the important on-going
progress of the cleanup of the San Gabriel Basin today.
______
Mrs. Napolitano. Dim the lights, please.
[Video Presentation.]
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you. It's so true. The migration
does happen in most instances whether we want to admit it or
not, which then brings to mind that we, as a society, not only
the water agencies, the local municipal governments, but also
the general populace needs to begin to look at water
conservation. And the agency needs to look at water storage and
water recycling to continue to be able to provide that source
of water.
With that, I will start off the questioning with Mr.
Coffey. And one of the things that struck me in your testimony
was the cleanup of the Henderson, Nevada contamination. How was
it accomplished so efficiently? Who paid for it? And what
happened to the perchlorate in Lake Meade? I mean, it didn't
just evaporate. And did it go downstream to the irrigators and
finally to Imperial and then into the tap waters of Southern
California of which we are beneficiaries? And can you describe
in more detail how the NC-2 cleanup actually works?
Mr. Coffey. Yes, Congresswoman. In 1997 when the detection
level for perchlorate was reduced, we detected perchlorate in
the Colorado River aqueduct. We began an extensive evaluation
of the watershed and identified the Las Vegas wash, which is
the main drainage area from Las Vegas, as having extremely high
concentrations of perchlorate. It wasn't long before we
identified groundwater flows in the Las Vegas wash region which
contained that perchlorate.
The agency with regulatory oversight there was Nevada's
Department of Environmental Protection. Nevada Department of
Environmental Protection working with the polluters, Kerr-McGee
and American Pacific Corporation, and with the oversight of the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, began a series of cleanup
orders where Kerr-McGee installed various control measures to
control the main source of the plume. There are two main plumes
in the Henderson area, one which was caused by Kerr-McGee which
was rapidly moving into the Las Vegas wash, and one which was
entering the groundwater and not moving as rapidly toward the
wash, that was the American Pacific plume.
There's been three or four treatment phases which were
installed, initially a pump-and-treat system was installed
which reduced by about 500 pounds per day the amount of
perchlorate entering the wash. That resin was then hauled off
to a hazardous waste incinerator in Utah and the perchlorate
was destroyed. Also, an impermeable boundary, a slurry wall was
installed in the area of highest concentration to block the
groundwater flow such that the groundwater could be pumped from
the area of highest concentration and treated by ion-exchange.
Subsequently, a treatment plant, a pump-and-treat system using
biological destruction of perchlorate was designed and built
and has been accomplishing all of the perchlorate destruction.
In that case, the perchlorate is biologically reduced back to
chloride, and then that water can be discharged back to the Las
Vegas wash.
That whole system took approximately six years to get to
its completion, although fairly rapid steps were taken to
reduce the loading. At its maximum, we estimate about a
thousand pounds per day of perchlorate were entering the
Colorado River system. That perchlorate was disbursing
throughout Lake Mead and all of the downstream areas of the
Colorado River. In general, about 100 pounds of perchlorate
resulted in about 1 part per billion of perchlorate in the
Colorado River. So at its maximum of about a thousand pounds
per day of discharge into the wash, that would have
historically resulted in no greater than about 10 parts per
billion of perchlorate in the River.
We've seen a dramatic decline in our monitoring results of
perchlorate from the Las Vegas wash. Entering the wash now are
approximately 50 pounds per day of perchlorate which is
entering the Colorado River, and we have not detected
perchlorate at our intake at Lake Havasu at concentrations
above 2 parts per billion since May of 2006.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you. Did Kerr-McGee pay adequate
reimbursement or--besides putting in their treatment plant?
Mr. Coffey. Kerr-McGee followed all of the directives by
the Nevada Department of Environmental Protection. They since
had a lawsuit against the Navy because the Navy directed the
operation at that chemical manufacturing facility for some
time. Last year they reached a settlement with the Navy where
the Navy would pay a portion of their cleanup costs to date,
and then the Navy would pay a portion of the ongoing cleanup
costs. To date, about 2200 tons of perchlorate have been
removed from the environment in Henderson and destroyed, and we
expect that cleanup to remain for decades, but they reached an
agreement with the Federal Government on shared costs for that
cleanup.
Mrs. Napolitano. So they are sharing the costs.
Mr. Coffey. They are now sharing the costs.
Mrs. Napolitano. Well, that's good for the Navy. Let's see
if the other agencies will come across with similar
arrangements. Thank you. I'll pass on to Mr. Baca.
Mr. Baca of California. Thank you, Madam Chair. You know,
it's very alarming to me that all of you, you know, stated that
the consumer will ultimately have to bear the costs if we don't
treat this right now. And it's for those of us that are
politicians, we have the responsibility toward our consumers,
and we want to make sure that the cost isn't on them, because
who's responsible? Both the Federal and private sector that's
created the problem. And yet, you know, it's very alarming that
if we look at the perchlorate and the problems, that could
escalate. And one of the things is that our consumers really
are not totally aware of the gravity of what could impact them
now and in the future.
And then especially as we look at our area in Southern
California with the San Andreas Fault and the possibility of an
earthquake in the immediate area and what impact it could have
to its well, and that's something that we should take into
consideration when we look at the need for funding and
additional funding in the immediate area. So my question, I
guess, would be to all of you, and I'm going to ask a general
question, has perchlorate contamination affected your ability
to provide safe and reliable supply of drinking water to your
consumer, which is question number one, and have you
experienced or do you anticipate any water supply shortage as a
result of the presence of perchlorate? Any one of you can
attempt to answer this.
Mr. Araiza. It has affected our abilities simply because
we've had to shut down several wells. But we have also
installed treatments.
Mr. Baca of California. Can you mention the numbers that
have been shut down?
Mr. Araiza. In our area--my statement says 22, but in
reality I know of at least 24 because I just shut two more
wells down that were not part of my statement then. In fact, I
am working as hard as I possibly can--or my agency is, I
shouldn't say ``we'' because I work for an agency. The agency
is working to install a treatment system as we speak so it will
be online for the summer. Our groundwater is our life blood, of
course. I do have a small package treatment plant that I treat
a little bit of the water out of Lytle Creek wash and a small
amount of State Water Project water. But 80 percent of my water
comes out of the ground. And when one of my basins is
affected--and that is the Rialto basin and the Chino basin, I
pump them both. And in fact, the north Riverside basin that I
pump out of also, all three of them have perchlorate in them.
And so it is a major concern of my agency to not pass that
on to our rate payers. We have been very successful in getting
funding from, a little bit from the Federal Government, some
from the State of California, and a little bit from one of the
PRP's, if you can believe that. They stepped up originally, but
they've backed away now and decided to spend their money on
attorneys. But it has--it did help us put on our first two
treatment systems which were ion-exchange. They were very
expensive to operate, as you've heard. And the new treatment
system I'm putting on is going to be the ion-exchange also, but
it does have a major effect on it.
Mr. Baca of California. Can any--Michael?
Mr. Whitehead. Yes, Congressman, in answer to your
question, it is a very definite impact on our ability to supply
reliable water supplies to our customers. It's imperative that
we have access to our local water supplies. In the San Gabriel,
for example, and the Baldwin Park La Puente area where we were
severely affected by perchlorate contamination, as well as
contaminants of other sorts, we lost 14,000-15,000 gallons per
minute of water production capacity because of perchlorate in
1997-1998, and since that time period. I used the word
catastrophic earlier. We were fortunate to be able to get by
and do water conservation practices. Don't tell me how we did
it, we were fortunate not to have a major disaster or a major
wild fire in the area that would require that water.
The good news, though, is that through the efforts of the
Groundwater Restoration Fund, the San Gabriel Basin Restoration
Fund, which you've all supported and we thank you for that, and
the efforts of the San Gabriel Basin Water Quality Authority,
we've been able to design, construct, and now are operating
plants in the Baldwin Park, La Puente, and City of Industry
area now where we're treating 24,000 gallons of water per
minute removing perchlorate, removing all of the VOCs, rocket
fuel, you name it, from that water and treating that down to
non-detectable levels.
And the funding for that has come--the city money was
provided by the restoration, though the restoration fund did
not pay for all of that. It provided the seed money that
allowed us to bring the polluters to the table and negotiate
settlements with them whereby they're paying 100 percent of the
capital costs of those facilities. Capital costs spent to date,
$100 million. It's going to cost hundreds of millions of
dollars to operate those facilities for the years to come. And
at least in that small part of the San Gabriel basin where we
got our start, 100 percent of that cost was borne by the
polluters and outside funding, again with some matching funds
from the Federal Government to pay for all of that capital
cost. And the polluters are paying going-forward costs which is
approaching $10 million a year to operate those five plants
that we have in Baldwin Park.
That's only the beginning. You saw the story of Monterey
Park where we had to move in there. San Gabriel Valley is 167
square miles, and so we have a vast problem. It's a Federal
Superfund cleanup site. So we have a lot more to do. But to
answer your question, it has had a profoundly adverse effect on
our ability to provide safe reliable water. And we've been
working, I'll say relentlessly to reverse that situation. With
your help we've been successful.
Mr. Baca of California. I know that my time is up.
Mrs. Napolitano. No. Go ahead.
Mr. Baca of California. My question that I asked earlier--
or the statement that I made earlier, but I want to ask it in
reference to a question. If, in fact, we had an earthquake, are
we totally prepared to provide good quality water now based on
the problem that we have on perchlorate and to deal with it? Is
there any one of your agencies now prepared to deal with that?
And do we have a plan in place if, in fact, we had a major
earthquake that hit us right now and we had to supply water? I
hope we don't, but thank God.
Mr. Araiza. I'll try that. We believe we are as prepared as
we can be. We have taken major steps to prepare for that
inevitable problem that probably will get some areas of
Southern California. We have equipped our wells as best we can
with emergency backup. Most of all of our wells, 99.9 percent
of them are electrically operated, so you have to be able to--
if you lose your power, you'd have to be able to patch standby
generation to run those wells. My agency has been buying
standby generators, and it seems like a great expense to have
stuff sitting there, but you have to be able to do that. We've
hardened our reservoirs, most all of us in the water industry
are doing that to be able to maintain the amount of water we
have in storage.
Mr. Baca of California. But if it goes into our soil----
Mr. Araiza. If it shakes and it does shake bad enough, it
will affect some of our wells. Some will be affected because it
will--a lot of them are older constructed wells that when they
start shaking, rattling, and rolling, they'll start coming
apart. There's no doubt about that. But we think that we will
be able to get by. I'm not saying it won't be an emergency,
but----
Mr. Baca of California. Because we know what happened with
the San Fernando one. We had a seven point something earthquake
in that immediate area, and the impact it's going to have
before we actually do the cleanup in the immediate area, is
that there are still going to be children that are going to be
born. And during that period of time, we know the impact it's
had on infants and the fetus of a woman, too, as well. So I'm
just curious. Anybody else can answer.
Mr. Coffey. From a regional perspective, we are also
concerned about the potential for a large earthquake. As the
three main import water sources, Colorado River aqueduct, State
Water Project system, and the Los Angeles Department of Water
and Power Act are all crossed by the San Andreas Fault. Our
procedure is to keep a six-month emergency supply of water
within the basin that, if all three of those water supplies
were severed, that within the basin there's a six-month supply
of water assuming significant conservation during that period.
And so we believe that we are able to manage that earthquake
risk from a water supply perspective.
Also, I would just add that it's likely that any of the
perchlorate treatment systems that have been installed recently
have been installed with the most recent knowledge of
earthquake tie downs and geotechnical investigations, and
those--that new equipment is likely more ruggedized for an
earthquake than perhaps an older infrastructure.
Mrs. Napolitano. OK. Thank you. And one of the things that
you're talking about is the contamination, has any testing been
done in the water in the dam to make sure that that's OK?
Mr. Coffey. ``The water in the dam,'' are you speaking
about Diamond Valley Lake?
Mrs. Napolitano. Yes.
Mr. Coffey. Yes. We monthly test the water source of
Diamond Valley Lake, and it is non-detectable for perchlorate
at 2 parts per billion.
Mrs. Napolitano. Good, because if anything should happen,
as the Congressman was alluding to, that will be our source of
water. And one of the things that the Congressman was talking
about is the effect on infants and other children, and I'm
wondering if anybody had done any investigation over the effect
on the learning--because it does affect learning--ADD,
Attention Deficit Disorder. That could be one of the
conceivable outcomes of the perchlorate on our youngsters, and
that's something we need to look at. And I want to ask the
Congress to possibly request some studies along that line on
the health effects on infants as they grow older, what else are
they going to be prone to.
I would like to thank the Federal EPA because, Mr.
Whitehead, as you well know, they've been bringing the PRP's,
the potential responsible parties to the table. And that's in
great part thanks to their continued effort to putting pressure
on them. And the credit goes to Congressman Drier who ran line
42 and got us all involved, not to say that we weren't already,
but the fact that they were able--my predecessor was able to
place them on the Superfund list during the Pat Schroeder days
when she was on the Superfund committee. And that has started
the ball rolling. But had it not been for people recognizing
the future effects it would have on this whole area, right now
San Gabriel Valley would be in deep trouble.
So thank you for all the work, and we thank the EPA for
their participation. And we agree, there are no standards that
have been set for the perchlorate, partly because the special
interest and the business pressures. And then of course, Mr.
Araiza, I read with great interest your testimony, that the
parties involved in the litigation spent over $50 million.
Mr. Araiza. Yes, that's my understanding, that the PRP's
and some of the cities and even the state have spent tremendous
amounts of monies on their litigation. And it's just almost
unfathomable how much.
Mrs. Napolitano. Well, how much--if that money had been put
to good use, I think the problem would not be as severe as it
is now.
Mr. Araiza. It might have helped a lot. You're absolutely
right.
Mrs. Napolitano. Then there are a couple of other questions
to Mr. Whitehead. Do you see the role for the Department of
Interior, specifically the Bureau of Reclamation with their
project on recycling? Of course the Administration is beginning
to change their tune but not fast enough. And the U.S.
Geological Survey, who is doing a study on the groundwater
quality and contamination on contaminants, how--what, do you
see all of it coming together with the local water agencies?
Mr. Whitehead. Well, the Bureau of Reclamation and
Department of Interior has been central to the administration
of the San Gabriel Basin Restoration Fund. They have been an
excellent partner in that endeavor, certainly at the operation
level. It's regrettable that the Administration has not given
the support to the highest echelons of the Bureau to continue
our funding and be as enthusiastic as the local----
Mrs. Napolitano. We'll get into that.
Mr. Whitehead. But to answer your question, the Bureau of
Reclamation has been central to this. And apart from the
current fiscal year difficulties in getting funding and the
problem with the budget and so forth, they have been tireless
in their efforts and working very cooperatively. So I would
recommend that they continue in that role and they be
strengthened in that role, and that the restoration Fund be
reauthorized as proposed in H.R. 123, which was introduced in
this session, to extend the authorization by an additional $15
million. I think that would be immensely helpful, and of course
the Bureau will be involved in that.
As far as the U.S. Geological Survey, I think that's the
right terminology, activities, they have been doing a great
deal of geophysical work in the basin identifying the carrying
capacity in terms of storage capacity. And the part that was
just published in this morning's San Gabriel Tribune, they
reported their findings of a very interesting study that shows
that recharge of the basin because of the record rainfall in
past years has allowed us to reenforce our local water
supplies. Certainly not the be all and end all of water supply
problems, but it adds a margin of safety so that we don't have
to be reliant on questionably reliable outside imported water
supplies. Again, without belaboring the point, our access to
that local groundwater is dependant on our ability to treat it,
to remove the perchlorate and other contaminants.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you for that. And again, returning
to your statement about the Administration's unwillingness to
continue to accept water recycling as a tool to be able to get
additional water treated and put back into the aquifers or into
the wells, it's been a running battle with the Administration
to get them to understand that it is a necessity. They maintain
that the law was only put in, and it's by mandate,
Congressional mandate that they help the communities with the
recycle water projects. They maintain that it was only for
studies for pilot projects, and I maintain that that's not so,
that they were mandated to continue the work. And as you well
know, the Water 2025 Administration Plan does not do water
recycling, and we have been battling with them.
The Water 2025 has not been funded by Congress and not been
authorized by Congress, and yet they're putting $11 million
into that, which I'm hoping that one way or another we'll be
able to take those out and put them into water recycling funds.
So that's the current battle on that. And I'm hoping that we'll
be able to get the support we need to be able to do that. The
communities need that assistance. As you well know, it has been
of help. And I think we need to continue providing that seed
money for communities that need it.
To Mr. Araiza, how do you dispose of the perchlorate after
it's been removed from the well by ion-exchange?
Mr. Araiza. The system that we use is a--it's a removal
system where we take the particulates and actually take them
away and burn them and then put new filter media in. So it's
actually removed and new media's brought in. They take the old
media away and they destroy it.
Mrs. Napolitano. By burning it?
Mr. Araiza. By burning it, yes. They burn the little resins
up with the perchlorate in it, and they bring new resin in and
replace it. We are looking at some regenerable resins and we,
hopefully, are going to be working with an arm of the
Department of Defense, the DSTCP in installing a new system
this summer that they have been testing that possibly we will
be able to have a regenerable resin. But I'm not sure how soon
that's going to come. We're hoping for it by this summer, but
hope doesn't work a lot of times. You just have to go out and
do it yourself.
Mrs. Napolitano. Well, is there any research that any of
you know that can provide a better way of being able to handle
it?
Mr. Araiza. Well, bio-remediation works great as far as
letting--and I apologize, letting the bugs eat up the
perchlorate. They seem to like it. But you can't take the water
that has been produced by that and put it directly back into
your water system. You have to retreat it again, so that brings
the cost up. It's very inexpensive originally to use the bio-
remediation, but to re-treat it to use in a system is very
expensive. It brings the cost back up. So it's just as cost
effective to use the ion-exchange at that point.
Mrs. Napolitano. There has been some other methodology
touted in the east coast membrane technology. Are you aware of
it, or have you heard about it? Have they used it?
Mr. Araiza. Yes. The problem with membrane, and someone
will correct me if I'm wrong, it's very costly because it takes
a lot of energy to push it through the membranes. So you have
to force the water through the membranes by pumping it at very
high velocity, and that raises the cost up. RO systems, which
are basically a membrane system that take everything out of the
water, have been around and they're using it in the Chino basin
to take the salts out. It gets very expensive. That's even more
expensive water than the ion-exchange systems.
Mrs. Napolitano. Well, when I look at water cost for the
farming community in Northern California and the couple of
hundred they pay versus what we pay versus what Arizona is
paying for the water, I think we're going to end up somewhere
in the middle on that.
Mr. Coffey, on the issue of fertilizer, is it still in the
soil? And how long will it continue to contaminate groundwater?
Or do you know if it does? How long will it be to physically
remove the contaminated soil? Would that eventually be another
option?
Mr. Coffey. Well, the ammonium perchlorate in fertilizer is
similar in chemical structure to nitrate. And we find--often we
find co-occurring nitrate contamination with perchlorate
contamination. And that co-occurrence is often the result of
our agricultural legacy. One of the difficulties is that
because of their similar chemical structure--but nitrate occurs
at concentrations thousands of times greater, the
concentrations of nitrate are what drives the real treatment
costs for perchlorate. That perchlorate will remain in the
groundwater basin unless it is mitigated in some way either
through--within the ground treatment or through pump-and-
treatment system, and its legacy would remain just as the
legacy of agricultural use of fertilizers and nitrates.
Mrs. Napolitano. So you don't see any future ability for
the rainwater to glean out the earth, so to speak, before it
gets into the aquifer?
Mr. Coffey. Well, certainly the basins are used and the
groundwater flows through the basins, but in terms of that
massive perchlorate which was applied to agricultural lands,
that massive perchlorate will remain or will travel a
downgradient in the hydrogeologic case. So it will only be by
eventual flushing or removal of the perchlorate.
Mrs. Napolitano. Well, it can only do so much filtering,
can't it?
Mr. Coffey. Right. But the biological reductions really do
not occur without additional carbon sources without a
treatment. It's very rare that the conditions exist naturally
for any kind of biological reduction.
Mr. Baca of California. Thank you, Madam Chair. My question
is for Mr. Martin. We have heard today that a cease and desist
order was issued one year after the discovery of perchlorate in
the East Valley Redlands area. Can you help us understand why
after ten years we cannot get a similar order in the low income
of Rialto?
Mr. Martin. I wish I could. We really haven't been involved
too much with the proceedings with Rialto and West Valley.
Probably better question for Butch here. I'd have to ask you,
Butch.
Mr. Araiza. And I don't know that I have an answer to that
question, Congressman Baca. I think my testimony, of course, is
very----
Mr. Baca of California. We're not as influenced as
Redlands, but yet, why can't we get them----
Mr. Araiza. You know, and when they were trying to solve
the Redlands problem, I personally thought it was taking way
too long to do that. And it's the process that we go through
with the regional boards. They are a bureaucratic arm of the
State of California that answers to an appointed board, and
most of those people are people from our local communities that
are influenced by other people in the community and it's a hard
process to deal with. That's why I am so----
Mr. Baca of California. Are you saying that because it's
influenced--because Redlands is, you know, high economic area
versus low economic area, we have different Congressmen in that
area versus someone in the different area? I mean, that's
basically what you're stating in one sense in terms of why it
was addressed in one year and it's taken us ten years in
another area.
Mr. Araiza. And I----
Mr. Baca of California. There's different standards, and
yet, the problem that existed in that area----
Mr. Araiza. Was addressed.
Mr. Baca of California. Yes.
Mr. Araiza. And they finally forced Lockheed to the table,
and I think it was through the arm-twisting of probably their
Congressman in that area. And it is a very affluent area, and
it probably helped the fact that it was a very affluent area
that they had a lot of people that pushed at that. It doesn't--
it probably makes sense that that is the case.
Mr. Baca of California. And we should be hearing
everybody's voices regardless of whether they have influence or
not, whether you come from a poor disadvantaged area, and
that's what we're basically saying here.
Mr. Araiza. Absolutely. I agree a hundred percent.
Mr. Baca of California. I want to get back to a question
that the Congresswoman asked earlier, when she was talking
about one of the things that we currently lack standards in
reference to the parts per billion. And I know in California we
set the standard at 6 parts per billion, and yet the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency has not set an overall
standard, and yet the State of Massachusetts has set a standard
of 2 parts per billion. And I know that if we set a zero
tolerance, do you think that that could actually be met by all
of us? And would that be the safest level? Because if we set
either a 2 or a 6, have the studies determined if those are
safe, or if zero tolerance would be the safest that we should
go with at this point? Anyone can attempt to answer.
Mr. Whitehead. Mr. Baca, I'm not a public health expert and
I can't--I wish I could tell you----
Mr. Baca of California. But you guys are impacted.
Mr. Whitehead. But we have a direct impact, as you say, on
public health because we deliver the water for public
consumption by adults and children and the entire population.
So please understand that we have a deep and abiding interest
in attempting public health and safety. I can tell you this,
that because there is no standard--we talked about the
California standard of being 6 parts per billion. That's not a
standard, that's a non-enforceable level that's called a public
notification level. It's not a binding enforceable level. What
we need are standards. I can tell you that in the absence----
Mr. Baca of California. You're saying Federal standards,
right?
Mr. Whitehead. of Federal standards.
Mr. Baca of California. I mean, we need to be clear on
that, because I think that for the public, sometimes we look at
what the state comes up with, and they assume that that's the
standard. And we need to clarify that and say that there is no
Federal guidelines right now.
Mr. Whitehead. There is no Federal standard. The law of the
State of California is that the standard that will apply will
be the U.S. EPA established standard or the state standard if
it's more stringent. We have neither.
Mrs. Napolitano. Can you state why it hasn't been set?
Mr. Whitehead. I wish I knew. We were on the verge of
having a U.S. EPA adopted standard set five years ago. And now
I can't tell you why they dodged that issue and handed it off
to the National Academy of Sciences to come up with something
else. I don't know the answer to that. I can tell you this.
Mr. Baca of California. But let me say if we did set a
standard, do you think then--I mean, this is just going through
my mind right now. If we did set a national standard, then
automatically that probably every city, then, would probably
save X amount of dollars in filing fees and attorney's fees
because they're fighting all of this right now. So that would
be dollars that could be reinvested in terms of cleanup water
versus the fees that they're fighting right now. I mean,
basically we're spending a lot of money on attorney's fees to
fight this issue. I don't know.
Mr. Whitehead. That's the lesson we learned in the San
Gabriel Valley. And thank God we learned that lesson. We didn't
spend the $50 million on attorney's fees and have a scorched
earth litigation policy that Ms. Newman described. What we did
is we led those polluters to the table. If Ms. Solis was here,
she would probably say we forced them to the table with her
help and your help and the help of the other elected officials
and agencies. But in the absence of a standard, we set our own
standard over there. And that standard was the lowest level
achievable by the use of best available technology, which we
know is below 1. And that's what we're treating at 24,000
gallons a minute that I mentioned earlier, to below 1.
It's not good enough to treat it to 6, talking about
establishing a standard. That's nothing more than a license for
the polluters to boot up to 6 parts per billion. That's
nonsense. What we need is a supportable health-based standard
that we can design and operate our facilities to. That's what
the water industry needs. We need standards. And it's beyond
comprehension that we haven't been able to address this issue.
So in that regard, I can tell you right now that the water
quality authority supports Ms. Solis' bill. We need to set a
timetable, we need to get that done, we need standards so we
can design these systems to protect public health.
Mr. Araiza. Yes, let me add in, I agree a hundred percent.
The U.S. EPA needs to have a standard set, a national standard
set. California's a privacy state, by that, the health
department sets their--they look after their own MCLs they set
on water. And if the U.S. EPA set it at 6, I would imagine--I
wouldn't be a bit surprised if California tried to one-up them
and go to 4, which would be fine. As Mr. Whitehead said, we are
using the best technology we can right now to take the
perchlorate out. That does take it down below 4, probably
around 2 or 1 part per billion.
I have publicly assured my constituents and my agency that
we are not serving any perchlorate in my agency, and my board
has backed me a hundred percent on that. And we are spending
some of our public's money, though, to make sure we're
continuing to do that because we have not been able to get
funding from either the PRP's or from other areas. But to that
end, we will continue to do that. My board has agreed that we
need to do that. But we do need a Federal standard, absolutely.
Mr. Baca of California. Thank you. I guess my next question
would be have the reduction in state water supplies resulted in
increased reliance on groundwater as a result of the municipal
water supplies? Anyone can answer this.
Mr. Araiza. In our area, and that's one of the major
problems we have is in Fontana, Rialto, Colton areas, we don't
have a good supply of state project water. We do have what is
available, but we have not gone to the extent to build the
massive treatment plants. Mr. Whitehead is currently underway
in Fontana building a large surface water treatment plant to
treat state project water. I have expanded my surface water
treatment plant to be able to hopefully double its capacity.
Presently it's at about ten million gallons a day, and I'm
hoping to take it to 20 by next year and be able to accommodate
more state project water.
If that water was cut off, yes, it would make us dependant.
We'd have to depend on our groundwater. Even with the project,
the surface water treatment plants, basically we are supposed
to have 100 percent backup for those plants through our
groundwater sources, especially for short periods of time.
Mr. Baca of California. Anyone else want to answer?
Mr. Coffey. Metropolitan provides 45 to 60 percent of the
water supplies to the region, and that's comprised of water
from the Colorado River and water by contract through the State
Water Project system. By contract, we have approximately two
million acre feet per year of water supplies through the State
Water Project, and currently with the result of this year's
hydrology, 60 percent of that supply is available to us. That
means that approximately 1.2 million acre feet per year this
year of water can be imported into the region.
Now, there are threats to the pumping banks, as you're
aware, and we're awaiting a number of court actions on that.
But even within some of those actions, that would reduce the
available supplies this year by maybe 75 percent to--or about
half of that, so about 600,000 acre feet per year. And in
essence, Metropolitan, through its integrated resources plan,
has identified a number of strategies in terms of groundwater
storage, storage off the aqueduct, partners with agriculture to
make our water supplies much more robust and less likely to be
threatened by any one problem, such as a drought in one of the
watersheds or our local groundwater contamination. These are
very serious at the local level, but on a regional level,
Metropolitan has invested in a diverse portfolio of water
resources such that any threat to one source would not be a
major problem for the region.
Mr. Baca of California. But Brad, reliability on the
Colorado River could impact us because we rely on it right now
quite a lot. But because of the growth in the population of
both Colorado and Arizona could impact the future demands of
water to the State of California based on the projections, as
California right now has 37 million people and we could go up
to 48 million people by the year 2030. So the reliance on the
Colorado River is that we have to look at other resources too
as well. Is that true?
Mr. Coffey. That is correct. And certainly recycling and
groundwater resources and conservation are all important
aspects of that. Fortunately California does have the rights to
4.4 million acre feet of the Colorado, and that has been--that
has been heard throughout the courts over the past decades. But
you're right, sources of water are also conjunctive use of
groundwater basins storing water in wet years in the
groundwater basin for withdrawal in dry years. And in
groundwater conjunctive use and groundwater recovery and local
resources programs, Metropolitan has invested several hundred
million dollars in the past two decades to make the water
systems much more robust for regional supply.
Mrs. Napolitano. May I step in and say that thanks to the
Metropolitan Water chairman, former chair Phil Pace, who asked
me to check out Moab, which is another issue that we have not
even touched upon, and it's the ten and a half--or they say 12
million tons of spent uranium 750 feet from Colorado. That
could conceivably go in and wash uranium and contaminate not
only our drinking water from Colorado, which is a third of our
water, but also something like 20-some-odd million people, the
ecology, the tourism, and, I mean, untold areas. Well, thanks
to the Met, we were able to get the Department of Energy, then
Bill Richardson, to pass legislation with the support of the
Clinton Administration to put into statute that we need to
address that issue.
And in the last few years, the Governors finally got it and
started asking the Administration for support in addressing it
not only through the NAS--NSA, I can't remember the acronyms--
to be able to look at the best way of addressing it. They
capped it with $5 million left by the company Atlas that went
bankrupt and that was not even enough to put a cap on it. It
was red clay that just blew out all over. But also the PRP is
not being held accountable. And because it was used for Cold
War defense systems, the Federal Government has had to step in.
And unfortunately they're not moving fast enough; however,
there is a process of getting a contractor to either sludge it,
move it, or get it recycled. And it will take anywhere between
20 and 30 years and possibly up to a billion dollars to move.
Mr. Coffey. Correct.
Mrs. Napolitano. So understand, the issues also affected,
that's a third of our drinking water from the Colorado River
for Southern California.
On another issue, Mr. Whitehead, in the mid-80s, I was
lucky enough to meet a representative of two water districts
for the City of Norwalk for which then I was mayor, and found
out that there was a contamination traveling down toward our 20
communities in the lower area that needed to be addressed. And
at that time, we asked for a geological study to determine the
aquifer that was contaminated and would no longer provide
potable water to my district given non-treatment. And so once
that geological study was done, it was presented to the cities
surrounding Norwalk, and they took action to band together, put
money together, and then go to the Federal EPA to ask for
assistance to be able to deal with contamination.
And I remember going to many meetings at the local level
where there was an issue about, ``Well, do we treat it above
ground? Do we treat it below ground? Do we use the
technology?'' And years went by before they actually were able
to begin the actual treatment. So let that be a lesson. You
need to be able to come together and decide what--not how to
treat it, but to treat it as soon as possible. And that's why I
have a little interest in water. I have a few years of
background in this.
And I must ask all of you to go back and educate your
elected officials, not only your local, your state, and your
Federal, your county officials of how important water is,
because let me tell you, not many people understand it, not
many people know the effect, not only on health, but also on
the economic vitality of the region. And so I would ask that
the public also get involved and that they raise their voices
to all of their elected officials and that they raise their
voices, not only to their elected officials, but to the
Administration because you're the ones who are affected, your
families, your peers, your coworkers. And this is not an issue
that is going to go away. And we need to impress upon the
Federal Government that they need to form a coalition and a
partnership with all agencies, state, county, Federal, and
health agencies to be able to ensure that we take a look at
what is happening, because they didn't find perchlorate in the
San Gabriel basin until, what, two years ago?
Mr. Whitehead. 1997. And that's after 20 years of problems
with VOCs.
Mrs. Napolitano. So understand, it's something that is
there, and we need to continue to inform and educate.
Now, going to--there's some reports, I don't know if
there's copies back there, but there's a website that you can
get them. The Sierra Congressional Resource here provided that
on perchlorate, and there is also draft report summaries, and
the Santa Ana watershed was kind enough to get us some copies.
Those are exceedingly important. I suggested that whoever's
interested in water and following it into the next generation,
that they look at it.
With that, I conclude the Subcommittee's oversight hearing
on sustainable water supplies for the West, part one,
protecting our groundwater resources. And I thank the panel for
your testimony and your time, and I hope it was well spent. And
under the Committee Rule 4H, additional material for the record
should be submitted by members or witnesses, for that matter,
members of the audience, within 30 days after the hearing. They
can send them to my office or to Mr. Baca's office, and we'll
get them into the record. I would appreciate cooperation of the
witnesses in responding promptly to any questions submitted to
you in writing. And with that, I adjourn the hearing. Thank you
very much. God bless.
[Whereupon, at 11:45 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Additional material submitted for the record follows:]
[A letter submitted for the record by The Honorable Grace
Vargas, Mayor, City of Rialto, California, follows:]
City of Rialto
california
April 9, 2007
The Honorable Grace F. Napolitano
Subcommittee on Water and Power
1522 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Madam Chairman:
The City of Rialto respectfully requests the opportunity to testify
before the Natural Resources Subcommittee on Water and Power's field
hearing in California on April 10, 2007, The City of Rialto is most
interested in offering insight into how it has been meeting the
challenge of providing clean and safe water to its residents while
dealing with one of the most contaminated perchlorate sites in the
State if not the country.
The City of Rialto provides water service to almost 50,000 people,
as well as schools, hospitals, parks, and businesses. The City relies
on groundwater which is pumped primarily from the Rialto-Colton Basin.
The Rialto-Colton Basin is the most important water resource for the
City of Rialto.
Seven of Rialto's thirteen wells have been removed from service for
some period due to detections of perchlorate from just over 4 to 110
parts per billion (ppb). The shutdowns have reduced Rialto's production
capacity by nearly 48 percent. The perchlorate plume affecting the
City's wells is believed to be more than 6 miles long and approximately
1 mile wide, although the full extent of the plume is not known.
Perchlorate concentrations as high as 10,000 ppb have been found in
groundwater. The Rialto-Colton Basin is also impacted by volatile
organic compounds, including trichloroethylene (TCE) at concentrations
up to 730 ppb. The perchlorate and TCE contamination, coupled with the
ongoing drought conditions in Southern California, has severely reduced
the availability of water to the City.
The source of much of the perchlorate contamination impacting
drinking water wells is a site located over the northern portion of the
Rialto-Colton Basin in the City of Rialto where the Army, defense
contractors, and fireworks manufacturers have utilized or manufactured
the chemical in their operations for over 60 years. It has been shown
that many of these operators have discharged perchlorate onto the
ground thus allowing for its eventual contamination of the underlying
groundwater aquifer. The City is pursuing a multi-pronged strategy to
deal with this critical threat to its water supply.
Rialto stands ready to offer testimony and answer any questions the
Subcommittee may have about how our City has dealt with the threat of
perchlorate groundwater contamination. Please do not hesitate to
contact me or Henry Garcia, City Manager, a[ (909) 820-2689 or Robert
Owen. Rialto's City Attorney, at (909) 890-9027,
Sincerely,
Mayor Grace Vargas
cc: The Honorable Joe Baca
<all>