[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
H.R. 200, ``INLAND EMPIRE PERCHLORATE GROUND WATER PLUME ASSESSMENT
ACT OF 2011''; AND H.R. 2842, ``BUREAU OF RECLAMATION SMALL CONDUIT
HYDROPOWER DEVELOPMENT AND RURAL JOBS ACT OF 2011''
=======================================================================
LEGISLATIVE HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER
of the
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
Wednesday, Sept. 14, 2011
__________
Serial No. 112-60
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
or
Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov
_____
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
68-323 PDF WASHINGTON : 2012
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
DOC HASTINGS, WA, Chairman
EDWARD J. MARKEY, MA, Ranking Democrat Member
Don Young, AK Dale E. Kildee, MI
John J. Duncan, Jr., TN Peter A. DeFazio, OR
Louie Gohmert, TX Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, AS
Rob Bishop, UT Frank Pallone, Jr., NJ
Doug Lamborn, CO Grace F. Napolitano, CA
Robert J. Wittman, VA Rush D. Holt, NJ
Paul C. Broun, GA Raul M. Grijalva, AZ
John Fleming, LA Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU
Mike Coffman, CO Jim Costa, CA
Tom McClintock, CA Dan Boren, OK
Glenn Thompson, PA Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
Jeff Denham, CA CNMI
Dan Benishek, MI Martin Heinrich, NM
David Rivera, FL Ben Ray Lujan, NM
Jeff Duncan, SC John P. Sarbanes, MD
Scott R. Tipton, CO Betty Sutton, OH
Paul A. Gosar, AZ Niki Tsongas, MA
Raul R. Labrador, ID Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR
Kristi L. Noem, SD John Garamendi, CA
Steve Southerland II, FL Colleen W. Hanabusa, HI
Bill Flores, TX Vacancy
Andy Harris, MD
Jeffrey M. Landry, LA
Charles J. ``Chuck'' Fleischmann,
TN
Jon Runyan, NJ
Bill Johnson, OH
Todd Young, Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel
Jeffrey Duncan, Democrat Staff Director
David Watkins, Democrat Chief Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER
TOM McCLINTOCK, CA, Chairman
GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, CA, Ranking Democrat Member
Louie Gohmert, TX Raul M. Grijalva, AZ
Jeff Denham, CA Jim Costa, CA
Scott R. Tipton, CO Ben Ray Lujan, NM
Paul A. Gosar, AZ John Garamendi, CA
Raul R. Labrador, ID Edward J. Markey, MA, ex officio
Kristi L. Noem, SD
Doc Hastings, WA, ex officio
------
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Hearing held on Wednesday, September 14, 2011.................... 1
Statement of Members:
Baca, Hon. Joe, a Representative in Congress from the State
of California, Oral statement of........................... 10
Gosar, Hon. Paul A., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Arizona........................................... 8
Prepared statement of.................................... 9
McClintock, Hon. Tom, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 3
Napolitano, Hon. Grace F., a Representative in Congress from
the State of California, Oral statement of................. 4
Tipton, Hon. Scott R., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Colorado.......................................... 5
Prepared statement of.................................... 7
Statement of Witnesses:
Lynch, Robert S., Attorney, Robert S. Lynch & Associates,
Phoenix, Arizona........................................... 16
Prepared statement on H.R. 2842.......................... 17
Murillo, David, Deputy Commissioner of Operations, Bureau of
Reclamation, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington,
D.C........................................................ 12
Prepared statement on H.R. 2842 and H.R. 200............. 14
Scott, Hon. Ed, Mayor Pro Tem, City of Rialto, California.... 31
Prepared statement on H.R. 200........................... 33
Treese, Christopher J., Manager, External Affairs, Colorado
River Water Conservation District, on behalf of The Family
Farm Alliance, Glenwood Springs, Colorado.................. 18
Prepared statement on H.R. 2842.......................... 19
Ward, Grant R., Water and Power Consultant, Maricopa-
Stanfield Irrigation and Drainage District and Electrical
District No. 3, Maricopa, Arizona.......................... 22
Prepared statement on H.R. 2842.......................... 23
Werkheiser, William, Associate Director, Water, U.S.
Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia, Statement submitted
for the record by USGS..................................... 39
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 200, TO DIRECT THE SECRETARY OF THE
INTERIOR TO CONDUCT A STUDY OF WATER RESOURCES IN THE RIALTO-COLTON
BASIN IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. ``INLAND
EMPIRE PERCHLORATE GROUND WATER PLUME ASSESSMENT ACT OF 2011''; AND
H.R. 2842, TO AUTHORIZE ALL BUREAU OF RECLAMATION CONDUIT FACILITIES
FOR HYDROPOWER DEVELOPMENT UNDER FEDERAL RECLAMATION LAW, AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES. ``BUREAU OF RECLAMATION SMALL CONDUIT HYDROPOWER DEVELOPMENT
AND RURAL JOBS ACT OF 2011.''
----------
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Water and Power
Committee on Natural Resources
Washington, D.C.
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:01 p.m. in
Room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Tom McClintock
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives McClintock, Tipton, Gosar,
Labrador, Napolitano, and Garamendi.
Also Present: Representative Baca.
Mr. McClintock. The Subcommittee on Water and Power will
come to order. The House has scheduled a vote sometime in the
next 15 or 20 minutes. So we are going to try to plow through
opening statements.
We will have to break. I am told it is a single vote that
will be taken, and then we will come back to hear from
witnesses. We meet today to hear testimony on H.R. 2842 by Mr.
Tipton, and H.R. 200 by Mr. Baca.
Without objection, Mr. Baca will sit on the Committee
today, and is on his way. We will begin with five minute
opening statements, and I would like to welcome you all today.
STATEMENT OF HON. TOM McCLINTOCK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. McClintock. As I said, the principal focus of today's
hearing is to examine obstacles that the Federal Government has
placed in the way of developing clean, cheap, abundant, and
reliable hydropower through small generators on existing canals
and pipelines.
Earlier this year, this Subcommittee heard dramatic
testimony that we could add the equivalent of one large
hydropower dam in a single State simply by placing small
generators into existing Federal conduits.
But we learned the reason this isn't happening is solely
because Federal regulations have made it economically
infeasible to do so. We heard that endless regulatory delays
and exorbitant permitting fees literally double the cost of
these projects, making them cost prohibitive.
I want to commend our Subcommittee Members, Scott Tipton
and Paul Gosar, who are spearheading the effort to clear away
these bureaucratic obstacles that stand between this Nation,
and literally thousands, if not tens of thousands, of megawatts
of clean, cheap, abundant, and reliable hydroelectricity, and
all of the jobs and prosperity they could produce.
It is truly mystifying that a nation suffering a prolonged
recession, and plagued with increasingly scarce and expensive
electricity, would adopt a willful and deliberate policy of
obstructing construction of these inexpensive and innocuous
generators in existing facilities.
I mean, think about the implications to farming is just one
example. Some irrigation districts are forced to use diesel
generators to pump water to the fields. Put these hydroelectric
generators in existing canals and pipes, and they become
virtually self-sustaining, while reducing air emissions.
In addition, sales of canal based electricity could
generate local revenue for irrigators, which would help upgrade
aging infrastructure, and create jobs, while relieving
exhausted Federal taxpayers of these costs.
And yet we have received volumes of testimony telling of
how the government smothers applications with endless delays to
study the environmental impact of adding generators to existing
facilities where there are no fish, fowl, or flora of any kind.
This simple and commonsense solution means vast quantities
of hydroelectricity, without a single new dam, and at a cost to
the government of precisely nothing. That means more jobs,
cheaper and cleaner electricity, reduced reliance on fossil
fuels, and less reliance on foreign sources of energy.
That is what this Administration is currently blocking,
while all assuring us that they are really very sympathetic of
this cause. All they have to do is get out of the way, and that
is the one thing they won't do.
There is no environmental protection added by subjecting
these simple installations to a costly and comprehensive NEPA
review process. The canals and water delivery pipes are already
off-river. They are utterly devoid of any species, endangered
or otherwise.
Even FERC, a bastion of regulatory excess, agrees that
these studies are necessary on similar non-Federal facilities.
Our Nation desperately needs affordable electricity, and it
desperately needs permanent jobs.
But to get them, it most of all desperately needs
commonsense restored to its government. Congressman Tipton's
bill does so by providing a comprehensive authorization for the
placement of these small hydroelectric generators in existing
Bureau of Reclamation conduits.
It invites existing operators and users to invest in these
generators at no public cost. It provides a streamlined, one-
stop, permitting office within the Bureau of Reclamation to
expedite these projects, and it exempts the installation of
generators from the costly, time consuming, and pointless NEPA
process where there is no conceivable environmental impact
involved.
Let there be no mistake about the significance of this
measure. At zero public expense, it has the potential to add
the equivalent electricity of dozens of major hydroelectric
dams all around the country.
Our second bill by Congressman Joe Baca has been heard and
approved by this Subcommittee on a bipartisan vote in the One
Hundred and Eleventh Congress. It is a well-intentioned effort
to pressure the Administration to produce a long overdue
perchlorate study in the Inland Empire of California arising
from the manufacturing activities of Federal contractors.
A week ago, the President spoke about the need for more
jobs. But yet somehow it does not appear that memo was received
by the Interior Department that is still intent on producing
full employment for bureaucrats at the expense of our Nation's
prosperity and energy independence.
The public has had a bellyful of this nonsense, and it is
now time for us to act, and with that, I will yield five
minutes to the Gentlelady from California, the Ranking Member
of the Subcommittee on Water and Power.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McClintock follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Tom McClintock, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Water and Power, on H.R. 200 and H.R. 2842
The principal focus of today's hearing is to examine obstacles that
the federal government has placed in the way of developing clean,
cheap, abundant and reliable hydropower through small generators on
existing canals and pipelines.
Earlier this year, this subcommittee heard dramatic testimony that
in one western state alone, we could add the equivalent of one large
hydropower dam simply by placing small generators into existing federal
conduits. But, we learned, the reason this isn't happening is solely
because federal regulations have made it economically infeasible to do
so. We heard that endless regulatory delays and exorbitant permitting
fees literally double the cost of these projects, making them cost-
prohibitive.
I want to commend our sub-committee members Scott Tipton and Paul
Gosar who are spearheading the effort to clear away these bureaucratic
obstacles that stand between this nation and literally thousands--if
not tens of thousands--of megawatts of clean, cheap, abundant and
reliable hydroelectricity--and all the jobs and prosperity they could
produce.
It is truly mystifying that a nation suffering a prolonged
recession and plagued with increasingly scarce and expensive
electricity would adopt a willful and deliberate policy of obstructing
construction of these inexpensive and innocuous generators in existing
facilities.
Think about the implications to farming, as just one example. Some
irrigation districts are forced to use diesel generators to pump water
to the fields. Put hydroelectric generators in existing canals and
pipes and they become virtually self-sustaining while reducing air
emissions. In addition, sales of canal-based electricity could generate
local revenue for irrigators, which would help upgrade aging
infrastructure and create jobs while relieving exhausted federal
taxpayers of those costs.
And yet we have received volumes of testimony telling of how the
government smothers applications with endless delays to study the
environmental impact of adding generators to existing facilities where
there are no fish, foul, or flora of any kind.
This simple and commonsense solution means vast quantities of
hydroelectricity--without a single new dam and at a cost to the
government of precisely nothing. That means more jobs, cheaper and
cleaner electricity, reduced reliance on fossil fuels and less reliance
on foreign sources of energy--that's what this administration is
currently blocking. All they have to do is get out of the way. But they
won't.
There's no environmental protection added by subjecting these
simple installations to a costly and comprehensive NEPA review process.
The canals and water delivery pipes are already off-river. They are
utterly devoid of any species--endangered or otherwise. Even FERC, a
bastion of regulatory excess, agrees that these studies are unnecessary
on similar non-federal facilities.
Our nation desperately needs affordable electricity, it desperately
needs permanent jobs but to get them, it most of all desperately needs
commonsense restored to its government.
Mr. Tipton's bill does so by providing a comprehensive
authorization for the placement of these small hydro-electric
generators in existing Bureau of Reclamation conduits, it invites
existing operators and users to invest in these generators at no public
cost and it exempts the installation of generators from the costly,
time-consuming and pointless NEPA process when there is no conceivable
environmental impact involved.
Let there be no mistake about the significance of this measure: at
zero public expense, it has the potential to add the equivalent
electricity of dozens of Glen Canyon-sized dams around the country.
Our second bill by Congressman Joe Baca, has been heard and
approved by this sub-committee on a bipartisan vote in the 111th
Congress. It is a well-intentioned effort to pressure the
Administration to produce a long-overdue perchlorate study in the
Inland Empire of California arising from the manufacturing activities
of federal contractors.
A week ago, the President spoke about the need for more jobs, yet
somehow that memo wasn't read by an Interior Department still intent on
providing full employment for bureaucrats at the expense our nation's
prosperity and energy independence.
The public has had a belly full of this nonsense and it is time for
us to act.
______
STATEMENT OF HON. GRACE NAPOLITANO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Both pieces of
legislation can focus on the need to maximize our water and
power resources. H.R. 200 authorizes the study of contaminated
and impaired ground water in the Rialto-Colton Basin, and I am
going to say that we have many impaired water basins in our
area in Southern California. This is just another one that has
been more to the forefront and identified.
H.R. 2842 allows for the development of hydropower at
existing canal facilities, something that we have been pushing
for now for a number of years. Water is an important factor in
our economy, and in the Inland Empire water constitutes about
79 percent of the drinking water supply.
H.R. 200 seeks to understand the extent of the perchlorate
contamination of the basin, and help isolate the problem, and
prevent this problem from spreading to other areas. Water
contamination knows no boundaries. It does not know any
political parties, and we must prevent the migration of
contamination to other ground water resources.
H.R. 2842 looks to increase hydropower, the development of
conduit in canal hydropower. There is lots of new technology
that has evolved, and we think that we need to be able to
ensure that we continue to look for ways to use to not only
save funding money that could be otherwise used in other areas
in developing the electricity.
We do support H.R. 2842 and its general intent of
increasing generation of existing facilities, but we also
believe that this can be done without disregarding
environmental protections. There has got to be a win-win for
both.
Proponents for this national environment policy, that is,
NEPA, the waiver, we will argue that this is regulatory red
tape that is preventing the development of more hydropower.
The stopgap for development is not NEPA. There must be a
clear process in place for the development of hydropower at
Reclamation facilities. Developers are looking for clarity and
certainty that the project can be de developed.
Waiving NEPA will not provide clarity and certainty,
especially the protection for those folks that live nearby, or
that are affected by those processes. A clear Lease of Power
Privilege process will.
Deputy Commissioner Murillo, Reclamation must develop a
clear, safe, and fast process for development of hydropower at
Reclamation facilities. Thank you, witnesses, for traveling
here, and for your testimony, and we look forward to working
with all of you in the future on these great issues that affect
our Western area. Thank you.
Mr. McClintock. It is customary for the Subcommittee to
recognize opening statements by those Members that wish to make
them, and the Chair now recognizes Mr. Tipton for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF HON. SCOTT TIPTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO
Mr. Tipton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for convening today's
hearing, and I would like to thank all of our witnesses for
being here today, and particularly Chris Treese from Glenwood
Springs, Colorado, for coming here to share his expertise.
At a time when our country needs to focus on domestic
energy production and job creation, hydropower can play a
critical role in providing clean renewable energy, while
expanding job opportunities in America.
Hydropower is the cheapest and cleanest source of
electricity available through modern technology. It is the
highest source of noncarbon emitting energy in the world, and
accounts for approximately 75 percent of the United States'
total renewable electricity generation, making it the leading
renewable energy source of power.
Canal-based hydropower can produce up to 1400 megawatts of
power in Colorado alone. This is the equivalent of the power
produced by the Glen Canyon Dam. Many rural water and
irrigation districts, and electrical utilities in Colorado and
other Western States, seek to develop hydropower on Bureau of
Reclamation water canals and pipelines.
But overburdensome and unnecessary regulations stand in the
way. Increased conduit hydropower serves a number of purposes.
It produces renewable and emissions free energy that can be
used to pump water or to sell electricity to the grid.
It can generate revenue for the hydropower developer to
help pay for the aging infrastructure costs, and water power
facility modernization, and it can create local jobs and
generate revenue to the Federal Government.
One thing stands in the way of such commonsense
development, outdated and unnecessary Federal regulations. H.R.
795, introduced in the House by Congressman Adrian Smith and
Jim Costa, provides regulatory reform for non-Federal conduit
hydropower generation.
And I believe that it is time to begin to reform hydropower
development on the Federal conduits as well. As it stands,
Federal regulations hinder this development on Federal projects
and subject job creators to unnecessary requirements, which
render all small hydropower projects virtually unfeasible.
For this reason, I recently introduced H.R. 2842, the
Bureau of Reclamation's Small Conduit Hydropower Development
and Rural Jobs Act of 2011. This legislation authorizes power
development at the Agency's conduits to clear up multi-agency
infusion, and duplicative processes, and reduces the regulatory
costs associated with hydropower development.
This legislation seeks to remove one major economic
handcuff, unnecessary environmental analysis. Even though
Reclamation conduit hydropower units already would be on
disturbed ground within existing facilities that have already
gone through Federal environmental review, another National
Environmental Policy Act analysis must still be done in this
case under existing regulations.
This is done despite the fact that the Interior
Department's current Reclamation manual allows for NEPA
categorical exclusions for minor construction activities
associated with authorized projects, which merely augment, or
supplement, or are enclosed within existing facilities.
The legislation also substantially reduces administrative
costs so that the projects are no longer cost prohibitive.
Instead of the current process where Reclamation must
painstakingly analyze each and every proposal for development,
the bill gives the first development right to the entity or
entities operating and maintaining a Federal conduit.
Most Reclamation irrigation and water supply projects have
an arrangement whereby operation of maintenance activities are
transferred to the local beneficiary as a way to be able to
reduce paperwork and other costs.
The rationale for the legislation's first right of refusal
provision is that the non-Federal operator knows the details of
the facility, and is locally invested in the project. This
provision would significantly decrease conduit hydropower
planning costs.
The hydropower development encouraged by this legislation
will not harm the environment since the generation units would
be placed on already disturbed ground within existing
facilities that have already gone through Federal environmental
review.
The bill also protects water users by specifically
reaffirming hydropower development as a secondary to water
supply and delivery purposes, and ensuring that there will be
no financial or operational impacts to existing water and power
users.
Furthermore, the bill protects agreements that water users
have on existing conduit generation projects, and provides
additional safeguards to ensure that such projects do not
undermine water deliveries.
I am proud to have the support of the Family Farm Alliance,
and National Water Resources Association, and the American
Public Power Association, among others. If enacted, this
legislation will streamline the regulatory process, and reduced
administrative costs for small hydropower development for
Reclamation facilities, while supporting the creation of badly
needed rural jobs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Tipton follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Scott R. Tipton, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Colorado, on H.R. 2842
Thank you Mr. Chairman for convening today's hearing on my bill,
H.R. 2842. I also want to thank out witnesses for being here today, and
I particularly want to welcome Chris Treese from Glenwood Springs,
Colorado for sharing his expertise in this area
At a time when our country needs to focus on domestic energy
production and job creation, hydropower can play a critical role in
providing clean renewable energy while expanding job opportunities in
rural America.
Hydropower is the cheapest and cleanest source of electricity
available through modern technology. It's the highest source of non-
carbon emitting energy in the world and accounts for approximately 75%
of the United States' total renewable electricity generation, making it
the leading renewable energy source of power. Canal based hydropower
can produce up to 1400mw of power in Colorado alone. This is the
equivalent of the power produced by the Glen Canyon Dam.
Many rural water and irrigation districts and electric utilities in
Colorado and other western states seek to develop hydropower on Bureau
of Reclamation water canals and pipelines, but over-burdensome and
unnecessary regulations stand in the way. Increased conduit hydropower
serves a number of purposes: it produces renewable and emissions-free
energy that can be used to pump water or sell electricity to the grid;
it can generate revenue for the hydropower developer to help pay for
aging infrastructure costs and water/power facility modernization; and
it can create local jobs and generate revenue to the federal
government.
One thing stands in the way of such common-sense development:
outdated and unnecessary federal regulations. H.R. 795, introduced in
the House of Representatives by Congressman Adrian Smith and Jim Costa,
provides regulatory reform for non-federal conduit hydropower
generation, and I believe it's time to begin reform for hydropower
development on federal conduits as well.
As it stands, federal regulations hinder this development on
federal projects and subject job creators to unnecessary requirements
which render small hydropower projects economically unfeasible. For
this reason, I recently introduced H.R. 2842, The Bureau of Reclamation
Small Conduit Hydropower Development and Rural Jobs Act of 2011. This
legislation authorizes power development at the agency's conduits to
clear up multi-agency confusion and duplicative processes and reduces
the regulatory costs associated with hydropower development.
This legislation seeks to remove one major economic handcuff:
unnecessary environmental analysis. Even though Reclamation conduit
hydropower units would already be on disturbed ground within existing
facilities that have already gone through federal environmental review,
another National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis must still be
done in this case under existing regulations. This is done despite the
fact that the Interior Department's current Reclamation Manual allows
for NEPA categorical exclusions for ``Minor construction activities
associated with authorized projects. . .which merely augment or
supplement, or are enclosed within existing facilities.''
The legislation also substantially reduces administrative costs so
that the projects are no longer cost prohibitive. Instead of the
current process where Reclamation must painstakingly analyze each and
every proposal for development, the bill gives the first development
right to the entity/entities operating and maintaining the federal
conduit. Most Reclamation irrigation and water supply projects have an
arrangement where operation and maintenance activities are transferred
to the local beneficiary as a way to reduce paperwork and other costs.
The rationale for the legislation's first right of refusal provision is
that the non-federal operator knows the details of the facility and is
locally invested into the project. This provision would significantly
decrease conduit hydropower planning costs.
The hydropower development encouraged by this legislation will not
harm the environment since the generation units would be placed on
already disturbed ground within existing facilities that have already
gone through federal environmental review. The bill also protects water
users by specifically re-affirming hydropower development as secondary
to water supply and delivery purposes and ensuring that there will be
no financial and operational impacts to existing water and power users.
Furthermore, the bill protects agreements that the water users have on
existing conduit generation projects and provides additional safeguards
to ensure such projects do not undermine water deliveries.
I'm proud to have the support of the Family Farm Alliance, the
National Water Resources Association, and the American Public Power
Association, among others. If enacted, this legislation will streamline
the regulatory process and reduce administrative costs for small
hydropower development at Reclamation's facilities while supporting the
creation of badly needed rural jobs.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
______
Mr. McClintock. Thank you, Mr. Tipton. The Chair now
recognizes Mr. Gosar for an opening statement for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF HON. PAUL GOSAR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
THE STATE OF ARIZONA
Dr. Gosar. Thank you, Chairman. First, I would like to
acknowledge Mr. Lynch and Mr. Ward, some of the true workhorses
in water policies out of Arizona for coming up, and thank you,
Chairman McClintock, for holding this legislative hearing on
the Bureau of Reclamation's Small Conduit Hydropower
Development and Rural Jobs Act of 2011.
H.R. 2842 is important legislation that will restore
commonsense to Federal regulations, and ultimately lead to the
expansion of clean hydropower production at the Bureau of
Reclamation facilities in Arizona and across the country.
My district, Arizona's Congressional First District, is
home to some of the country's most important large scale
multipurpose hydroelectric power generation infrastructure,
such as the Glen Canyon Dam.
The Committee has spent a significant portion of its time
examining excessive and burdensome Federal policies and
regulations that are handicapping this infrastructure, and in
some cases even threatening its livelihood.
These types of nonsensical regulations create man-made
shortages, which in turn lead to higher unemployment, and
increased water, energy, and food prices, and unnecessary
taxpayer spending.
Unfortunately, it is not just our existing hydroelectric
infrastructure that is hamstrung by excessive regulation. Our
country is failing to fully tap its hydroelectric power
generation potential.
However, this failure is not due to the desire to develop
these resources. This Committee is going to hear from two
Arizonans today that will say that the potential and the
willingness in my State is there.
It is simply the failure of the Federal policies to
facilitate an environment that is conducive to this type of
development. Instead of working with communities of interest,
the Federal Government is dictating to them, which has proven
to be counterproductive.
Chairman McClintock should be commended for his commitment
to bringing legislation before this Committee to address this
failure of Federal policy. A couple of months ago the House
Natural Resources Committee unanimously passed H.R. 795, the
Small Scale Hydropower Enhancement Act of 2011, legislation
that I co-sponsored, that restores commonsense and rationality
to Federal policy related to small scale hydroelectric power
generation by removing bureaucratic paperwork that are making
it too costly to install small facilities and water systems
across rural Arizona.
Today we are examining equally important legislation,
legislation aimed at increasing clean hydropower generation,
further diversifying the country's renewable energy portfolio,
and creating jobs via the expansion of production at the Bureau
of Reclamation facilities.
The Bureau of Reclamation's Small Conduit Hydropower
Development Rural Jobs Act of 2011, the H.R. 2842 legislation
of Representative Tipton, is another step restoring sanity to
our Federal policies.
In light of how important this is in my district and my
State, I was proud to join Mr. Tipton on this bill. This bill
authorizes more hydropower development in Federal canals and
pipelines, and eliminates unnecessary paperwork associated with
the National Environmental Policy Act, while allowing for
environmental protection, and empowers the hardworking
irrigators to develop conduit hydropower generation on the
facilities that they already operate and maintain on behalf of
the Federal Government.
Once again, I appreciate Chairman McClintock's commitment
to examining and ultimately pushing an aggressive legislative
agenda in this Subcommittee that will halt the endless
litigation and regulation that inflates the price of water in
my State, and across the West.
I am committed as a Representative of a rural district that
struggles in-part because of the potential for these types of
projects is stifled by unnecessary regulatory requirements and
burdensome administrative costs.
I would hope that this commonsense legislation aimed at
eliminating bureaucratic red tape would garner strong
bipartisan support, much like did H.R. 795. Hydropower is a
low-cost, clean, renewable, emissions free source of energy
that provides low-cost electricity, and helps reduce carbon
emissions.
It is an integral component of a long term energy plan for
my State and the Nation. We must protect our existing
hydropower infrastructure and find ways like the legislation
before us to expand smaller scale hydroelectric power
generation.
I look forward to continuing to work with Congressman
Tipton to ensure H.R. 2842's passage in the House of
Representatives. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my
time.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Gosar follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Paul A. Gosar, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Arizona, on H.R. 2842
First, thank you to Chairman McClintock for holding this
legislative hearing on the Bureau of Reclamation Small Conduit
Hydropower Development and Rural Jobs Act of 2011. H.R. 2842 is
important legislation that will restore common-sense to federal
regulations and ultimately lead to the expansion of clean, hydropower
production at Bureau of Reclamation facilities in Arizona and across
the country.
My district, Arizona's First Congressional District, is home to
some of the country's most important large-scale multipurpose
hydroelectric power generation infrastructure, such as the Glen Canyon
Dam. The committee has spent a significant portion of its time
examining excessive and burdensome federal policies and regulations
that are handicapping this infrastructure, and in some cases, even
threatening its livelihood. These types of nonsensical regulations
create man-made shortages, which in turn lead to high unemployment and
increased water, energy, and food prices and unnecessary taxpayer
spending.
Unfortunately, it is not just our existing hydroelectric
infrastructure that is hamstrung by excessive regulation. Our country
is failing to fully tap its hydroelectric power generation potential.
However, this failure is not due to the desire to develop these
resources; this committee is going to hear from two Arizonans today
that will say the potential and willingness in my state is there. It is
simply the failure of federal policies to facilitate an environment
that is conducive to this type of development. Instead of working with
communities of interest, the federal government is dictating to them,
which has proven to be counterproductive.
Chairman McClintock should be commended for his commitment to
bringing legislation before this committee to address this failure of
federal policy. A couple months ago, the House Natural Resources
Committee unanimously passed H.R. 795 the Small-Scale Hydropower
Enhancement Act of 2011, legislation I cosponsored that restoring
common-sense and rationality to federal policy related to small-scale
hydroelectric power generation, by removing bureaucratic-paperwork that
are making it too costly to install small facilities in water systems
across rural Arizona.
Today, we are examining equally important legislation; legislation
aimed at increasing clean hydropower generation, further diversifying
the country's renewable energy portfolio, and creating local jobs via
the expansion of production at Bureau of Reclamation facilities.
The Bureau of Reclamation Small Conduit Hydropower Development and
Rural Jobs Act of 2011, H.R. 2842, legislation Representative Tipton
introduced, is another step restoring sanity to our federal policies.
In light of how important this is to my district and my state, I was
proud to join Mr. Tipton on this bill.
This bill authorizes more hydropower development at federal canals
and pipelines, eliminates unnecessary paperwork associated with the
National Environmental Policy Act while allowing for environmental
protection and empowers the hard-working irrigators to develop conduit
hydropower generation on facilities they already operate and maintain
on behalf of the federal government.
Again I appreciate Chairman McClintock's commitment to examining
and ultimately pushing an aggressive legislative agenda in this
subcommittee that will halt the endless litigation and regulation that
inflates the price of water and power in my state and across the West.
I am committed, as a representative of a rural district that struggles,
in part because the potential for these types of projects is stifled by
unnecessary regulatory requirements and burdensome administrative
costs. I would hope this common-sense legislation aimed at eliminating
bureaucratic red tape would garner strong bipartisan support, much like
H.R. 795.
Hydropower is a low cost, renewable, and emissions-free source of
energy that provides low-cost electricity. It is an integral component
of the long-term energy plan for my state and the nation. We must
protect our existing hydropower infrastructure and find ways, like the
legislation before us to expand smaller scale hydroelectric power
generation. I look forward to continuing to work with Congressman
Tipton to ensure the passage of H.R. 2842 in the U.S. House of
Representatives.
______
Mr. McClintock. Thank you. The Chair recognizes Mr. Baca
for an opening statement for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH N. BACA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Baca. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Tom
McClintock, and Ranking Member Grace Napolitano, and thank you
for allowing me to speak, even though my panel will be the next
one up.
I also want to thank our witnesses and give a special
thanks to our City Council Member and Mayor Pro Tem, Ed Scott,
for being here today. He has worked hard on this issue, and is
a member of the Perchlorate Task Force in the City of Rialto.
H.R. 200 directs the United States Geological Survey, USGS,
to conduct a study, and I state to conduct a study, of water
resources in the Rialto-Colton Basin in California. Not only is
that study there, but it will also impact others throughout the
United States, too, as well.
Last year, Congress had introduced this legislation, which
was H.R. 4252, and this bill passed out of the Natural
Resources Committee, and was unanimously approved by the House
in March of 2010. That means that it received bipartisan
support, not only out of this Committee, but also the House as
a whole.
H.R. 4252 was approved by the Senate Committee as well on
Energy and Natural Resources on a bipartisan fashion as well in
July of 2010. Unfortunately, the bill did not come to the Floor
of the Senate before the One-Hundred-and-Eleventh Congress came
to an end.
So I hope this year that we will be able to have bipartisan
support, get it out of here, and get it into the Senate, and
hopefully get it on to the Floor, because it is important for
all of us that we work jointly together on something that is
going to impact a lot of us.
That is why I have reintroduced this legislation because I
am deeply concerned about the well-being of families, not only
in the Inland Empire, but throughout the State of California,
and other portions of the State.
And having lived in Rialto for a decade, I am aware of the
perchlorate contamination problem we have in our drinking
water. That is why I have the blue here when I have clear
water. You know that? This little pina here. I wanted it to be
clean and good, because perchlorate is like a rocket additive.
It is an unstable organic compound that is found to be
harmful for humans, and I state for humans, because it
interferes with the thyroid functions, and many individuals in
the City of Rialto, and Fontana, or surrounding areas, are even
afraid to drink that water, and don't drink that water, and end
up having to purchase water because they are also concerned
with the effects it has--and especially on pregnant women and
infants--in the area.
The EPA plans to use $18 million for a treatment system to
clean the water in the Rialto-Colton Basin. This basin is the
primary source of perchlorate contamination in the area.
I applaud the EPA for this effort, but I have concerns that
the USGS has not conducted--and I state has not conducted--an
in-depth analysis of the perchlorate plume in this basin,
because when we allow it to flow from not only the Inland
Empire, it goes through the Santa Ana River, and into Orange
County, affecting that area as well.
For the efforts of the EPA and other agencies to be
ultimately successful, we must know the full scope of the
problem. The people in my district are hurting. The Inland
Empire ranks fifth nationally in the rate of home foreclosure.
Unemployment in San Bernardino County is about 14.7
percent, and 24 percent of children in the county live in
households that are below the Federal poverty level that can't
do anything, that can't buy water, and yet rely on the water in
that area.
Now, according to the EPA, the contamination at the Rialto
site is measured at more than 1,000 times the drinking water
standard. My constituents deserve to have clean water, and I
say clean water for themselves, their families, and future
generations, along with others that would be impacted.
They have already shouldered too much of the costs to fix
this problem. They need help. Since 2001, families in Rialto
have paid a $12 monthly surcharge, and that is an awful lot to
even pay, a $12 surcharge, on water bills to cover the costs of
the exchange for treatment process.
According to the USGS ground water makes up about 79
percent of the available drinking water supply in the Inland
Empire, and in the Inland Empire, I am sorry to say, are all
working jointly together, because I am the only Democrat,
surrounded by seven Republicans, and they all support this as
well, which is nice, you know.
The contamination is spreading all over to other areas that
may suffer. The USGS study would benefit all areas struggling
with unsafe drinking water. It would help better understand the
nature of perchlorate contamination.
The City of Rialto has done what it can to protect those
who are most vulnerable to perchlorate contamination. I want to
commend the Rialto Perchlorate Task Force, led by Council
Member Ed Scott and Joe Baca, Junior, for their efforts on the
perchlorate.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to bipartisan
support in doing what we did last year in getting it out of
this House, and getting it into the Senate, and ultimately
getting it to the Floor on the Senate side. Thank you very much
for allowing me to say a few words. I yield back whatever time
I didn't have.
Mr. McClintock. We will dock you 39 seconds on the next
round. Mr. Garamendi, do you wish to make an opening statement?
Mr. Garamendi. No, thank you.
Mr. McClintock. Then we will plow right ahead with our
first panel, who is here to provide testimony on H.R. 2842 by
Congressman Tipton. The Committee is pleased to welcome first
Mr. David Murillo, Deputy Commissioner and Director of
Operations for the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, for five
minutes.
STATEMENT OF DAVID MURILLO, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND DIRECTOR OF
OPERATIONS, UNITED STATES BUREAU OF RECLAMATION, WASHINGTON,
D.C.
Mr. Murillo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman McClintock,
and Members of the Subcommittee, I am David Murillo, Deputy
Commissioner of Operations at the Bureau of Reclamation. I am
pleased to provide the Department of the Interior's views on
H.R. 2842, the Bureau of Reclamation's Small Conduit Hydropower
Development and Rural Jobs Act of 2011.
I am happy to introduce Bill Werkheiser, USGS Associate
Director for Water, who is prepared to respond to any technical
questions on H.R. 200, the Inland Empire Perchlorate Ground
Water Plume Assessment Act of 2011.
The USGS has the capability to complete a two year study to
address the issues of concern presented in H.R. 200 for the
Rialto-Colton Basin. The Department notes, however, that the
activities called for in H.R. 200 are already authorized by
existing authorities.
Any study conducted to fulfill the objectives of the bill,
are like the objectives that would be needed to compete for
funding with other administrative priorities. My written
statement has been submitted for the record, and I will
summarize it here.
The Department supports the goals of H.R. 2842, which aims
to increase the generation of hydropower in existing canals and
conduits. My statement will summarize the areas where the
Administration supports the objectives of H.R. 2842, as well as
discuss where we believe improvements could be made.
H.R. 2842 would clarify that Reclamation is responsible for
authorizing conduit hydropower development and on Reclamation-
owned facilities through the Lease of Power Privilege through
LOPP contracts.
As the Subcommittee knows, hydropower units added to water
projects are either permitted by Reclamation or FERC, depending
on jurisdiction. Reclamation and FERC continue to work together
to improve the process of establishing jurisdiction, and we
understand the intent of this bill to settle that question.
Section II of H.R. 2842 would also require the Reclamation
offer preference in the award of LOPPs to irrigation districts
or water users associations, with Reclamation having an
existing contract for operations and maintenance.
Reclamation already provides preference to existing
irrigation districts and water user associations pursuant to
the Reclamation Project Act of 1939. Additionally, Section II
of H.R. 2842 would provide that NEPA shall not apply to small
conduit hydropower development, excluding siting of associated
transmission on Federal lands.
This language is in contrast to the existing provisions of
the Federal Power Act that allows FERC to approve an
application to develop hydropower within conduits located on
non-Federal lands, but only subject to certain conditions.
H.R. 2842 has no such conditions. The Department's view is
that low impact hydropower can be efficiently by using existing
environmental reviews, without unduly delaying project
development.
The Department believes that environmental protections
should continue to apply in the context of new construction
undertaken on Federal lands, and will continue to apply NEPA
through the use of categorical exclusions or environmental
assessments.
The Department understands the importance of expedient
environment review and believes that the development of
hydropower within Reclamation's existing conduits and canals
can be officially analyzed utilizing these existing review
processes.
I would also like to address concerns raised by language in
Section II specifying that the Power Resources Office of the
Bureau of Reclamation shall be the lead office of small conduit
hydropower activities conducted under this subsection.
Project specific expertise recites first at the field
level, where ownership responsibilities for the specific
infrastructure resides. It is preferable for developers to
approach the appropriate Reclamation regional area office with
proposals to develop conduit hydropower, and contact the power
resources offices needed.
Finally, H.R. 2842 would amend 9[c] of the Reclamation
Project Act of 1939, which in addition to providing LOPP
authority, authorizes the Secretary to enter into contracts for
municipal water supply and miscellaneous purposes.
Several of the definitions in H.R. 2842 as drafted would
affect the other authorities in the 1939 Act, and we recommend
improvements which are detailed in my written testimony.
Reclamation will continue to review and assess potential
new hydropower projects that provide a high economic return for
the Nation, are energy efficient, and can be accomplished in
accordance with protections of fish and wildlife, the
environment, or recreation.
This concludes my statement. I am glad to answer questions
at the appropriate time. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Murillo follows:]
Statement of David Murillo, Deputy Commissioner of Operations,
Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Department of the Interior, on H.R. 2842
Chairman McClintock, members of the Subcommittee, I am David
Murillo, Deputy Commissioner of Operations at the Bureau of Reclamation
(Reclamation). I am pleased to provide the views of the Department of
the Interior (Department) on H.R. 2842, the Bureau of Reclamation Small
Conduit Hydropower Development and Rural Jobs Act of 2011. The
Department supports the goals of H.R. 2842, which aims to increase the
generation of clean, renewable hydroelectric power in existing canals
and conduits. As noted in previous hearings, the Department has an
aggressive sustainable hydropower agenda, which we continue to
implement under existing authorities. My testimony today will summarize
the areas where the Administration supports the objectives of H.R.
2842, as well as detail the areas in the bill where we believe
improvements could be made.
Before I share the Department's views on H.R. 2842, I want to
highlight some of the activities underway at the Department to develop
additional renewable hydropower capacity. Last week, Secretary Salazar
and the U.S. Department of Energy Secretary Steven Chu announced nearly
$17 million in funding over the next three years for research and
development projects to advance hydropower technology. The funding
included ten projects that will receive a total of $7.3 million to
research, develop, and test low-head, small hydropower technologies
that can be deployed at existing non-powered dams or constructed
waterways. The funding will further the Obama Administration's goal of
meeting 80 percent of our electricity needs from clean energy sources
by 2035.
In March, the Department released the results of an internal study,
the Hydropower Resource Assessment at Existing Reclamation Facilities,
that estimated the Department could generate up to one million megawatt
hours of electricity annually and create jobs by addressing hydropower
capacity at 70 of its existing facilities. In addition, Reclamation
will complete the second phase of its investigation of hydropower
development, as referenced in the 2010 Hydropower Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU)\1\ between the Department of the Interior, the
Department of Energy, and the Army Corps of Engineers. While the first
phase, completed in 2011, focused primarily on Reclamation dams, the
second phase will focus on constructed Reclamation waterways such as
canals and conduits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ http://www.usbr.gov/power/SignedHydropowerMOU.pdf, 2010
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In summary, H.R. 2842 would do four things: 1) provide a blanket
authorization for the installation of small hydropower units on all
Reclamation-owned canals and conduits; 2) require that Reclamation
offer preference to water user organizations for the development of
canal/conduit hydropower under a Lease of Power Privilege (LOPP); 3)
exempt small canal/conduit hydropower projects below 1.5 MW from the
requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and; 4)
designate Reclamation's Power Resources Office as the lead point of
contact for requests to develop canal/conduit hydropower under an LOPP.
Section 2 of H.R. 2842 would clarify that Reclamation is
responsible for authorizing conduit hydropower development on
Reclamation-owned facilities through LOPP contracts. As background,
Reclamation is authorized by existing law to issue LOPP contracts that
utilize Reclamation-owned facilities for private hydropower development
under Section 5 of the Townsites and Power Development Act of 1906, 43
U.S.C. Sec. 522, and Section 9(c) of the Reclamation Project Act of
1939, 43 U.S.C. Sec. 485h(c). Statutes that are specific to individual
Reclamation projects may also apply. Similar to the LOPP process, the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) may also issue licenses for
hydropower development under the authority of the Federal Power Act, 16
U.S.C. Sec. 791 et seq. To resolve potential confusion over whether a
Reclamation LOPP contract or a FERC license should govern hydropower
development at Reclamation facilities, Reclamation and FERC entered
into agreements in 1981, 1992, and 2010 to address hydropower
development. In particular, a 1992 memorandum of understanding between
Reclamation and FERC (1992 MOU)\2\ established a process to resolve
questions of jurisdiction over hydropower development at Reclamation
facilities. Reclamation and FERC continue to work together to improve
that process and make the process more efficient.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The 1992 MOU is available in the Federal Register at: 58 Fed.
Reg. 3269 (Jan. 8, 1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 2 of H.R. 2842 would specifically authorize Reclamation to
develop or enter into LOPP contracts for the development of new
hydropower on conduits or canals on Reclamation-owned projects. This
language would streamline the issuance of LOPP contracts by simplifying
the Reclamation-FERC jurisdictional consultation that was established
in the 1992 MOU. This language also could provide Reclamation with an
opportunity to discuss programmatically resolving jurisdiction over
hydropower development on Reclamation conduits with FERC, thus creating
the potential to eliminate case-by-case jurisdictional consultations
for development on Reclamation conduits.
Section 2 of H.R. 2842 would also require that Reclamation offer
preference in the award of LOPPs to ``irrigation districts or water
users associations'' with which Reclamation has an existing contract
for operations and maintenance of that project or project feature.
Reclamation already provides preference to existing irrigation
districts and water user associations pursuant to Section 9(c) of the
Reclamation Projects Act of 1939. Reclamation would be happy to work
with the sponsor of the bill and the Committee to resolve any concerns
regarding preference.
Section 2 of H.R. 2842 would provide that NEPA ``shall not apply to
small conduit hydropower development, excluding siting of associated
transmission on Federal lands[.]'' The Department opposes a waiver of
NEPA. Furthermore, this language is in contrast to the existing
provision in Section 30 of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 823a) that
allows FERC to approve an application to develop hydropower within
conduits located on non-federal lands under certain conditions.
Accordingly, as provided in FERC's regulations at 18 CFR
Sec. 380.4(a)(14), FERC is not required to prepare an environmental
assessment or environmental impact statement for certain conduit
hydropower projects that meet the statutory and regulatory criteria and
do not have the potential for significant environmental impacts.
The Department understands the intent of H.R. 2842 to be that
conduits and canals are existing, man-made structures where
environmental impacts associated with construction have already
occurred and/or been mitigated. However, the Department's view is that
low-impact hydropower, particularly in conduits and canals, can be
efficiently developed by utilizing existing environmental review
provisions that will not unduly delay project development and ensure
environmental health and safety. Environmental analysis for many LOPP
contracts has, for example, been addressed through categorical
exclusions or environmental assessments rather than environmental
impact statements. The Department believes that environmental
protections should continue to apply in the context of new construction
undertaken on federal lands, and will continue to apply NEPA through
the use of categorical exclusions or environmental assessments.
Reclamation is also investigating the application of an existing
categorical exclusion under NEPA for minor construction projects and
for water service contracts that involve minor amounts of long-term
water use or temporary or interim water use where there are no
significant environmental impacts. Reclamation believes that low-impact
hydropower developed in conduits or canals may be appropriately
analyzed under those same procedures, which are documented in the
Departmental Manual at 516 DM 14.5(C)(3) and (D)(4). The Department
understands the value and importance of expedient environmental review
and believes development of hydropower within Reclamation's existing
conduits and canals can be efficiently analyzed utilizing these
existing review processes.
I would also like to address concerns raised by language in Section
2 specifying that ``the Power Resources Office (PRO) of the Bureau of
Reclamation shall be the lead office of small conduit hydropower
activities conducted under this subsection.'' The Department
understands the bill sponsor's desire to simplify points of contact for
entities seeking to develop hydropower. However, in practice, project-
specific expertise concerning Reclamation facilities resides first at
the field level where ownership responsibility for the specific
infrastructure resides. It is preferable for developers to approach the
appropriate Reclamation regional or area office with proposals to
develop conduit hydropower, and contact the PRO as needed. There is a
robust channel of communication between the PRO, other Denver Offices,
and Reclamation regional and field offices that allows for successful
implementation of a Lease of Power Privilege agreement. The Department
would be happy to work with the Committee on this language. Reclamation
organizes its workforce as appropriate to maximize the efficiency and
expertise of personnel.
Finally, H.R. 2842 would amend 9(c) of the Reclamation Project Act
of 1939, which in addition to providing LOPP authority, authorizes the
Secretary to enter into contracts for municipal water supply and
miscellaneous purposes. Several of the definitions in H.R. 2842 as
drafted would affect the other authorities in the 1939 Act. In
particular, the proposed definition of ``transferred work'' is too
narrow to refer to all works affected by subsection 9(c) of the 1939
Act, since that subsection authorizes contracts involving works other
than conduits. Either the definition would need to be broadened to
include all affected works, or the term defined narrowed from
``transferred work'' to ``transferred conduit.'' Also, the existing
1939 Act has a definitions section. Any definitions that are of general
application should be included in the existing definitions section,
rather than in subsection 9(c). Definitions that apply solely to
conduit hydropower need to do so explicitly, to avoid misapplication or
confusion. Lastly, the 1939 Act definitions section already includes a
definition of ``Secretary''. The Department would be happy to work with
the Committee on these technical changes to the language of the
proposed definitions and their placement within the existing 1939 Act.
As referenced above, Reclamation has procedures in place through
the LOPP process for the sites where Reclamation has the authority to
develop hydropower. We are currently reviewing our LOPP policies and
processes to look for ways to expedite and improve the process,
especially for conduits and canals.
In conclusion, as stated at previous hydropower hearings before
this subcommittee, Reclamation will continue to review and assess
potential new hydropower projects that provide a high economic return
for the nation, are energy efficient, and can be accomplished in
accordance with protections for fish and wildlife, the environment, or
recreation. As the nation's second largest hydropower producer,
Reclamation strongly believes in the past, present and bright future of
this important electricity resource.
Thank you for the opportunity to discuss H.R. 2842. This concludes
my written statement, and I am pleased to answer questions at the
appropriate time.
______
Mr. McClintock. Thank you very much for your testimony. The
Committee is pleased to welcome back Mr. Robert Lynch, of
Robert Lynch and Associates, Phoenix, Arizona, for five
minutes.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT LYNCH, ATTORNEY,
ROBERT S. LYNCH AND ASSOCIATES, PHOENIX, ARIZONA
Mr. Lynch. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Napolitano, and
Members of the Subcommittee, and Mr. Baca, for the record, I am
Bob Lynch, an attorney in Phoenix, Arizona. I am pleased to
have the opportunity to appear here today to support H.R. 2842.
You already have my written testimony, and so I will not
review it. Instead, I would like to briefly mention three
subjects; waste, jobs, and red tape. Concerning waste,
yesterday, in driving to the airport, I crossed two of the
larger Phoenix area canals and numerous laterals, and I saw
what wasted energy flowing in these conduits, unused, and on
its way to be dissipated upon delivery of the water to its
destinations.
This has to stop. We are wasting tens of thousands of
kilowatts of clean renewable small hydropower capacity each day
in hundreds of these existing conduits throughout the West.
The clean renewable energy each of these unused sites could
produce is admittedly small, but taken together can match any
major power plant in our area. The potential is enormous and we
need to unleash that potential.
As to jobs, most of the West canals are in rural areas
serving farms. Rural jobs of building and maintaining these
small hydropower sites are an obvious and necessary side
benefit of a vigorous Federal small hydro development program.
You need to add that vigor with H.R. 2842.
As to red tape, in this bill, Congress will confirm that
these small hydro installations and existing conduit do not
need screening through the National Environmental Policy Act.
Congress will be agreeing with the Bureau of Reclamation and
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission that these one-and-a-
half megawatt smaller turbines are categorical exclusions under
existing Federal regulations.
Indeed, both agencies provide for these in much larger
facilities to be categorically excluded from NEPA review. I
refer you to Reclamation's minor construction in existing
facilities, and FERC licensed categories, as well as FERC's 15
megawatt in conduits, and 40 megawatt in pipes exclusion under
their regulations.
Congressional concurrence in H.R. 2842 excluding just the
very smallest of these turbines from NEPA is just the red tape
cutting this program needs to jumpstart Reclamation into a
small hydro development role that it should be playing.
Thank you for the opportunity to support this important
clean energy bill. I would be happy to answer any questions
that you may have at the appropriate time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lynch follows:]
Statement of Robert S. Lynch,
Robert S. Lynch & Associates, on H.R. 2842
Chairman McClintock, Ranking Member Napolitano, Members of the
Subcommittee, I am pleased to have the opportunity to present testimony
in support of H.R. 2842, the Bureau of Reclamation Small Conduit
Hydropower Development and Rural Jobs Act of 2011. I am presenting this
testimony both on my own behalf and that of our clients and also on
behalf of the National Water Resources Association (NWRA).
Our firm, among other clients, represents a state association, the
Irrigation & Electrical Districts Association of Arizona (IEDA).
Numbered among its 25 members are most of the special districts that
manage water delivery systems in Arizona as well as several of the
municipalities that provide water service to their citizens. Each of
these water service entities as well as other municipalities and water
service entities in Arizona are potentially small hydropower
generators.
When I last appeared before the Subcommittee on June 23, 2011 to
support H.R. 795, I mentioned to the Subcommittee that, in Arizona, and
in all of the so-called Reclamation states in the West, the bulk of the
significant canal systems that move our water supplies are owned by the
federal government and under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of
Reclamation (``Reclamation''). A number of these systems are managed
and operated by non-federal entities, typically irrigation districts
and water users associations authorized to do so under Reclamation law.
For instance, the Central Arizona Project (``CAP'') is operated by the
Central Arizona Water Conservation District (``CAWCD''), a multi-county
water conservation district specifically authorized for this purpose by
Arizona law. CAP's main system, as well as associated delivery
facilities such as the Santa Rose Aqueduct, are available targets for
hydropower development. Indeed, the Santa Rosa Aqueduct, managed by the
Maricopa Stanfield Irrigation and Drainage District, is primed for that
possibility. The local District managers have identified numerous sites
on this aqueduct that are optimal locations for small hydropower
development.
For us in the West, H.R. 2842 is the flip side of H.R. 795. If we
can minimize red tape and streamline the processes of the Bureau of
Reclamation in granting leases of power privilege on facilities they
manage in the West, that streamlining will create tremendous incentives
for not only the Bureau but for the irrigation districts and water
users associations that manage many of these facilities to move forward
on small hydropower development. We are literally sitting on a
hydropower gold mine waiting for the needed clarifications and
streamlining that will cut costs and make this program more attractive.
IEDA and other NWRA members are ready and willing to get started.
Indeed, one of our members has already suffered the agonies of trying
to get an exemption from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for
one of its own canals. The difficulty that this district encountered
has caused many others to pause, waiting for Congress to complete the
streamlining embodied in H.R. 795 and this bill.
There are tremendous advantages that can spring from this
legislation. The untapped potential that lies out there waiting is
typified by the Department of Energy report that identified some 1,400
megawatts of unused capacity in canals and ditches in the State of
Colorado where small hydropower units at below 5 megawatts could be
installed. The nameplate capacity of Glen Canyon Dam on the Colorado
River is 1,400 megawatts. Thus, these small hydropower units installed
in existing ditches and canals could effectively replicate the maximum
output of Glen Canyon Dam all by themselves.
We and others in the West are ready to get started. We need
Congress to streamline the processes, both for Reclamation facilities
and for non-federal facilities. This companion enterprise will open up
the West to a whole new product line of small hydropower facilities
that can tap the energy in flowing water that is currently being
wasted. If the red tape can be cut down, the cost of installing these
units can be amortized. These are existing facilities and will have no
impact other than to provide additional clean renewable hydropower in
small quantities all over the western United States. Congress has the
opportunity not only to create, in very small increments, a
considerable new clean renewable resource but to stimulate a fledgling
industry that can bring jobs to depressed rural areas throughout the
West. The interest is there. The need is there. The missing pieces to
give this potentially significant program its push to success are
embodied in this legislation and H.R. 795. The Subcommittee has already
successfully dealt with H.R. 795. We urge you to quickly deal with H.R.
2842 and send this legislation speedily on its way so that we can get
to work.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear today and testify on this
important legislation.
______
Mr. McClintock. Thank you for your testimony. Our next
witness is Mr. Christopher Treese. He is the External Affairs
Manager for the Colorado River District, Glenwood Springs,
Colorado. Welcome to the Committee.
STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER TREESE, EXTERNAL AFFAIRS MANAGER,
COLORADO RIVER DISTRICT, GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO
Mr. Treese. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Ranking Member
Napolitano, and Members of the Subcommittee, and Mr. Baca, good
afternoon. My name is Chris Treese, and I work for the Colorado
River Water Conservation District in Western Colorado.
I thank you for this opportunity to express my support for
Mr. Tipton's H.R. 2842. I offer my testimony on behalf of my
employer, the Colorado River District, and the many members of
the District Family Farm Alliance, a grassroots organization of
family farmers, ranchers, and supporting water districts in 16
Western States.
H.R. 2842 would provide much needed clarity and certainty
to vital criteria for every water manager and every investor.
H.R. 2842 provides clarity to the Bureau of Reclamation,
Reclamation project operators, local water boards, and
potential public and private investors, clarity that project
operators have the right of first refusal for small hydropower
development on Reclamation canals and conduits, and continued
involvement to protect operations if they choose to relinquish
that first right.
Clarity that conduit hydro development and operation is a
secondary purpose incidental to Congressionally authorized
primary purposes. H.R. 2842 provides certainty by providing a
commonsense categorical exclusion for small capacity hydro that
is retrofitted into existing reclamation conduits.
This dramatically reduces costs and time uncertainties
associated with project permitting. My district's most recent
NEPA process experience is approaching two years and $1 million
for just an environmental assessment, or EA, on a project that
involves absolutely no construction.
With this added certainty, H.R. 2842 dramatically improves
the economics of hydro development, and while operating margins
for hydro development are attractive, returns on invested
capital are razor thin.
The current NEPA uncertainties are frankly chilling for
public and private investors alike. There is a tremendous
opportunity in the West for converting potential energy in our
canals and conduits into valuable, renewable, clean energy.
As Mr. Tipton mentioned, the DOE estimates that in Colorado
alone that there is a total of 1400 megawatts of hydropower
potential represented by water currently flowing in canals and
conduits.
Please unleash this potential, encourage public and private
investment in small conduit hydropower, and pass H.R. 2842. I
look forward to answering any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Treese follows:]
Statement of Chris Treese, Manager, External Affairs, Colorado River
Water Conservation District, on Behalf of The Family Farm Alliance, on
``Bureau of Reclamation Small Conduit Hydropower Development and Rural
Jobs Act of 2011''
Dear Chairman McClintock, Ranking Member Napolitano, and Members of
the Subcommittee:
Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony today.
My name is Chris Treese, and I represent the Colorado River Water
Conservation District (River District) and the Family Farm Alliance
(Alliance), of which my district is a long-time member.
I am testifying today in support of the ``Bureau of Reclamation
Small Conduit Hydropower Development and Rural Jobs Act of 2011'' (H.R.
2842). This bill seeks to streamline burdensome and unnecessary federal
regulations and rules encountered by many irrigation/water districts
and electric utilities that seek to develop hydropower on Bureau of
Reclamation (Reclamation) owned water canals and pipelines. And perhaps
more importantly, it streamlines the process for entities that have
rejected hydropower because of the time, resources, and risks
associated just with the current permitting process. Earlier this year,
the Alliance formally supported H.R. 795 (Adrian Smith/Costa), which
similarly provides regulatory reform for non-federal conduits
hydropower generation.
Organizational Background
The Colorado River District is the principal water policy and
planning agency for the 15 counties in northwest and west central
Colorado. The River District is responsible for the conservation, use,
protection, and development of Colorado's apportionment of the Colorado
River. The River District provides legal, technical, and political
representation regarding Colorado River issues for our constituents.
The River District is comprised of all or parts of 15 Western Colorado
counties--approximately 29,000 square miles--roughly 28% of the land
area of Colorado.
The Family Farm Alliance is a grassroots organization of family
farmers, ranchers, irrigation districts and allied industries in 16
Western states. The Alliance is focused on one mission: To ensure the
availability of reliable, affordable irrigation water supplies to
Western farmers and ranchers.
There is considerable potential to pursue hydropower development
within my district. There are 13 Reclamation projects within the River
District. Some already have hydropower included in their
authorizations. However, I believe, all could benefit from this
legislation. I also know of several districts that have considered
hydropower projects, but never seriously, as they are discouraged by
the regulatory uncertainty and costs currently imposed by the existing
permitting process.
Many Western water users operate existing irrigation canals and
ditch systems that may provide opportunities to develop in-canal, low-
head hydroelectric projects that have tremendous potential for
producing significant amounts of renewable energy with virtually no
negative environmental impacts. Necessary irrigation control and
delivery structures can be retained while the conduit system is updated
with modern clean-energy producing technologies. Increased revenues
from the sale of this renewable energy can result in lower water
delivery system operating, maintenance, and rehabilitation costs to
farmers. And importantly, irrigation water delivery services can
continue while utilizing flows for clean, emissions-free ``green''
energy production.
Challenges
Some Western canal systems and other water delivery facilities are
owned by Reclamation but operated and maintained by local entities like
irrigation districts and water user organizations. Unfortunately,
widespread uncertainty currently exists over canal-based hydropower at
the agency's facilities.
A few key examples demonstrate how this uncertainty is evidenced in
the world Western water managers operate in:
Some Western irrigation districts operate and
maintain Reclamation canals where the debt has been fully paid
by the operating district. Even if a local district determines
that it will pay 100% of a proposed conduit hydropower project,
it is not clear currently how revenues from these projects
would be shared between the district and Reclamation, including
the need and expense for a ``lease'' of power privilege issued
by Reclamation.
``Environmental reviews under NEPA are universally
time-consuming and expensive. Even ``just an Environmental
Assessment'' will require considerable time and expense. The
River District's current experience with an EA on a non-
construction action has taken over a year and nearly $1 million
in outside expenses (not including substantial ``unbillable''
district time and expense.)
The margins on small hydro are very small. Districts
need to be able to make timely investment decisions without the
prospect of environmental reviews of undetermined length and
expense. Additionally, western water districts share the
nation's desire to make investments that can put people to work
immediately. Environmental reviews of small hydro on existing
conduits represent an unnecessary and often chilling
uncertainly for an economically marginal investment.
Finally, local water managers continue to have
concerns about time delays and recent examples of receiving
conflicting information from Reclamation on development of
hydropower on conduits. With that said, I want to stress that
many of our members have found Reclamation employees genuinely
interested in helping to get low-head hydropower systems off
the ground and enthusiastic about developing this type of
renewable energy.
Solutions Offered by H.R. 2842
H.R. 2842 seeks to address the challenges noted above by:
Adding ``power'' as an authorized activity on all of
Reclamation's conduits. This authorization makes clear that
Reclamation would oversee conduit hydropower development at its
facilities.
Exempting small conduit hydropower generation
projects under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA),
with the exception of transmission siting on federal land.
Designating the Power Resources Office in
Reclamation's Denver headquarters as the lead office for small
conduit development. This provision intends to set up a
centralized location for uniformity purposes, yet does not
prohibit area offices from implementing specific conduit
development.
Establishing hydropower as a secondary project
purpose subservient to Congressionally-authorized project
purposes, which should also reduce concerns about potential
environmental impacts, because water delivery, as a primary
purpose, will continue as it has historically.
We support H.R. 2842 and believe it will reduce costs to foster
more conduit hydropower at federal facilities and empower irrigation
districts involved in the operation and maintenance of these
Reclamation canals to develop this generation. We further believe it
will clarify issues of federal authority on these projects, which will
improve and stream line the decision-making processes.
Recommendations
The River District and Alliance members have closely tracked the
development of this bill over the past several months. We thank Mr.
Tipton and others for inviting our input and addressing our concerns.
We are pleased to see that it even reflects some of the testimony
provided by our members on similar legislation earlier in this
Congress. Like most legislation, however, it is not everything that
everyone wants. It does represent a giant first step towards
facilitating the development of clean, renewable energy on Reclamation
projects. With that philosophy in mind, we recommend some further
constructive thoughts on the bill.
H.R. 2842 affirms Reclamation using its ``Lease of
Power Privilege'' for conduit generation facilities but
requires Reclamation to offer the Lease of Power Privilege
first to the entity/entities operating and maintaining the
conduit (``right of first refusal''). This is encouraging, but
we are concerned about how these provisions will mesh with
ongoing administrative efforts by Reclamation to develop a
policy that will set forth a process for making determinations
on lease of power privilege. Reclamation has been considering
changes to its Lease of Power Privilege process for some time,
but it is time for the agency to publish specifics to
understand how it intends to carry out this process. We
understand that this process will determine how much to charge
on Lease of Power Privilege as it relates specifically to
different Reclamation facilities, including conduits. Some of
these unanswered questions will need to be addressed in the
legislative process, and our organization looks forward to
working with you towards that end.
Some of our members are also concerned that recent
federal policies encouraging the development of new hydropower
facilities in existing irrigation canal systems have attracted
outside developers who sometimes do not share the same
management objectives as irrigation districts. This can result
in a situation where outside entities develop power facilities
on water delivery systems that irrigation districts are
responsible to operate and maintain. It can be very difficult
to make arrangements like this work. Importantly, H.R. 2842
seeks to protect water users by specifically re-affirming
hydropower development as secondary to water supply and
delivery purposes and ensures that there will be no financial
or operational impacts to existing water users. Furthermore,
the bill protects agreements that the water users have on
existing conduit generation projects and provides additional
safeguards to ensure such projects do not undermine water
deliveries. Of course, the Bureau of Reclamation's adherence to
these values will be critical to the actual execution of these
provisions of H.R. 2842 on the ground. We believe Reclamation
should consult with the districts affected at all times before,
during, and after the lease, development, and operation of
these conduit hydropower projects commence.
On the opposite end of the spectrum from the point
just raised, some of our members have concerns that the bill
may negatively impact a lead private entity from working with
an irrigation district on a small conduit hydropower project.
The Family Farm Alliance believes that the first right-of-
refusal provisions could give local districts considerable
leverage to either develop these projects on its own or in
partnership with a private entity that may have the capital and
unique expertise. Again, without the details on yet to be
determined Reclamation policies establishing how the lease of
power privilege would be first offered to districts, we cannot
determine whether or not such arrangements would be workable,
let alone viable, in developing these conduit hydro projects.
We look forward to working collaboratively with Reclamation to
institutionalize workable procedures.
The bill directs the Secretary of the Interior to
determine a ``reasonable time frame'' for the irrigation
districts or water users associations to accept or reject a
Lease of Power Privilege offer. We recommend that
``reasonable'' be more specifically defined in terms of days or
months. In some cases, feasibility studies will need to be
completed to determine whether a proposed project is worth
pursuing or not. Time should be allowed for that process to
occur before the local district is required to reject or accept
a Lease of Power Privilege offer. Again, without the details of
yet-to-be-determined Reclamation policies establishing how the
lease of power privilege would be first offered to districts,
we cannot determine whether or not such arrangements would be
workable, let alone viable, in developing these conduit hydro
projects.
Again, the organizations I represent strongly support H.R. 2842,
and we hope that these additional recommendations are considered in the
constructive manner in which they are offered. We are confident
Reclamation will work with us, as they have in the past on many other
issues, to address our further recommendations, and that this
legislation will serve as an appropriate vehicle for continued
discussions.
Conclusion
Thank you for this opportunity to testify in favor or H.R. 2842.
This legislation is very important to the family farmers and ranchers
of our membership and to the beneficiaries of the federal projects
within the Colorado River District. We greatly appreciate the
cooperation of your Subcommittee staff, who solicited our input as this
bill was being conceptualized and drafted. I respectfully urge the
Subcommittee's favorable consideration of H.R. 2842.
I would be happy to answer any questions you may have about this
testimony.
______
Mr. McClintock. The Chair would like to thank the witnesses
for their brevity. Our final witness on this panel is Mr. Grant
Ward, a Water and Power Consultant for the Maricopa-Stanfield
Irrigation and Drainage District, and Electrical District
Number 3, in Maricopa, Arizona. Welcome to the Committee.
STATEMENT OF GRANT WARD, WATER AND POWER CONSULTANT, MARICOPA-
STANFIELD IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE DISTRICT AND ELECTRICAL
DISTRICT NO. 3, MARICOPA, ARIZONA
Mr. Ward. Chairman McClintock, Ranking Member Napolitano,
and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for allowing me to
present testimony in support of H.R. 2842. In addition to
representing our own district, I speak today on behalf of the
Advisory Committee of the Family Farm Alliance.
From 1995 to 2008, I served as the general manager of the
Maricopa-Stanfield Irrigation and Drainage District, and since
then have been serving as their water and power consultant.
On May 4th of this year, I had the opportunity to come
before you to give testimony on low head hydro possibilities on
Bureau systems in the West. At that time, we noted that we had
spent two years trying to get answers to the very points made
in this bill.
Sometimes one area would determine one answer based on
their existing history, only to have someone else look at the
answer and state that it would not be amenable to their region.
We asked questions, number one, about ownership, including
who owned the right to the unit to be built. Number two, about
the Lease of Power Privilege, and number three, about the need
for an environmental assessment, especially when one has been
done in the past 20 years, and the construction of the unit
would be within the existing walls and boundaries of the
conduit itself.
And, four, about the need for a FERC permit, especially
when FERC already exempts the size of most of the units once
one applies for the permit. Last, number five, we raised the
issue of one central office that all answers would go through
for clearance.
That was significant to us, and we did not want to ignore
the expertise of regional offices, but the problem is that the
regional office doesn't have the right to give the final answer
unless something is written and placed in front of them, and so
we didn't get the same answer from each office.
This bill before you today answers those questions enough
so that we on the ditch bank can have information to rely on so
that we can forward with the planning of the projects,
including costs, and time to construct such units, as well as
some idea as to the time and costs required to meet Bureau
requirements.
As I noted in my earlier testimony, our district has a
potential of building 14 to 17 units, and we won't know for
sure until some of these questions are going to be answered
through working with the Bureau, and as a result of this bill.
Of those 17 units, we can generate a total of approximately
2200 kilowatts, which provides enough electricity to power 550
to 1,000 homes, or about 6 to 7 of our deep well pumps
primarily used for irrigation.
Also, having low head hydro available to our districts
gives us options in efficient and economic operation, when, in
the middle of the 100 degree summers in central Arizona, we can
use the systems to reduce the requirement from the electrical
district so they can avoid overloads or brownouts on their
lines, and we can also generate income from the sale of the
power to offset operational costs to the district.
As a final note, please understand that from our
discussions with a number of the Bureau of Reclamation
personnel, including Deputy Commissioner Murillo, and up to the
Commissioner, Mike Connor, they have expressed an interest in
getting something started in low head hydro systems, but there
has been difficulty and confusion in determining where to
start, and recognizing that all districts are not created as
they were in 1939, or as a one size fits all.
This bill is a major step toward that end. Thank you for
this opportunity.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ward follows:]
Statement of Grant R. Ward, Water and Power Consultant to
Maricopa-Stanfield Irrigation & Drainage District, on H.R. 2842
Chairman McClintock, Ranking Member Napolitano, Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for allowing me to present testimony in support
of H.R. 2842. In addition to representing our own district I am
speaking today on behalf of the advisory committee of the Family Farm
Alliance. From 1995 to 2008 I served as the General Manager of the
Maricopa-Stanfield Irrigation & Drainage District, (MSIDD) and since
then have been serving as their Water and Power consultant. MSIDD
includes 87,000 acres or irrigated farmland, located in western Pinal
County of Arizona. It was formed primarily to take Colorado River water
from the Central Arizona Project (CAP) system, when it became
available, by connecting with the CAP's Tucson aqueduct and delivering
the water through more than 250 miles of concrete-lined canals,
laterals, pipelines, pumping plants and related works. The system is
also used to deliver groundwater operated with pumps powered by
electricity from Hoover Dam, Glen Canyon Dam, and Parker-Davis Dam as
well as supplemental purchased power, all provided by its sister
district, Electrical District No. 3, Pinal County.
On May 4th of this year I had the opportunity to come before you to
give testimony on low head hydro possibilities on Bureau systems in the
West. At that time we noted that we had spent two years trying to get
answers to the very points made in this bill, sometimes one area would
determine one answer based on old history, only to have someone look at
the answer and state that it would not be amenable to their region. We
asked questions 1) about ownership, including who owned the right to
the unit to be built, 2) about lease of power privilege, 3) about the
need for an environmental assessment, especially when one has been done
in the past twenty years and the construction of a unit would be within
the existing boundaries and even in the conduit itself, and 4) about
the need for a FERC permit (especially when FERC already exempts the
size of most of these units once one applies for the permit). We lastly
5) raised the issue of one central office that all answers would go
through for clearance. This bill before you today answers those
questions, enough so that we, on the ditch bank, can have information
to rely on so that we can go forward with planning of projects,
including costs, and time to construct such units, as well as some idea
as to the time and costs required to meet Bureau requirements.
As I noted in my earlier testimony our district has a potential of
building 14 to 17 units (we won't know for sure until some of the
questions which will be answered in this bill will come to light). Of
those 17 units we can generate a total of approximately 2200kws, which
could provide enough electricity to power 550 to 1000 homes, or about 6
to 7 of our deep well pumps, primarily used for irrigation. Also,
having low head hydro available to our districts gives us options in
efficient and economic operations: when, in the middle of the 110
degree summers in central Arizona, we can use the systems to reduce the
requirement from the electrical district so they can avoid overloads or
brownouts on their lines, and we can also generate some income from the
sale of the power to offset operational costs to the district.
As a final note, please understand that from our discussions with a
number of the Bureau of Reclamation personnel, including Deputy
Commissioner Murrillo and up to the Commissioner, Mike Connor, there
has been an interest in getting something started in Low Head Hydro
Systems, but there has been difficulty and confusion in determining
where to start, and recognizing that all districts are not created as
``one size fits all''. This bill is a major step towards that end.
Thank you for this opportunity to appear before you and testify on
the importance of H.R. 2842.
______
Mr. McClintock. Thank you for your testimony and brevity.
The bad news is that we have been called to the Floor for a
vote. The good news is that I believe it is a single vote,
which should not detain us on the Floor for more than about 10
minutes. We will recess and resume as soon as a quorum is
reestablished. So the Committee will stand in recess.
[Recess.]
Mr. McClintock. We will now go to questioning of the
witnesses. The Chair will begin, and I would like to ask Mr.
Treese, Mr. Lynch, and Mr. Ward, if any of you could just walk
us through the current permitting maze that these projects
currently must go through, and what it does to add to the costs
and the feasibility of the projects.
Mr. Treese. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chris Treese.
Permitting obviously will depend on the project itself and just
what is involved. However, if NEPA is involved, NEPA itself of
course is not a permit.
It is a process that is triggered by a discretionary action
by a Federal Agency, generally associated in this circumstance
with a permit that is required for the project. It could be a
Clean Water Act. It might be an Endangered Species Act.
But the process, however, once NEPA is triggered, is first
the determination of some level of impact, and a further
determination of whether or not an environmental assessment, or
an environmental impact statement, is required.
Mr. McClintock. Now, again, these projects are on existing
facilities, right, that have likely already gone through the
NEPA process; is that correct?
Mr. Treese. Projects that are the subject of this
legislation, yes, they are all Bureau projects. They may or may
not have preceded in construction the National Environmental
Policy Act.
Mr. McClintock. But they are existing facilities?
Mr. Treese. But they are existing facilities.
Mr. McClintock. So they have either predated NEPA, or they
have gone through the NEPA process?
Mr. Treese. That is correct, and even predating have gone
through the NEPA process subsequently for one or other reasons.
Mr. McClintock. And you are simply placing a small
generator in these canals and pipelines that either predate
NEPA, or already have been approved through the NEPA process,
and you are not making any other impacts on the environment. Is
that correct?
Mr. Treese. Yes, sir.
Mr. McClintock. And what does the NEPA process do to add to
the delays and expense of these projects, and does that make
the difference between them being cost effective and cost
prohibitive?
Mr. Treese. The NEPA process is timely, and it is
expensive. It is also uncertain.
Mr. McClintock. And by timely, you mean time consuming?
Mr. Treese. Time consuming, thank you. So the process is at
least a year now, or two years from our current experience, and
it also is the uncertainty associated with third-party
lawsuits, and I think the Agencies have all acknowledged that
their concern is with third-party lawsuits and they tend to be
as conservative as possible, in-part for looking out for the
applicant.
And they tend to go to the most restrictive, the most
exhaustive evaluation, which is an environmental impact
statement, and the most costly, and the most time consuming.
Mr. McClintock. How much does this add to the cost of a
small generator?
Mr. Treese. If it is just an environmental assessment, it
might be as little as a half-a-million dollars. It certainly
can be over a million if it is an environmental impact
statement.
Mr. McClintock. Half-a-million dollars per generator? How
much does it cost to actually install the generator?
Mr. Treese. I would like to defer to Mr. Lynch on that.
Mr. Lynch. The experience that one of our districts had was
the facility installation was about $20,000, and this was for a
FERC exemption, and if I remember it correctly, the studies
necessary to get the exemption were somewhere between 30 and
$50,000.
Mr. McClintock. OK. So on this particular project, $20,000
to actually install the device, and it is $30,000 to $50,000 to
get it approved. Mr. Treese, you are saying that it could be as
much as $500,000 to $1 million just for the approval?
Mr. Treese. Yes, sir.
Mr. McClintock. Of a $20,000 small generator put in an
existing facility?
Mr. Treese. Yes, sir.
Mr. McClintock. Is there any environmental protection that
this process is offering for between $50,000 and $1 million?
Mr. Ward. Well, maybe I can answer that. We have tried to
get a feel for how much depth we should go on an EPA program.
They have to study it first to determine whether it is an EA, a
very simple thing, or whether it is a full-blown protection,
and you do what is required that they tell you to do on your
permit.
But I will tell you that on our own system that the cost to
do the EPA is estimated--and this was by the Bureau folks--
about $60,000.
Mr. McClintock. Does this make a difference by the way
between it being cost effective and cost prohibitive?
Mr. Ward. It could be very close. You have to have it all
together before you know.
Mr. McClintock. Yes, and potentially could you give us just
a ballpark estimate of potentially how much electricity is not
being generated because of this process?
Mr. Ward. I can only tell you that on our own system, and
that is about 2200 kilowatts.
Mr. McClintock. Well, Mr. Tipton has already pointed out
1400 megawatts, the capacity of a Glen Canyon Dam, just in
Colorado alone. So I would assume extrapolating from that, we
are talking about the equivalence of dozens and dozens of Glen
Canyon Dams, and tens of thousands of megawatts of lost
electricity generating precisely because of these bureaucratic
impediments by an Administration that is always assuring us
that they very much want to help. That is appalling. Ms.
Napolitano for five minutes.
Mrs. Napolitano. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. There are a
couple of questions that I would want to ask Mr. Treese. In
your testimony, you mentioned the district's experience with an
environmental assessment as a costly and time consuming
endeavor.
Does this environmental assessment involve the Lease of
Power Privilege process or conduit development project?
Mr. Treese. No, Ma'am.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you. What is the project for water
as part of the HCP?
Mr. Treese. This is a project to provide water from two
different existing facilities for the recovery of the
endangered fish. It is a change of water uses, and no
construction involved at all.
Mrs. Napolitano. But wouldn't you agree that there is a
substantial difference in the scope for an EA regarding the
project that you just mentioned and an EA for a conduit, and
comparing an EA for this project?
Mr. Treese. No, Ma'am, I respectfully would not agree with
that. I think that both involve existing facilities, and both
involve little or no construction. Both involve essentially no
environmental impact.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you. Mr. Murillo, is it necessary to
waive NEPA in order to expedite the hydro projects?
Mr. Murillo. We don't believe so. We believe that part of
the NEPA process does include the categorical exclusion.
Mrs. Napolitano. OK. But can we be certain so that we can
allay some of the concerns that these entities are expressing
to this Committee, this Subcommittee; is the fears that it is
going to going to be costly, and cost prohibitive?
Is there something working with Reclamation to be able to
work on reducing not only the time frame, but also reducing the
costs?
Mr. Murillo. We are currently working on that now. We are
developing a directive and standard, and in that directive and
standard, we are pointing out that for conduit power
development and conduits, to take a look.
Mrs. Napolitano. How long is it going to be before you
become ready to hand it out to these individuals?
Mr. Murillo. We hope to have that directive and standard
out for public review within a month.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you. Your testimony mentions
Reclamation's plan to finish the second phase of the Bureau's
investigation of hydropower development that focuses on
conduits and canals.
And I can tell you that for the last few years, I have been
espousing that we need to look at solar placement of panels on
pumps, et cetera, to save electricity, or to save costs
essentially.
But when can we expect this report to be completed for this
investigation of hydropower development?
Mr. Murillo. That will address conduit drops, an we are
looking to get that report out within the year, within the next
year.
Mrs. Napolitano. Can it be expedited? This is critical
stuff.
Mr. Murillo. Yes, we hope to--we are trying to do that, and
we are hoping to get it out within the next several months, the
report.
Mrs. Napolitano. OK. And once that is completed what would
be the followup? What would be the next steps that you feel
that Reclamation has to do to be able to ensure its
implementation and support to the entities?
Mr. Murillo. So what we will do next is similar to what we
do to hydro resources assessment. We will go out, and we will
have an outreach program to where we go out to the
stakeholders, and inform them of the study that is going on,
and we will also include that in our internet site.
Mrs. Napolitano. OK. But do you post it on your--I forget
what the term is for being able to know what you are doing.
Sometimes the Federal Register does not always become readily
available, or it comes out later.
Is there another way, maybe a list of emails of the people
who are working these projects for immediate notification, so
that then they can move forward?
Mr. Murillo. Yes, there are a number of things that we do
with outreach. Some of them, we put them on a CD and pass them
out to the stakeholders, or we will put it on our internet
site.
But there are a variety of steps that we take to ensure
that people are aware that this study is ready.
Mrs. Napolitano. I would like to see the steps, because
sometimes I understand that the notification is not as timely
as it could be, and it saves them one day, one week, one month,
and it can save them time and money.
Mr. Murillo. Yes, we will provide you those steps.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you. Also, H.R. 2842 contains
provisions for the right of first refusal to water districts
operating the facilities, and then there are some instances,
like the Ready Reservoir in Colorado, where the operating
district is the Southeast Colorado Water Conservancy District,
with headquarters in Pueblo.
Yet, the local municipalities are in Basalt, Colorado. Do
you think this provision should take into consideration both
the operating district, as well as the local entities?
Mr. Murillo. Yes, I do. I think that we should also look
not only at them, but also any non-profit organization.
Mrs. Napolitano. You made provisions for that, I assume?
Mr. Murillo. Absolutely.
Mrs. Napolitano. OK. Mr. Lynch, in your testimony, you
mentioned that there is a tremendous opportunity for the
development of conduit hydropower, with some estimates as high
as 1,400 megawatts, equivalent to the name plate of Glen Canyon
Dam. Wouldn't these type of non-carbon based projects help to
lessen our dependence on carbon based energy resources, like
the Navajo Generation Station?
Mr. Lynch. Well, I don't know about Navajo, but it would,
depending on where you could develop this, it would help many
rural areas. The problem with Navajo is that it is in an
isolated location doing a specific job, and not anywhere near
the canal systems that you would put these small units on, and
you would never be able to transmit that kind of power to the
Navajo generating station area for use in the system for CAP
water delivery, and other uses that Navajo provides now.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chair, but with new
technology, I think that bears looking into. Thank you.
Mr. McClintock. The Chair recognizes the Gentleman from
Colorado, Mr. Tipton.
Mr. Tipton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and panel. Thank you
for taking the time to be able to be here this afternoon. Mr.
Lynch, I have a question. It sounds to me that when we read
through the bill that this will be eliminating paperwork
requirements, not environmental laws.
Would you maybe clarify for us whether the Endangered
Species Act, and Clean Water Act, State water laws, and others,
be eliminated in these hydropower projects?
Mr. Lynch. Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Tipton, no. All this does
is eliminate the need to do some sort of report. As you know,
NEPA is a reporting statute, and not an action statute.
The statutes that actually provide protection and enforce
action are the statutes like the Clean Water Act, and the
Endangered Species Act, the Clean Air Act, the National
Historic Preservation Act, that require Federal action.
These are not touched at all in this bill, and none of
their protections are in any way inhibited in this legislation.
Mr. Tipton. Well, I appreciate that, and I think that it is
important to note that these are not natural waterways,
correct? These are man-made canals that have already gone
through the process. It is going to be inserted into those man-
made canals, and there won't be any additional impact, right?
Mr. Lynch. Yes. The bill--the Smith bill both model
themselves after the definitional constructs that are already
in the Federal Power Act, and used by the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission.
So we are dealing in all instances with the exact same
subject that is a man-made structure whose primary purpose is
not power generation, but water delivery.
Mr. Tipton. Right. And this is for everyone, and if you
wouldn't mind answering it. Isn't it true that NEPA has already
completed a lot of Bureau of Reclamation water projects when it
came to other processes, such as renewal of contracts with
water users and other processes; is that correct?
Mr. Treese. Yes.
Mr. Lynch. Yes. For instance, the Central Arizona Project,
and Mr. Ward's delivery canal that feeds off of that, started
environmental impact statements on its construction in the
early 1970s. I know because I was there doing them with the
Bureau of Reclamation.
So the screening on most of these things, even pre-NEPA
facilities that have had later significant adjustments, or
repairs, is in place in almost every one of these situations.
Even transfers of title, and things like that, go through this
same kind of screening.
So, the West is pretty well covered by NEPA already, in
terms of our irrigation facilities.
Mr. Tipton. Mr. Murillo, that is accurate, correct?
Mr. Murillo. Yes, a lot of the screening and the post-NEPA
Act have already been looked at, and so we agree.
Mr. Tipton. Great. Well, I would like to follow up a little
bit with maybe Mr. Lynch and Mr. Ward given that. Why is it
necessary for Reclamation to perform another NEPA assessment on
a facility that has already been analyzed for environmental
impacts?
Mr. Ward. I guess the short answer to that is that we don't
think they do.
Mr. Lynch. OK. I don't know what happened to Grant's voice,
but it is not my fault.
Mr. Ward. Yes, it is.
Mr. Lynch. The slightly longer answer is that we are only
talking about waiving the need to do a report, and not take
action, under a process law, and only as to the very smallest
of these turbines.
I mean, the kinds of things that you could build with an
outboard motor propeller. So, there is nothing being sacrificed
here in terms of environmental protection, and just paperwork.
Mr. Tipton. Great. So we are standing up for the
environment, and we are being able to generate electricity, in
a clean, carbon free environment we possibly can. That sounds
pretty positive, but maybe if you all would just like to answer
this question. Will this bill harm the environment? Mr.
Murillo, do you want to start?
Mr. Murillo. I didn't hear the question.
Mr. Tipton. Will this bill harm the environment?
Mr. Murillo. Well, we want to make sure once again that the
NEPA process is followed.
Mr. Tipton. Certainly, but will this bill harm the
environment?
Mr. Murillo. One again, like I said, we want to make sure
that we follow the NEPA process to ensure that there are no
negative impacts to the environment.
Mr. Tipton. Mr. Lynch, would you care to take that up?
Mr. Lynch. I don't see how it could since FERC already has
a much larger categorical exclusion than this bill offers.
Mr. Tipton. Great. Mr. Treese.
Mr. Treese. The Colorado River District and the Family Farm
Alliance simply would not be supporting it if that were true.
Mr. Tipton. Thank you. Mr. Ward, I don't want to strain
your voice.
Mr. Ward. It is my feeling that if they were to pick up the
report that was made on our canal when it was designed and
built, they would not change that NEPA one iota, because we
don't change anything in the canal.
Mr. Tipton. OK. Thank you so much. I yield back, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. McClintock. Thank you. I understand that Mr. Baca
yields. Mr. Gosar of Arizona.
Dr. Gosar. Mr. Lynch, Mr. Tipton's bill updates a 1939 law
governing how Reclamation produces power and other things. What
has changed since 1939 in the hydropower world, and does this
bill bring this law up to date?
Mr. Lynch. Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Gosar, I don't think that
we have enough time today to talk about all of the things that
have changed since 1939, but let me tell you a couple of very
important ones.
Number one, in 1939, irrigation districts and water user
associations, the only two entities entitled under Reclamation
law to take over O&M on canals were not in the electric
business. They are now.
In 1939, they weren't operating Reclamation facilities.
Reclamation was. They are now. It is a whole different world,
and we need to modernize this section of the Reclamation
Project Act of 1939 to recognize that the boots on the ground
are our folks now, and that Reclamation has not only
encouraged, but in some cases virtually mandated that local
facilities be managed by local beneficiaries.
It gets the O&M responsibility off their back and their
budget, and it puts the boots on the ground with the people who
are taking the water, and this bill recognizes that very
important construct. So, yes, it is time for some updating.
Dr. Gosar. Well, I want to follow that up. Mr. Murillo
seemed to be concerned about the definition of the term
transferred works in the bill. Do you see a problem with that
definition?
Mr. Lynch. No, I don't. The definition in this bill is
there just to be used in Section 9[c]. It is there just to be
used for the purposes of this bill. Reclamation has other
entities, municipalities, who manage some of their facilities.
They do it typically under repayment contracts, and it is
not a Lease of Power Privilege mechanism, and this bill in no
way interferes with or disturbs that. I mean, I think that
their concern is that we have created a definition that didn't
exist in Reclamation law just for this purpose, and it is not a
Reclamation law by definition.
None of their lawyers should have any problem with that.
They ought to be able to sort it out. The definition works for
the bill. It does not impact any other part of reclamation law.
Dr. Gosar. Mr. Ward, has there been uniformity in confusion
within the Bureau of Reclamation regarding answers on how to
get and develop conduit power?
Mr. Ward. Just turn those words around, confusion in
uniformity. There is confusion. I have mentioned in my
testimony that we spent two years trying to get some basic
answers in order for us to put this system in, and we are ready
to go now.
In order for us to put it in, we couldn't get an answer
from the Bureau on who owns it, and what kind of a lease it
should be. Lease of Power Privilege is something that can
control it, and we would not be able to build the system
ourselves.
Mr. Tipton. And I am right there with you. I had to
actually submit a bill on behalf of establishing jurisdiction
between the Department of Agriculture and the Department of the
Interior over a pipeline, and who had jurisdiction to repair
it, which is ridiculous.
Mr. Ward, will the provision that allows the Power
Resources Office to be a clearinghouse for information on this
development be helpful to others seeking such answers in the
future?
Mr. Ward. I think it would be helpful to us right now, but
the thing is that I appreciate the areas of the Bureau, and
their needs to know what is happening, and where to go, but
when they need an answer, they need to go somewhere to get that
answer, and we all need to be able to rely on that answer,
whether it is a power energy office, or whether it is a
regional office, or an area office. So it would be very
helpful.
Dr. Gosar. Mr. Murillo, in the timelines that we are
talking about, tell me the time that it is currently taking,
the average time that it is taking, for an EA or full-blown
NEPA?
Mr. Murillo. Well, we are currently going through some
Lease of Power Privileges right now at some of our facilities,
and right now what I am being told is that it is taking
anywhere from five months to seven or eight months to complete
some of the EAs.
Dr. Gosar. For reassessment. How about for a new one?
Mr. Murillo. What is that?
Dr. Gosar. How about a new one?
Mr. Murillo. Oh, boy, I don't know.
Dr. Gosar. Well, let me ask the next followup question
because I am running out of time. Is this time frame shorter or
longer than it was 10 years ago? How about we answer that
longer.
In my district, all it has been doing is growing longer and
longer with delays. Would you see that as being consistent, Mr.
Ward, that they are growing longer and longer with delays?
Mr. Ward. I would.
Dr. Gosar. How about you, Mr. Lynch?
Mr. Lynch. Definitely.
Dr. Gosar. You know, Mr. Murillo, trust is a series of
promises kept, and call me a skeptic, but I see the
bureaucratic mess becoming even more entangled, and more
entangled for people to try to come up with solutions not being
problematic. Thank you.
Mr. McClintock. Thank you. That concludes the testimony and
questions of the first panel. I want to thank our witnesses for
their guidance and expertise today, and I would now ask our
second panel to take his seat.
Our second panel is on H.R. 200. It consists of The
Honorable Ed Scott, Mayor Pro Tem of the City of Rialto. Also
with us, I understand for questions only, is Mr. William
Werkheiser. So, the Chair recognizes Mr. Scott for five
minutes. Welcome.
STATEMENT OF HON. ED SCOTT, MAYOR PRO TEM, CITY OF RIALTO,
CALIFORNIA, ACCOMPANIED BY WILLIAM WERKHEISER, U.S. GEOLOGICAL
SURVEY, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, WATER, RESTON, VIRGINIA
Mr. Scott. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman McClintock, for
the invitation, and Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for
this opportunity to come before you today and show my city's
support for Congressman Joe Baca's bill, H.R. 200.
I am Ed Scott, Mayor Pro Tem, from the City of Rialto,
California. I not only speak for my residents in a city of
96,000 people, but also approximately 400,000 residents who
reside in the neighboring cities, and are affected by chemicals
which have polluted the Rialto-Colton Basin.
The Rialto-Colton Basin was once an underground water
source which was pristine and precious, but today it is a
source of drinking water which has been contaminated by TCE,
perchlorate, and other possible harmful chemicals.
Perchlorate, a salt used in the manufacturing of missiles,
ammunition, and fireworks, has been determined to affect
thyroid functions of persons exposed to it. Perchlorate is
especially dangerous to pregnant women, their fetuses, and
small children.
The State of California has set the maximum allowable level
at six parts per billion. Rialto has detected levels as high as
10,000 parts per billion. This level of perchlorate
contamination is perhaps the highest in the Nation.
Perchlorate contamination of the Rialto-Colton Basin has
had a severe impact on the City of Rialto and its residents. It
has eliminated Rialto's best quality water supply, as well as
its cheapest.
It has required Rialto to shift its reliance to water
sources of lesser quality, requiring expensive treatment
systems for the removal of contaminants. It has disrupted
Rialto's ability to ensure that service to its current and
future customers is reliable and uninterrupted.
As Members of this Subcommittee know all too well, a clean,
affordable, reliable water supply is the life blood of a
community like Rialto. The perchlorate plume in the Rialto-
Colton basin is believed to be more than six miles long, and
one mile wide, although the full extent of the plume is not
known.
The shutdown of 13 of Rialto's wells has reduced production
capacity by nearly 48 percent. The shutdown loss is around 12
million gallons per day, which exceeds the average daily
pumping demand for all of Rialto's customers.
In other words, the basin pumping capacity has been
currently lost to perchlorate contamination, which is around
12,000 to 15,000 acre-feet per year. The city has lost its
ability to have a backup water source.
Unless we are able to attack this problem at its source,
wellhead treatment may be necessary for years to come. The
sobering fact is that this chemical could affect the lives of
my residents, and many others, for generations to come.
Rialto has spent $32 million dealing with this problem, and
there is no end in sight. The need for Congressman Baca's bill
is compelling. Our aquifer is a very complicated one,
surrounded by earthquake faults and requires a comprehensive
study to further understand how to deal with this problem and
commit to an effective clean up.
In order for the cleanup to be effective, however, the
plume must first be adequately characterized ideally, and the
perchlorate contaminated water plume can be pumped out of the
ground, water treated, and then used.
The study purpose of H.R. 200 will help us answer these
questions, and put us in a position to resolve this once and
for all. Only upon completion of such a study can we fully
implement a plan to contain its movement, and put a plan in
place to effectively clean up the precious drinking water
source.
In closing, I want to express my city's sincere thanks to
Congressman Baca, Congresswoman Napolitano, and yourself, Mr.
Chairman. I stand ready to answer your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mayor Pro Tem Scott follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Ed Scott, Mayor Pro Tem,
City of Rialto, California, in Support for H.R. 200
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to come before you today and show my City's support for
Congressman Joe Baca's bill, H.R. 200, the Inland Empire Perchlorate
Ground Water Plume Assessment Act of 2011. I am Ed Scott, a Council
Member from Rialto, California. I not only speak for my residents in a
City of 96,000 people but also approximately 400,000 residents who
reside in the neighboring cities and are affected by chemicals which
have polluted the Rialto-Colton Basin.
The City of Rialto relies on groundwater from the Rialto-Colton
Basin, its most important water source, to deliver water to its
residents, schools, hospitals, parks and businesses. The Rialto-Colton
Basin was once an underground water source which was pristine and
precious. But today it is a source of drinking water which has been
contaminated by TCE, perchlorate and other possible harmful chemicals.
Impact of Contaminated Basin
Contamination of the Rialto-Colton Basin has had a severe impact on
the City of Rialto and its residents. It has eliminated Rialto's best
quality water supply as well as its cheapest; it has required Rialto to
shift its reliance to water sources of lesser quality, requiring
expensive treatment systems for the removal of contaminants; it has
disrupted Rialto's ability to ensure that service to its current and
future customers is reliable and uninterrupted 100 percent of the time,
through normal, dry, and drought years; it has reduced or eliminated
Rialto's ability to call upon its neighbors for emergency supplies,
because their water supplies have been similarly strained; it has
impaired Rialto in the flexibility of its use of existing facilities,
effectively stranding some of them; and it has reduced the reliability
of Rialto's overall water supply. As members of this Subcommittee know
all too well, a clean, affordable, reliable water supply is the life-
blood for a community like mine.
Perchlorate
Perchlorate, a salt used in manufacturing of missiles, ammunition,
and fireworks, has been determined to affect thyroid functions of
persons exposed to it. Perchlorate is especially dangerous to pregnant
women, their fetuses and small children.
In adults, the thyroid helps to regulate metabolism. In children,
the thyroid plays a major role in proper development in addition to
regulating metabolism. Impairment of thyroid function in expectant
mothers may affect the fetus and newborn and result in effects
including delayed development and decreased learning capability.
Impairment of thyroid function in nursing mothers may have similar
effects on their newborn.
A December 11, 2006 National Institute of Environmental Health
Sciences report titled ``The Evaluation of the U.S. EPA's Preliminary
Remediation Goal for Perchlorate in Groundwater: Focus on Exposure to
Nursing Infants,'' concludes that the unborn child may be particularly
vulnerable to perchlorate toxicity and that the U.S. EPA Preliminary
Remediation Goal of 24.5 ppb should be evaluated in light of these
exposures.
California has set a Public Health Goal of 6 ppb and has proposed a
Maximum Contaminant Level for perchlorate in drinking water of 6 ppb.
The United States Environmental Protection Agency has adopted a
reference dose for perchlorate of 0.0007 milligram/kilogram-day, which
leads to a Drinking Water Equivalent Level of 24.5 ppb. The reference
dose and its corresponding Drinking Water Equivalent Level are
respectively the recommended ``to be considered'' value and the
preliminary remediation goal for perchlorate.
The State of Massachusetts, on the other hand, has set a maximum
allowable level in its water at 2 parts per billion (ppb), virtually a
non-detect level. Based on the fact that there is no agreement within
the scientific community, let alone by lawmakers, on just how much
perchlorate can safely be ingested, the Rialto City Council has adopted
its ``Zero Tolerance Policy.'' Under the City's policy, if a well tests
positive for detectible levels of perchlorate, that well is shut down
and taken out of service. Its water is not placed into the City's water
system unless and until it is outfitted with treatment equipment and
the water tests ``non-detect'' for perchlorate using state-approved
testing methods. In this manner, no detectable perchlorate is allowed
into the Rialto Water System and the citizens served by Rialto may rest
assured that their water is safe.
Rialto Contaminated Wells
The perchlorate plume in the Rialto-Colton Basin is believed to be
more than 6 miles long and about 1 mile wide, although the full extent
of the plume is not known. Seven of Rialto's thirteen wells have been
removed from service for some period due to detections of perchlorate.
The shutdowns of these wells have reduced Rialto's production capacity
by nearly 48 percent. The City has lost its ability to have a back up
source of water when emergencies occur, such as well failures,
surrounding agencies needing additional water, and not having enough
water to meet future growth within our own service area.
Of Rialto's 13 production wells, seven have been removed from
service for some period because of perchlorate contamination. The
shutdown loss is around 12 million gallons per day (mgd), which exceeds
the average daily pumping demand for all of Rialto's water customers.
The Rialto Basin pumping capacity that has been currently lost to
perchlorate contamination is around 12,000 to 15,000 acre feet per
year.
The City has had to take other measures to ensure the residents and
its customers needs will be met. The City spent $100,000 to construct
an emergency tie-in with Riverside Highland Water Agency to provide an
additional 2,000 gallons per minute of water to the City if needed.
This replaces one well out of 7 impacted by perchlorate contamination.
Wellhead Treatment
Currently, there are two primary treatment technologies in the
United States for removing perchlorate in water: ion exchange and
biological remediation technologies. Rialto's wellhead treatment
facilities use ion exchange.
While the City Council's ``Zero Tolerance Policy'' is the only
responsible action we can take as elected officials, removing
perchlorate from our groundwater is an expensive undertaking borne by
the City and its ratepayers. For example, the installation of ion
exchange treatment equipment costs approximately $1 million per water
well, and it costs up to $500,000 per year to operate the perchlorate
removal equipment at each well. Research is currently underway to
develop other newer, cheaper technologies but they are not yet
available.
Rialto has installed wellhead treatment facilities on three of its
wells in and around the Rialto-Colton Groundwater Basin. It has
increased its pumping in those wells, and left the other polluted wells
out of service. Rialto is treating the water drawn from those wells
until it tests ``non-detect'' for perchlorate, using state-approved
testing methods verified through a state certified laboratory. The City
has its wells tested on a monthly basis for perchlorate contamination
at an average cost of $65 per sample which adds an additional $27,000 a
year to its sampling budget. Thus far, the City has spent $32 million
dealing with the perchlorate issue--an enormous sum of money for a
working class community.
Wellhead treatment is a temporary and very expensive measure that
has allowed Rialto to continue to meet demand on a short-term basis.
Wellhead treatment does not come close to replacing what Rialto has
lost due to the contamination of the Rialto-Colton Basin.
The City spends an average of $335,000 per year for treatment cost
for reginerable resin at one well site and needs to lease land next to
the site to accommodate the large footprint needed to house the
treatment vessels. The City is in the process of drilling an additional
well to replace the loss of wells in the Rialto-Colton Basin at a cost
of $1.5 million dollars. The City continues to look at other resources
to provide additional water for the needs of its community such as
recycled water to lessen the demands on potable water, however,
providing the irrigation water the large landscape areas are in need
of. To expand the current system it is estimated to cost $5 million to
contract and convey the recycled water to the high demand areas within
the City.
The principal goals of Rialto's water department are to serve safe,
affordable, and reliable water every day, including having sufficient
redundancy in its system to meet all contingencies and to plan to meet
anticipated demand over the next 20 years in normal, dry, and multiple
dry years. The Rialto-Colton Basin is the linchpin of the City's water
supply system. Because the Basin plays a central role in the City's
long-term water supply planning, perchlorate contamination is not
adequately remediated by the provision of wellhead treatment.
Sources of Contamination
We have learned that perchlorate contamination began in the 1940s
through actions of the U.S. military, continued into the 1960s through
the work of U.S. defense contractors, and was added to by firework
companies until 1996. The City discovered high levels of contamination
in our drinking water in 1996 and stopped all sources from further
pollution. The State of California has set the maximum allowable level
of perchlorate at 6 parts per billion--Rialto has detected levels as
high as 10,000 parts per billion.
Investigations to date have identified several areas where
discharges of materials containing perchlorate salts have either
occurred or are likely to have occurred in the northern section of the
Rialto-Colton Basin. These sites include: the former U.S. military's
Rialto Ammunition Backup Storage Point (RASP) bunker complex; the B.F.
Goodrich/Black & Decker site; the San Bernardino County Mid-Valley
Sanitary Landfill site; and an area occupied by firework companies,
called the Stonehurts site, which consists of five acres located
immediately south of the former RASP munitions bunker complex. These
sites are believed to be the hot zones feeding the two identified
perchlorate plumes in the Rialto-Colton Basin.
Basin Characteristic
Our aquifer is a very complicated one surrounded by earthquake
faults and requires a comprehensive study to further understand how to
deal with this problem and commit to an effective clean up.
The Rialto-Colton Basin is an elongated basin with the long axis
oriented northwest-southeast, and lies within the Santa Ana River
Watershed. The San Gabriel Mountains and Barrier J form the
northwestern boundary of the Rialto-Colton Basin while the badlands
area to the south forms the southeastern boundary. The Rialto-Colton
Fault forms the southwestern boundary of the basin and impedes flow
into the neighboring Chino Basin for much of the length of the basin.
In the southern portion of the basin, the Rialto-Colton Fault no longer
acts as a barrier to groundwater flow and groundwater migrates into the
Chino and Riverside Basins. The northeastern boundary of the basin is
formed by the San Jacinto Fault and Barrier E, which separates the
Rialto-Colton Basin from Lytle and Bunker Hill Basins. Groundwater in
the Rialto-Colton Basin flows from the northwest to the southeast. In
the southern part of the basin, groundwater flows westward towards the
Chino Basin. If left alone, the perchlorate plumes will eventually
migrate into these adjacent basins, threatening the water supply of
countless of communities in Southern California.
Before a comprehensive cleanup plan can be developed, additional
data must be collected at source sites and regionally. Although we have
a substantial amount of information through EPA and other monitoring
wells, information gaps still remain that must be resolved prior to
finalizing and implementing an effective cleanup plan to restore the
aquifer and protect the public's interest. As listed in a study
released by the City in 2007 regarding the development of a
comprehensive cleanup strategy, issues that still remain to be
addressed are:
The plume has not been fully delineated, either
horizontally or vertically;
The extent of commingling of the plume emanating from
several source sites has not been completely characterized and
modeled.
The chemical migration rates within the contaminated
zones have not been fully tested.
It is not known what basin recharge rates will be
necessary to support the treatment system.
It is not known what is causing the recent surge in
perchlorate concentrations in groundwater, whether significant
sources are being flushed through the vadose zone, or if
perchlorate is being remobilized.
The impacts and extents of all source areas that
contribute to the regional plume must be fully characterized.
H.R. 200 will help us better understand these issues so that we can
mobilize scarce resources in developing the most cost-effective cleanup
strategy for the Basin.
Need for H.R. 200
Perchlorate has been present in the Rialto-Colton Basin for over 65
years and the problem is getting worse, not better. The dilemma we face
today is the plume of contamination continues to move southeasterly at
a high rate of speed (possibly 2 feet per day) towards the County of
Riverside and eventually Orange County. This frightening possibility
could affect the water source for hundreds of thousands of people. The
perchlorate plume will likely remain indefinitely in the Rialto-Colton
Basin until removed through implementation of a clean-up and abatement
plan.
In order for the cleanup to be effective, however, the plume must
first be adequately characterized, and then additional wells, treatment
facilities, possibly reinjection wells and similar other facilities and
techniques will be required before the plume can be fully remediated.
Ideally, the perchlorate-contaminated water plume can be pumped out of
the ground, the water treated and then either used or reinjected back
into the ground. In some cases removal of contaminated soil may be
required. These questions will begin to be answered more fully as the
plume is characterized more definitively. The study purpose of H.R. 200
will help us answer these questions and put us in a position to resolve
this once and for all. Only upon completion of such a study can we
fully implement a plan to contain its movement and put a plan in place
to effectively clean up this precious drinking water source.
In closing, I want to express my City's sincere thanks for the
assistance we have received up to this point from Senators Dianne
Feinstein, Barbara Boxer, Congressman Joe Baca and Congresswoman Grace
Napolitano, all of whom have been leaders on water issues in
California.
I stand ready to answer your questions.
______
Mr. McClintock. Thank you for your testimony, and again the
Chair also welcomes Mr. William Werkheiser from the United
States Geological Survey. I just have two concerns. This
measure has gone through the Subcommittee, and was passed by
the House Natural Resource's Committee in the One Hundred and
Eleventh Congress by bipartisan support.
And as Congressman Baca said, it cleared the House and so
we have heard this before. I just have two quick concerns.
Number one is the Federal nexus. Perchlorate is a salt compound
as you pointed out, and it is created by both manufacturing of
rocket fuels, as well as fireworks.
Rialto is the fireworks capital of California. How much of
this was through fireworks manufacturing, and how much of it
was through Federal contractors actually developing rocket
fuel?
Mr. Scott. In our research, we have determined that there
are actually three major responsible parties. Two of those are
DoD related companies, and one is a fireworks manufacturer.
Mr. McClintock. The other concern that I have is that the
EPA sets a tolerance level at 24.5 parts per billion. The State
of California, which--well, let us just say they have some
eccentricities when it comes to their public policy--is at six
parts per billion.
And I understand from your written testimony that Rialto
also has a zero tolerance policy of zero parts per billion. You
are not asking Federal taxpayers to shoulder the costs for
anything that would involve treating of water below EPA
standards, correct?
Mr. Scott. That would be correct, but I would add that the
EPA currently is looking at lowering their standard, and it has
been suggested that it would be right around six parts per
billion.
Mr. McClintock. All right. Thank you. Mr. Werkheiser, the
Congressional Budget Office estimates that the study in the
bill would cost about $4 million in taxpayer funding. Under
what program could USGS fund this research from existing funds?
Mr. Werkheiser. Yes, this work would be funded under our
cooperative water program, which requires at least a 50 percent
match from a non-Federal source, and it is how most of the work
has been funded there today.
Mr. McClintock. OK. Why isn't this happening?
Mr. Werkheiser. We have done a fair amount of work. That
work has included characterizing the aquifers in the area, but
what I would say is that when you go from characterizing
aquifer water supply, or artificial recharge, to looking at
contaminates in water, that requires a level of detail much
greater than what we have been able to do. So we have been
doing work as we can afford it.
Mr. McClintock. Well, on average, how much does this
program receive annually?
Mr. Werkheiser. The Cooperative Water Program receives--
this year it was $63 million.
Mr. McClintock. So, $63 million, and you need $4 million to
do this study?
Mr. Werkheiser. Right.
Mr. McClintock. Now, according to a document taken from
your website, the Cooperative Water Program spends taxpayer
dollars at, quote, 750 interpretative projects, annually
targeted at specific issues, such as the effects of
urbanization, and dam removal, agricultural practices, and it
goes on. Is that true?
Mr. Werkheiser. Yes, we do include those type of works. It
also funds a large part of our stream gauging.
Mr. McClintock. Here is the concern that I would like to
express, not with respect to this bill, but with respect to
this Administration's priorities. We just heard a lot of
testimony about the benefits of more hydropower from small
hydroelectric generators.
We have agencies using taxpayer dollars to study dam
removal, tearing down perfectly good hydroelectric dams that
are generating hundreds of megawatts of electricity. Meanwhile,
while we are doing that, and spending money through your
program for such purposes, we have communities like Rialto who
are begging for USGS action to help provide clean drinking
water.
And I just wonder is that an appropriate setting of
priorities? I will offer that as a rhetorical question, because
I certainly don't want to put you on the spot. With that, I
will yield back and recognize Mr. Baca for five minutes.
Mr. Baca. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, an thank
you very much for the promotion that I now have gotten to be
the Ranking Member on the Committee, since she stepped out
temporarily.
Mr. McClintock. Temporarily Acting Ranking Member.
Mr. Baca. But I do appreciate that very much. And thanks
for your last question, because I think the priority that needs
to be done, it seems like, in a city like Rialto, has been
impacted not only now, but for many, many years.
And it seems like, Mr. Chairman, you have asked some of the
questions that I think are very important. Right now, it seems
like we have put a priority in some of the dams, or in some of
the areas in tearing them down, when what we need to do is to
improve the quality of life for individuals that are being
affected that need clean water.
And as we see the growth in the Inland Empire, and maybe I
will start with the Major Pro Tem from the City of Rialto, do
you see future growth in population? I know that you stated in
your statement that it impacts 4,000 residents, but it could
impact a lot more based on the growth of the population,
because more and more people are moving into the City of
Rialto.
There is a probability of additional growth, and those
individuals would be impacted. Is that not so the case?
Mr. Scott. That would be correct. We predict over the next
20 years that our rooftops, housing rooftops, will double.
Mr. Baca. And, Mr. Werkheiser, getting back, William, to
one of the questions that was asked earlier by the Chair of the
Committee, and it seems like we should not need this bill, and
it should have already been done without this bill.
But it seems like you have not set a priority in this area,
and that you could have already have done and had the
cooperation, not only in terms of the matching funds, or the
funds that are needed there, because the monies were already
allocated and set aside.
It is just that we need USGS to do a study, and so why not,
and why wasn't it done, and why is it that we are waiting for a
bill to come before us when the Administration should have
taken action in this, and I think that is what the Chairman
said as well; is that correct?
Mr. McClintock. I am not providing testimony, Mr. Baca.
Mr. Baca. But I wanted you to back me up.
Mr. Werkheiser. I guess what I would say is that we
actually have done a fair amount of work in the area, and we
recognize that it is not enough, and that it is not all that is
required.
We share the interest. Again, with a $63 million program
that has to fund 50 States, and the State of California
probably gets a little over $2 million in Cooperative Water
Program funds, and how they are used.
But I will point out that just recently that we talked
about the sources of perchlorate. I think we are in the midst
of a study now to look at the isotopic composition, which will
help evaluate what those sources are, and where they are from.
So there is ongoing work, but we can't do it at the rate
quickly enough, and with the necessary resources to get an
effort at this level started right away.
Mr. Baca. But also, William, will this study by the USGS,
can you expand on your comments in reference to the study, and
why would the study authorize an HRB to benefit communities
throughout the Southwest? Because it would also impact, and it
would help, Southwestern States throughout the United States.
It would help Colorado, and it would help Arizona, and it
would help Nevada, and the surrounding areas, and not only in
our area where we don't have to rely on the other areas.
And then we know that the contamination has a probability
if we don't do anything, and the impact that it could have not
only in San Bernardino County, Riverside County, and then on
into the Orange County as well.
Could you elaborate on it? Would it help the Southwestern
States, the study?
Mr. Werkheiser. Yes, I think there is a lot of transfer
value for such a study. I think right now there have been in 18
States where perchlorate has been detected at above the six
parts per billion level at least.
So there is transfer value to such a study, but the main
benefit is to the complexity within the aquifer, and the main
benefit would accrue to that area, but there is certainly
transfer value to other areas.
Mr. Baca. And, again, you know, I want to thank Mayor Pro
Tem Scott, Ed Scott, for coming here and testifying, and caring
about the community. In your experience how significant is the
economic loss that Rialto and the Inland Empires have had to
cope with due to the perchlorate contamination in the ground
water of the Rialto-Colton Basin?
Mr. Scott. Well, Rialto has really had to go elsewhere for
water, and we are paying more for that water than we would
normally be paying. Additionally, as you had stated in your
original statement, we have put a perchlorate surcharge on all
of our residents.
And while $12 a month doesn't seem like a lot, it has gone
on for 10 years.
Mr. Baca. And $12 is very difficult when you are trying to
put food on the table, and you are trying to live within your
own means.
Mr. Scott. Right.
Mr. Baca. Twelve dollars is a lot when you add that up to
every other bill that you have. It makes it very difficult on
someone in the area who basically says, you know what, we
should have clean water. We should have good water, and we
shouldn't have to worry about the effects that it is going to
have not only on thyroids, but infants and others in the
immediate area.
So I thank you for coming, and taking the time, and giving
your testimony on behalf of not only the citizens of Rialto,
but the impact that it would have in the State of California
and the Southwestern States, too, as well.
Mr. Scott. Thank you for the invitation.
Mr. Baca. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. McClintock. Well, I would like to thank our witnesses
for their testimony. Members of the Subcommittee may have
additional questions for witnesses, and we would ask that you
respond to these in writing.
The hearing record will be kept open for 10 business days
to receive those responses, and if there is no further
business, without objection, the Committee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:40 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Additional material submitted for the record follows:]
Statement submitted for the record by U.S. Geological Survey,
U.S. Department of the Interior, on H.R. 200
Chairman McClintock and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for
the opportunity to provide the Department of the Interior's views
regarding U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) scientific capability relevant
to the Inland Empire Perchlorate Ground Water Plume Assessment Act of
2011 (H.R. 200).
USGS Science in Support of Groundwater Management and Contaminants
The USGS serves the Nation by providing reliable scientific
information to describe and understand the Earth; minimize loss of life
and property from natural disasters; manage water, biological, energy,
and mineral resources; and enhance and protect our quality of life. The
specific mission of the USGS California Water Science Center is to
collect, interpret, and provide unbiased and timely scientific
information of the highest quality for the responsible planning, use,
and management of California's water resources in cooperation with
local, State, and other Federal agencies. Scientific issues related to
the occurrence and movement of groundwater and contaminants, such as
perchlorate, fall within the scope of the USGS mission.
Perchlorate issues in Rialto Colton and the ``Inland Empire''
The Rialto-Colton Basin is located in western San Bernardino County
in California, about 60 miles east of Los Angeles in the upper Santa
Ana River watershed (the Inland Empire). The Rialto-Colton Basin is
bounded on the northeast by the Bunker Hill and Lytle Creek Basins and
on the southwest by the Chino and North Riverside Basins. Groundwater
presently constitutes about 79 percent of the drinking-water supply in
the Inland Empire. Perchlorate has been detected in the main water-
producing aquifers within the Rialto-Colton and adjacent basins and has
contaminated water in more than 20 production wells that supply the
communities within the Rialto-Colton Basin and surrounding area.
Perchlorate (ClO4) has both synthetic and natural
sources. Synthetic perchlorate is a residual of the manufacture and use
of rocket propellants, fireworks, flares and other pyrotechnic devices.
Minor concentrations of natural perchlorate have been measured in mined
Chilean nitrate fertilizers. Perchlorate is extremely soluble and is
carried in groundwater without retardation or absorption. The two major
sources of synthetic perchlorate in the area are San Bernardino
County's Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill and a 160-acre site near the
landfill. These two sites were used for storage and destruction of
perchlorate-containing compounds such as explosives, propellants, and
pyrotechnic devices. Chilean nitrate fertilizer was commonly used in
the Basin in the early part of the 20th century. In addition, imported
water from the Colorado River contains measurable perchlorate and also
may be a source of perchlorate in the Inland Empire. Recent data
collected by the USGS indicates that low levels of perchlorate have
accumulated naturally in unsaturated zones in arid and semiarid areas
of the southwestern United States, such as the Mojave Desert, likely as
a result of atmospheric deposition.
Perchlorate contamination is of concern to water managers because
of the importance of groundwater in this region. Water managers need to
know the source, fate, and transport of perchlorate within the Rialto-
Colton Basin and adjacent basins in order to effectively mitigate the
contamination. Major uncertainties facing water managers include: 1)
the source(s) of perchlorate in specific wells; 2) the hydrologic and
geologic controls on the migration of perchlorate within the Rialto-
Colton Basin; 3) the effectiveness of the Rialto-Colton Fault as a
barrier to perchlorate migration from the Rialto Colton basin to the
adjacent Chino and North Riverside basins; and 4) the potential
vertical movement of perchlorate through long-screened wells.
What is the USGS doing in the area?
The USGS has a long history of hydrologic work in the Rialto-Colton
area and adjacent areas in the Inland Empire going back as far as the
early 1900s. This work has been updated periodically and collectively
forms the basis of our scientific understanding of the regional
hydrogeologic setting, the movement of water within aquifers pumped for
public supply, and water-quality issues in the area. The USGS operates
an extensive groundwater-monitoring network providing the public with
real-time information on water levels and water quality. The USGS has
developed predictive models in the Rialto-Colton Basin (Woolfenden and
Kadhim, 1997; Woolfenden and Koczot, 2001) and the adjacent Lytle Creek
and Bunker Hill groundwater basins (Danskin and Freckleton, 1989;
Danskin and others, 2006) to assist in the management of the water
resources in the area. These models are based on the current scientific
understanding of the geology and hydrology in the area, including the
areal and vertical extent of aquifers, hydraulic properties, recharge
and discharge of groundwater, and the interaction between groundwater
and surface water. Most of the USGS research done in the Inland Empire
has been in cooperation with local water management agencies such as
the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District under the auspices
of the USGS Cooperative Water Program. In the past five years, about 70
percent of the cost of these studies has been borne by local agencies.
In recent years, the USGS has been working with local water
agencies to help them understand the sources, distribution, and
migration of perchlorate in the Inland Empire. A recent study completed
as part of the USGS Groundwater Ambient Monitoring and Assessment
(GAMA) Program (Belitz and others, 2003) sampled 99 drinking water
wells throughout the Inland Empire and identified perchlorate in about
67 percent of the wells at the reporting level of 0.5 micrograms per
liter (mg/L); about 10 percent had perchlorate concentrations in excess
of the California maximum contaminant level of 6 mg/L, but no well had
concentrations in excess of the EPA health reference level (Kent and
Belitz, 2009). Woolfenden (2008) used a particle-tracking model to
determine the susceptibility of an aquifer to perchlorate contamination
in the Rialto-Colton Basin. Izbicki (2008) collected wellbore flow and
depth-dependent water-quality data from a public supply well near
Highland, CA located in the northern part of the Inland Empire. Water-
quality and isotopic data indicated that the source of perchlorate was
Chilean nitrate fertilizer. Fram and Belitz (2011) have evaluated the
occurrence of naturally occurring perchlorate in the Rialto-Colton
Basin and across California.
The USGS is participating in two studies funded by the Department
of Defense Environmental Security Technology Certification Program
(ESTCP). The first study uses state-of-the-art chemical and multiple-
isotope techniques to identify the source of perchlorate within the
Inland Empire. The second study uses more traditional hydrologic data
to define water-level contours and groundwater movement within the
basin. An important component of these studies is to evaluate the
effect of well-bore flow on the vertical distribution of perchlorate
within aquifers. A total of 28 wells have been sampled and are being
analyzed for perchlorate, perchorate isotopes, and other tracers in the
Rialto-Colton Basin and Chino Basin adjacent to the Rialto-Colton
Fault. Six wells have been sampled with depth to evaluate well-bore
flow and changes in chemistry in aquifers with depth across the Rialto-
Colton fault. Data collected in these studies are intended to 1)
identify the areal and vertical extent of perchlorate contamination
near the margin plumes in areas having high background perchlorate
concentrations from fertilizer or other sources, and 2) evaluate the
potential for water and contaminant movement across the Rialto-Colton
fault. The studies have identified areas where additional work would be
beneficial to the understanding of water flow and perchlorate transport
within the Rialto-Colton basin and adjacent areas.
Rialto Colton Basin, California Water-Resources Study
The key issues of concern identified in H.R. 200 are:
A. The delineation, either horizontally or vertically, of the
aquifers in the Basin, including the quantity of water in the
aquifers;
B. the availability of groundwater resources for human use;
C. the salinity of groundwater resources;
D. the identification of a recent surge in perchlorate
concentrations in groundwater, whether significant sources are
being flushed through the vadose zone, or if perchlorate is
being remobilized;
E. the identification of impacts and extents of all source
areas that contribute to the regional plume to be fully
characterized;
F. the potential of the groundwater resources to recharge;
G. the interaction between groundwater and surface water;
H. the susceptibility of the aquifers to contamination,
including identifying the extent of commingling of plume
emanating within surrounding areas in San Bernardino County,
California; and
I. any other relevant criteria; and
J. characterization of surface and bedrock geology, including
the effect of the geology on groundwater yield and quality.
The USGS has the capability to complete a 2-year study to address
the issues of concern presented in H.R. 200 for the Rialto-Colton
Basin. The tasks required are within the scope of the USGS mission and
expertise and could be accomplished under existing authorities.
H.R. 200 focuses on perchlorate issues in the Rialto-Colton Basin;
however, perchlorate is a concern throughout the Inland Empire. If
requested, the USGS could consider options for studying this issue
throughout the region.
Conclusion
The USGS has the scientific capacity to address issues of concern
identified in H.R. 200, a strong working relationship with many of the
people currently working on groundwater quality issues in California's
Inland Empire, and a reputation for providing unbiased information.
The problem of groundwater quality affecting drinking water
supplies is not unique to communities in Rialto-Colton or the Inland
Empire. Perchlorate is an issue throughout the southwestern U.S.
Therefore, methods developed to understand the perchlorate
contamination in the Rialto-Colton could be useful to water managers in
other basins.
The Department notes, however, that the activities called for in
H.R. 200 are already authorized by existing authorities. Any study
conducted to fulfill the objectives of the bill would need to compete
for funding with other Administration priorities.
Thank you, Chairman McClintock, for the opportunity to present the
views of the Department on H.R. 200.
References
Belitz, Kenneth, Dubrovsky, N.M., Burow, K.R., Jurgens, Bryant, and
Johnson, Tyler, 2003, Framework for a ground-water quality
monitoring and assessment program for California: U.S.
Geological Survey Water Resources Investigations Report 03-
4166.
Belitz, Kenneth, Hamlin, S.N., Burton, C.A., Kent, R.H., Fay, R.G., and
Johnson, Tyler, 2004, Water Quality in the Santa Ana Basin,
California: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1238.
Danskin, W.R, and Freckleton, J.R., 1989, Ground-water-flow modeling
and optimization techniques applied to high-ground-water
problems in San Bernardino, California: U.S. Geological Survey
Open File Report 89-75.
Danskin, W.R., McPherson, K.R., and Woolfenden, L.R., 2006, Hydrology,
description of computer models and evaluation of water-
management alternatives in the San Bernardino area, California:
U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 2005-1278.
Fram, M.S., and Belitz, K., 2011, Probability of detecting perchlorate
under natural conditions in deep groundwater in California and
the southwestern United States, Environmental Science and
Technology. Vol. 45, no. 4, pp. 1271-1277.
Izbicki, J.A., 2008, Determining the source of contamination to long-
screened wells: East Valley Water District 2008 Water Quality
Conference, October 2008.
Kent, Robert, and Belitz, Kenneth, 2009, Ground-water quality data in
the Upper Santa Ana Watershed Study Unit, November 2006 to
March 2007: Results from the California GAMA Program: U.S.
Geological Survey Data Series 404.
Woolfenden, L.R., and Kadhim, Dina, 1997, Geohydrology and water
chemistry in the vicinity of the Rialto-Colton Basin, San
Bernardino County, California: U.S. Geological Survey Water
Resources Investigations Report 97-4012.
Woolfenden, L.R., and Koczot, K.M., 2001, Numerical simulation of
ground-water flow and assessment of the effects of artificial
recharge in the Rialto-Colton Basin, San Bernardino County,
California: U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources
Investigations Report 00-4243.
Woolfenden, L.R., 2008, Aquifer susceptibility to perchlorate
contamination in a highly-urbanized environment: IAHS Publ 324,
pp. 156-163.