Segment 2 Of 2     Previous Hearing Segment(1)

SPEAKERS       CONTENTS       INSERTS    
 Page 10       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
H.R. 910, THE SAN GABRIEL BASIN WATER QUALITY INITIATIVE, AND THE ROLE OF THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS IN THE FORMERLY UTILIZED SITES REMEDIAL ACTION PROGRAM (FUSRAP)

Wednesday, September 29, 1999
House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Washington, D.C.,

    The subcommitte met, pursuant to call, at 1:09 p.m., in room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Sherwood Boehlert [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
    Mr. BOEHLERT. The subcommittee meets this afternoon to receive testimony on H.R. 910, the San Gabriel Basin Water Quality Initiative. We will also review the Corps of Engineers role in the Formally Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program, FUSRAP, and more generally, waste remediation.
    Thanks to the efforts of Representative David Dreier and the area's bipartisan delegation, including Representative Steve Horn and Representative Gary Miller, who sit on this committee, Congress is learning about the growing emergency facing the Basin citizens' natural resources and economy. The groundwater contamination problem is spreading. Fortunately, we are also learning about the region's potential solutions, such as H.R. 910, which offers constructive steps rather than confrontation and endless litigation.
    Superfund is not the solution. Fifteen years have passed since EPA placed portions of the valley on the Superfund's national priorities list. Pollution spreads while PRP's, the Potentially Responsible Parties, debate and litigate. The water supply emergency grows while governments, businesses and citizens look for answers.
    H.R. 1300, the Recycle America's Land Act, reforms the Superfund program, but even a reformed Superfund doesn't provide all the answers. The San Gabriel basin needs additional tools. H.R. 910 offers an additional approach recognizing the capabilities of the Army Corps of Engineers and the linkage of the contamination to previous activities in support of Federal efforts. I look forward to working with my California colleagues in their efforts to respond to this critical regional issue and to promote research on percolate—a national issue.
 Page 11       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    The subcommittee also intends to scrutinize the Corps' FUSRAP program. The FY 1998 appropriations bill transferred the program to the Corps of Engineers. We need to know more about the program to insure that the $150 million appropriated for FY 2000 will be a wise investment for the nation. We also need to know how execution of the program affects other Corps programs and responsibilities. In addition, we want to work with the Administration to learn how it can support certain local and regional efforts to remediate waste but not others, particularly when both are connected to previous Federal activities. I look forward to this dialog.
    Finally, we hope to have today's hearing as a technological first for the transportation and infrastructure committee. That is, assuming some of the glitches in the system can be worked out. We hope to conduct this hearing with live video conferencing of our California witnesses and to broadcast the entire hearing over the Internet. That's our hope. Given the importance of the issues, I can't think of a more appropriate time to test these new technologies than at today's hearings, a hearing that never would have happened without Chairman Dreier's leadership and the bipartisan support that he has gathered together in the California delegation. At this point, I'm pleased to recognize the ranking Republican member of the subcommitte.
    Mr. DREIER. I think he's a Democrat. You're welcome to our party any time, Bob.
    Mr. BOEHLERT. I keep trying to convince him to come over. We're so close and work so well together that sometimes distinctions are blurred. The Chair is pleased to recognize Mr. Borski for any comments he would care to make.
    Mr. BORSKI. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I first want to welcome our distinguished first group of panelists, and I want to commend Mr. Dreir, the distinguished Chairman of our Rules Committee and his colleagues, Mr. Martinez and Ms. Napolitano for their hard work in seeking to address the cleanup of contaminated ground water in the San Gabriel Basin in in California and for doing so in a bipartisan fashion.
 Page 12       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. Chairman, the San Gabriel Basin is facing a serious water quality and public health problem. The aquifer underlying the Basin is contaminated with a variety of hazardous substances. Indeed, several areas within the San Gabriel Valley have been placed on the national priority list by EPA and are in the process of a Superfund cleanup. Groundwater in the aquifer provides drinking water for almost 1.5 million people in southern California. Contamination is threatening their water supply. In addition, the contamination plume may be spreading. If it does, it will threaten a neighboring aquifer that supplies drinking water for the majority of residents in Los Angeles County.
    H.R. 910, the San Gabriel Basin water quality initiative would authorize the establishment of the San Gabriel Basin restoration fund and the appropriations of $75 million over five years for the Fund, so the proceeds of the Fund could be used to construct, operate and maintain projects to improve water quality in the Basin. An additional $25 million would be authorized to study, plan and design projects to address groundwater contamination problems caused by a chemical used in the production of rocket fuel.
    Mr. Chairman, I understand and am very sympathetic to the serious problems facing the people in the communities in the San Gabriel Basin, and I look forward to working with the delegation from California to develop an appropriate Federal response.
    The second focus of the hearing is on the Corps' management of the Former Utility Sites Remedial Action Program. This program was established 25 years ago, by the Atomic Energy Commission to clean up sites used in the nation's atomic energy program. Until the program was transferred from DOE to the Corps in 1997 by the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, FUSRAP was plagued by mismanagement and rising costs. Since taking over, the Corps has made substantial progress towards the program's completion. In fact, the projected completion date has been moved up two years to 2004.
    The subcommittee has never conducted oversight of this program, and I look forward to hearing General Van Winkle's testimony. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
 Page 13       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you very much. We're still trying to work out some of the glitches in the technological aspect of this first for this committee. Assuming that we can do that, let me make a couple of housekeeping announcements. The witnesses on the second panel, it's our intention to bring their testimony to us through video conferencing technology. If we're able to do that, and we're not certain at this juncture whether or not we're going to be able to do that, there may be a slight couple of seconds delay in transmission. The witnesses will be able to see the committee but may not be able to distinguish who the speaker is during the questioning period, so to assist the witnesses, I would ask everyone to try to speak clearly, introduce yourself as you are posing a question, direct your questions to a particular witness by name, and then wait for a response.
    Now, a couple of warnings. The microphones used for video conferencing are very sensitive. All conversations on the dias will be picked up, so please keep all background noise to a minimum, and it will work. Keep our fingers crossed. So, thank you all for your assistance.
    Now Panel One is lead by the distinguished Chairman of the Rules Committee, our good friend and author of the operative bill, Congressman David Dreier. We have on the panel colleagues from California, Honorable Grace Napolitano and the Honorable Matthew Martinez. Chairman Dreier, you're first up, and let me thank you for your splendid cooperation and also for your leadership.
TESTIMONY OF HON. DAVID DREIER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM CALIFORNIA; HON. GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM CALIFORNIA; AND HON. MATTHEW G. MARTINEZ, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM CALIFORNIA
    Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, let me express my appreciation to you and Ranking Member Borski and Mr. Taylor, Mr. Horn, Mr. LoBiondo for your interest in this legislation and your diligence in putting this together. Let me say at the outset that this feels a little bit like groundhog day to me. I had the thrill of five years ago when we came to majority chairing in the science committee room the first completely inter-operative Congressional hearing. We had C-Span covering it. We had one of our members actually by video conference in Colorado. We had witnesses who were in the room and witnesses who were on remote. We had questions coming to us from the Worldwide Web with—is that Mike doing that over there? We're trying hard to get this thing going, Mr. Chairman. We had questions that came to us from both e-mail and off of feedback off of the Worldwide Web which I, in chairing the panel, offered, and it didn't work is sort of the bottom line. We had our glitches, and so as we get towards just days before the millenium, it's our hope that we can put it together.
 Page 14       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    I should say in defense of Mike and Todd Gillanwater with my staff, with the Rules Committee and all that on Friday, they tested everything out and it worked beautifully. So, we're hoping that we'll be able to get my constituents and Grace's and Marty's constituents on board here because these are the people who really led the charge on this. So, we're still hoping we can get it together.
    As you said in your opening remarks, Mr. Chairman, this really is a critical problem, and many people don't know exactly what the San Gabriel Basin is. I mean, we're talking about literally millions of people in southern California. When you referred to it as a region, it happens to be a region that has within the L.A. media market 28 members of the United States House of Representatives. I mean, it's a pretty doggone big region. It's critical because, as you said, it's been 15 years since the area was declared a Superfund site, and 15 years, a decade-and-a-half have gone by without a comprehensive cleanup plan, and drinking water wells are increasingly threatening the spreading of pollution.
    Furthermore, the recent discovery of these contaminants to which you both referred but didn't call by name, perchlorates, spreading throughout the groundwater poses a very serious near term threat to the drinking water supply of millions of residents of southern California. For decades, the defense sector of our nation, which is going to be represented here, was one of the primary engines of economic growth for California and the country, and it was one of our state's largest employers. Defense production in California helped us prevail in conflicts from World War II all the way through the Cold War, but unfortunately while California companies helped protect the United States from military threats, many defense contractors legally, and I underscore the word legally, disposed of toxic wastes in ways that led the pollution of the aquifers that supply much of California's drinking water.
    There are a number of areas in California where local officials are now confronting the problem of groundwater pollution originating from contaminants relating directly to the defense sector of our economy, and among those is this San Gabriel Basin. It's the primary source of drinking water for 1.4 million people in southern California. Unfortunately, groundwater testing in 1979 first detected the presence of volatile organic compounds, and in 1984 the basin was included in the EPA's national priority list of Superfund sites.
 Page 15       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    In the 15 years since then, the EPA has made only very slow progress toward developing a plan to address the groundwater contamination and to insure that the residents of the region can continue to depend on groundwater as their primary supply of drinking water. Thus far, no comprehensive cleanup plan has been implemented, and only small scale, locally led responses are currently in place. This limited progress notwithstanding, concerns about the drinking water supply have grown much more serious with the recent discovery of these perchlorates. Scientists have only a limited understanding of the origin of perchlorates and how to treat them best.
    For example, perchlorate contamination in our Basin has generally been attributed to defense contracting, but it's recently been discovered that perchlorates can be present in high concentrations in fertilizer as well. There is no simple or cost effective way to remove perchlorates from water and render it safe for consumption. Testing at wells in our San Gabriel Basin show that the perchlorate contamination is now spreading downstream toward the Whittier Narrows. Now, if it crosses beyond the Whittier Narrows and into the central basin, which is Congressman Horn's area, this could potentially cut off the drinking water supply for an additional one million customers. So, it's critical that Congress respond to this growing threat before local water agencies are forced to increase the import of costly drinking water to replace the local supply.
    Now, the EPA has administratively divided the San Gabriel Superfund site into five operable units: Baldwin Park, El Monte, South El Monte, Puey Valley, and Whittier Narrows. Thus far, the EPA has seen the most progress at the Baldwin Park operable unit where 11 of the 19 potentially responsible parties recently committed to working with EPA on a consensus cleanup plan whose detail will be developed over time. There remains eight PRP's who have not committed to taking part in the eventual plan.
    Now, the EPA and the local leaders are continuing to work with these PRP's to attempt to bring them on board, but there's no guarantee of the success in that effort. Ultimately, this could lead to legal action by the EPA against some or all of these PRP's. Now, apart from the Baldwin Park operable unit where significant progress toward a consensus cleanup plan at the Baldwin Park operable unit, there remains significant challenges at the other seven operable units in the San Gabriel site. According to the EPA, more than 3,000 commercial and industrial ventures have been scrutinized for potential liability for the cleanup, and about 1,000 of these remain to be assessed.
 Page 16       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    So, recognizing the challenges of trying to bring together hundreds of parties to develop and implement a cleanup plan, the state of California in 1992 created the San Gabriel Basin Water Quality Authority. The mission of the authority is to work with all interested parties on a consensus cleanup plan for polluted groundwater. During its seven year existence, the water quality authority has tried to work with and mediate between the EPA, state water officials, the potentially responsible parties, water companies, and interested members of the local communities. It's contributed to the developing consensus cleanup plan for the Baldwin Park operable unit, and has overseen the development and implementation of small scale cleanup projects that address contamination in parts of the Basin.
    I intend to use this bill to build on the consensus process that's been supported, as I said, by a wide range of people involved, as well as the private water companies. The bill authorizes Federal assistance through the Corps of Engineers to the Water Quality Authority for groundwater remediation with the goal that these funds be used to encourage parties not to litigate but instead to focus all their attention on cleaning up the contamination. I believe that by helping to defray the cost of the overall cleanup, this legislation will give firms a critical incentive to agree to cleanup plans rather than to resort to costly and protracted legal action to limit their liability.
    Now, I've already been contacted by at least one major company which cited this legislation as the reason that they chose to work with the EPA in the Baldwin Park operable unit rather than to pursue legal action.
    Are we getting hooked up here? Are we coming through? My gosh. I'm almost done here, and I see the red light here.
    Mr. BOEHLERT. That's OK. The Chair is being somewhat liberal———
    Mr. DREIER. Yeah, I understand that. Totally out of character.
 Page 17       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. BOEHLERT.—with this time with our colleagues because you have so much worthy of note to say.
    Mr. DREIER. The legislation includes a critical research component to help develop better and more cost effective methods to address perchlorate contamination. As Mr. Borski said, we obviously want to do what we can to research and find ways so this has impacted the rest of the country. So, I will say that my colleagues, Grace Napolitano and Gary Miller and Jim Rogan and Marty Martinez, Steve Horn, have joined as co-sponsors of this very, very important legislation. Again, while we focused on the region, Mr. Chairman, it's important to note that with the discovery of perchlorates around the country, I think that it's critical for us to get to the bottom of this problem, find a solution, do the research necessary, so that it doesn't spread and have a deleterious impact on the rest of the Nation that it has in southern California.
    Thank you very much, and it's an honor to be here. Thanks again for holding the hearing.
    Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, just before we started with this panel, Dr. Horn was temporarily out of the room and was not given the opportunity to have something to say in an opening statement on this subject, and since he is such a leader in the effort to provide a solution to the problem, the Chair is pleased to recognize Dr. Horn.
    Dr. HORN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. We appreciate your leadership on that and those of your staff, Susan Bodine and Ben Grumbles and Jeff More. You've had great cooperation from your staff and our staff.
    Southern California, where I live, faces a critical problem. As the state begins to face the reality that it must make do with less imported water in the future, making wise use of existing groundwater stores becomes even more important. Today in the San Gabriel Basin, more than one-fourth of the water wells are closed due to contamination. The presence of perchlorate contamination has added to the existing problem of cleaning up the San Gabriel Basin. If this pollution spreads into the Central Valley, which serves my constituents as well as about seven other Congressional Districts, and more than one-half of L.A County, and that's a county of ten million people, and between five to eight million are affected in the flatlands of Los Angeles County before they hit the mountains and the Tahatchapes to the north.
 Page 18       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Southern California is not alone in facing contamination caused by perchlorate. H.R. 910, which we will debate today and which Chairman Dreier has put together so ably, addresses two important problems. First, the cleanup and the protection of the aquifer that serves millions of people in Calfornia; second, it provides for research that will benefit all areas of the nation.
    However, let me thank Mr. Dreier and other members here, and I have looked at the Corps of Engineers testimony, and I must say, as a very strong supporter of the Corps and the great help that they've given us in the flood zone of the Los Angeles River and the help that the Congress has given us to produce $50 million each year so we can solve that problem, I'm disappointed in General Van Winkle's testimony where he says we do not believe the Corps is the appropriate Federal agency to implement the objectives of H.R. 910. I guess I would simply ask if not the Corps, then who? It seems to me the Corps, who has done such a wonderful job across America in terms of floods and control of the water supply in various areas, and more and more I think we've learned in this decade from the Mississippi flood that we no longer want to fill the rivers with cement as we did in Los Angeles River. What we want is to get water into the ground where it can safely and naturally percolate without the contaminants that industry and military activities and others have made above the ground. So, I would hope the Corps would re-think that and give us the help they're so able to do.
    I thank you all again and appreciate the opportunity to be here under Mr. Dreier's leadership.
    Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you very much, Dr. Horn, and the Chair is pleased to note the presence of the distinguished Chair of the full committee, the Honorable Bud Shuster of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, do you have any remarks?
    Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you very much. I certainly want to commend you for holding this hearing. I'm enthused by the testimony that I've been briefed on by Chairman Dreier. We certainly welcome you to the committee, and one of the reasons I'm enthused is because while he is talking about a specific critical water supply problem in the San Gabriel Valley in California, it would seem to me that this could well be a model for us for the future to look, to see what we could be doing on a nationwide basis.
 Page 19       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    So, I'm very excited about this and want to do everything I can to be helpful, and I certainly am very pleased with the Corps of Engineers interest in the possibility of expanding their mission, which I think is something that too often goes unappreciated. They're an enormous resource and asset for our country, and it's our job in this committee, I think, to maximize the use of that very competent and capable asset. Thank you.
    Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Now the Chair is pleased to recognize the presence of the Honorable Grace Napolitano, and I view this as a twin opportunity: an opportunity for this subcommittee to hear from you and an opportunity for the Chair to put in a plug for our bipartisan Superfund Reform Bill, H.R. 1300 because as I look across this room, I see that Chairman Dreier, Mr. Martinez, Chairman Shuster, Mr. Borski, Mr. Taylor, Mr. LoBiondo, Dr. Horn, we're all sponsors of this magnificent piece of legislation. We would encourage you to take a good hard look at it.
    Ms. NAPOLITANO. Duly noted, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you very much. Now you are recognized for whatever time you may consume.
    Ms. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I couldn't agree more with Mr. Horn, that I'm a little disappointed in the Army Corps of Engineers' memoranda or notification that they don't think it belongs within their jurisdiction because I think they do such an excellent job in California, and specifically my area. Hopefully we'll be able to work with them and maybe get them to join on board with us.
    Mr. Chairman and members, I am very pleased to be here with you today as an original co-sponsor of H.R. 910, the San Gabriel Basin Drinking Water Initiative, and I certainly want to thank my colleague and friend, respected member of Congress, David Dreier, for bringing this critical piece of legislation before us in such a timely manner. You've heard this has been hanging in the background for decades, literally.
 Page 20       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    What we have right now is nothing short of an emergency, and it does demand swift action from Congress in order to safeguard the health and the economic well being of half of the residents of Los Angeles County. For over 20 years, this documented contamination of this Basin has posed a threat to almost three million people, simply because it begins in other areas and is running into my area. Personally, I've been involved with this issue since my days on city council, almost 13 years ago when we commissioned an aquifer study to be able to determine where that plume was that we all talked about. We found out that underneath Whittier Narrows, it bands together. It dilutes to other underground rivers, and hence the real threat to the other side, like in Mr. Horn's area. We certainly want to be sure that we all work together, and that's why I'm here, gladly joining Congressman Dreier.
    Unfortunately, the magnitude of the Superfund cleanup has created a situation where EPA's negotiations with the potentially responsible parties have taken a considerable amount of time. First, they couldn't find them. They had gone bankrupt. They've, you know, just disappeared, or the ones that are there don't want to take on the total responsibility. Well, at the time that we did the aquifer study in Norwalk, we were able to formulate the group of cities to form the water coalition, which each city banded and put in a million dollars to match Federal funds. That's one of the things that happened way back almost ten years ago.
    The discovery of the perchlorate in '97 has further compounded the cleanup costs and the threat of the contamination to the aquifer because they don't know how to clean it up yet. Community concerns with my district are running at an all-time high, and this bill provides the means by which joint agencies; that is, Federal, state and local agencies, and private businesses can collectively facilitate a timely response to the crisis. Then there are those who question the decision that the Federal Government aid in funding the cleanup. I think we must be willing to accept the fact that the perchlorate was supposedly introduced in the groundwater as a direct result of the Federal Government's defense contract with Aerojet. We must not and cannot deny the government responsibility in this situation. We must be deliberate in our resolve to use all resources at our disposal to facilitate this comprehensive cleanup.
 Page 21       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    I want to reiterate my commitment to the effort. Time is not on our side, Mr. Chairman. I think we must move forward on this issue, and I welcome any questions. Any help I can facilitate to the committee I would be more than happy to. I thank you for time to testify.
    Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you so much, and I will accept your pledge to take a good hard look at H.R. 1300.
    I'm advised that California is with us on audio, not yet video. They can hear what is being said here, and that's very important. So, after our colleague, Congressman Martinez, submits his statement, we will then go to our second panel, and we will be able to hear our witnesses from California. We have one of the witnesses that is actually physically here.
    Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman?
    Mr. BOEHLERT. Yes, sir.
    Mr. DREIER. I'd just like to add that also it's my understanding that we are carrying both ends on the Worldwide Web right now and it's being carried on the website, so that also is up.
    Mr. BOEHLERT. So this is a technicological first for this committee, and I thank you for that. Mr. Martinez.
    Mr. MARTINEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, and I'm pleased to join my colleagues in bipartisan support of the San Gabriel Basin Water Quality Initiative which was introduced by my good friend and San Gabriel Valley neighbor, Mr. Dreier.
    I'm especially pleased to take part in a hearing for legislation about what such a broad agreement exists, with the exception of the Corps of Engineers. I read their testimony this morning, and I look at it as clearly gobbledegook, bureaucratic gobbledegook with a bit of turf war thrown in, and the tail trying to wag the dog. I'm disappointed with them. I would have preferred if they had had substantial reason to disagree with this legislation, but the reasons that they established in one paragraph clearly shows their fear of the establishment of a separate treasury account, which would involve additional administrative burdens. Excuse me? We're now afraid of administrative burdens, and could lead to proliferation of such accounts covering a multiplicity of communities. Excuse me? According to what Mr. Shuster just said, he thought this could be a model by which other communities could resolve their problems and solve their problems.
 Page 22       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Their last statement in their statement says they in recent years have been involved in efforts to protect and restore the environment. That's what we're trying to do here. They say that they want to meet these challenges with great enthusiasm, and they would do everything they can. Well, in their testimony, they're certainly not indicating that. I am very disappointed with them.
    Nevertheless, given the often contentious nature of western water issues, it's refreshing to speak in favor of a bill that will help increase our region's water supply and storage capacity while cleaning up years of pollution. There are few projects can boast support from environmentalists, local government and business. I trust that today's very representative panel of local witnesses will relay to you the broad support that this bill enjoys in the San Gabriel Valley. I have been visited at least a dozen time by those people in my offices, echoing their hopes that this will become a reality. There's very little question that the groundwater supply in my district is endangered. Remember, we live there and we drink that water, all three of us.
    Over one quarter of the 366 water supply wells in the San Gabriel Valley have been contaminated. These pollutants are rapidly making their way underground into the Central Basin, which supplies the greater part of Los Angeles County with groundwater. In fact, it supplies water in the San Gabriel Valley to 1.5 million people. If we do not act to prevent this, it could blow both costs and well closures sky high. Since toxic contaminants were discovered in our water supply near 20 years ago, I and many others have worked diligently to find a solution that equitable distributes responsibility for the pollution, and that's one of the other things that the Corps of Engineers is worried about, that any of the responsible parties are not relieved of the responsibility under CERCLA. Well, I don't think that this bill does any such thing. I would encourage them to read the bill and understand it.
    We do intend with this bill to remove the contaminants from our water supply as quickly as possible. These efforts have been complicated in many points, most notably with the discovery in 1997 of rocket fuel contamination in my district, Baldwin Park operable unit. This rocket fuel is much more difficult to remove from the water supply than previously discovered contaminants and exists in concentrations far above safe water standards. The rocket fuel is a byproduct of a Federal contract. For years, the Federal Government contracted with local firms to produce greatly needed aircraft and rocket parts. Unknown to any at the time, this production led to the leakage of rocket fuel and other substances underground into the aquifer, polluting the area's groundwater supplies.
 Page 23       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    It is time that the Federal Government catch up with others in the San Gabriel Valley in assuming responsibility for its actions in the Baldwin Park Operable Unit. Eleven potential responsible parties have not only voluntarily contributed over $2 million towards preliminary work, but recently have agreed to pay $200 million in cleanup costs. I believe it's time for the Federal Government for whom this industrial work was done to follow that lead.
    H.R. 910 is a bipartisan piece of legislation that authorizes the Department of Army and other Federal agencies to participate in funding efforts targetted at cleaning the San Gabriel Basin water supply. This legislation authorizes $75 million over five years for San Gabriel Basin Restoration Fund to promote consensus cleanup efforts for the water pollution in the basin. This Fund will be managed by the San Gabriel Water Quality Authority, and include contributions, include contributions from local and state government, in addition to the PRP's.
    At the same time, H.R. 910 authorizes $25 million for research means to clean up the rocket fuel. The Corps of Engineers testimony referred to that, and that it's not known exactly how to do this. That's why we're providing the $25 million for research, to find out how to clean up that rocket fuel. If the Federal Government has contaminated the groundwater supplies with such a substance, I believe we should develop the means to remove it.
    Although there are areas still may be more hurdles to overcome, in our saving the water supply, the time for Federal action is now. The PRP's in our community have demonstrated a commitment to saving the region's groundwater with their checkbooks. It's time for the Federal Government to use this broadly supported bill as an opportunity to do the same.
    Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I thank you for your time and attention and I, like Grace Napolitano and Mr. Dreier, would be available for any questions you might ask.
    Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you very much, Mr. Martinez. Chairman Dreier.
 Page 24       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. DREIER. Thank you very much. I just wanted to ask that the subcommittee allow written testimony from two of our colleagues, Jim Rogan, who is impacted by this, who has asked that we submit a statement from him, and Gary Miller, who unfortunately is, I'm told, at the dentist right now and was trying to get back in time, but he has testimony. So, they're very concerned about this issue, and I just would like the record to show that.
    Mr. BOEHLERT. Without objection, so ordered. We also have a request from Congressman McKeehan for the same purpose. So, the hearing record will be open for 72 hours to permit our colleagues who are not here present to submit their testimony, which will be included in its entirety in the record.
I want to thank this first panel of our distinguished colleagues for their excellent testimony and for helping to further educate this subcommittee, and I would invite all of you if you so choose, to sit with us for the remainder of the deliberations for as long as your very hectic schedules might permit, and serve as resources from this end of the table.
    Mr. DREIER. Thank you.
    Mr. BOEHLERT. Is there any other statements any of you care to make?
    Mr. DREIER. Well, I want to stay for a few minutes, but we've got a Rules Committee meeting.
    Mr. BOEHLERT. I understand that, Chairman.
    Mr. DREIER. I know you understand that, but I would like to be here for awhile, and I'm just sad that I can't see my very good looking constituents from California. I'll just listen to them, I guess.
    Mr. BOEHLERT. OK, fine. Thank you very much, Mr. Dreier. Now we'll introduce panel number two. The second panel consists of Mr. Darrell Miller, who's the general manager of the Central Basin Municipal Water District. Mr. Miller is here and will be able to testify. Then we have Margaret Clark, who's the chairperson from the San Gabriel Basin Water Quality Authority from Covina, California. She's on the west coast. Mr. Ron Merry, President of the San Gabriel Valley Water Association and citizen representative. Sarah Flores from Glendora, California.
 Page 25       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Since Mr. Miller is here, we will invite Mr. Miller to testify first, and then we will go to Ms. Clark, Mr. Merry and Ms. Flores. Mr. Miller, the floor is yours. We would ask that you try to summarize your statement in five minutes or less. Your entire statement will appear in the record, but the Chair will be generous in its time and will not be arbitrary, but I would ask you to try to summarize it in approximately five minutes. The Chair recognizes now the general manager of the Central Basin Municipal Water District, Darrell Miller.
TESTIMONY OF DARRYL MILLER, GENERAL MANAGER, CENTRAL BASIN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT; MARGARET CLARK, CHAIRPERSON, SAN GABRIEL BASIN WATER QUALITY AUTHORITY; RON MERRY, PRESIDENT, SAN GABRIEL VALLEY WATER ASSOCIATION; AND SARA FLORES, GLENDORA, CALIFORNIA
    Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of this subcommittee for this opportunity to testify in support of H.R. 910, the San Gabriel Water Quality Initiative, on behalf of 1.4 million people supplied by the Central Basin Municipal Water District. My name is Darrell Miller. I am the general manager of Central Basin Water District. I'd also like to thank the Congressional delegation representing the Central Basin service area for their strong support of H.R. 910. These members include Congresswoman Melinda McDonald, Congresswoman Napolanto, Congresswoman Roybal Alar, and Congressman Horn and Congressman Royce.
    The Central Basin delivers groundwater, imported water and recycled water to customers in our service area which encompass most of southeast Los Angeles. I have a map to my right that I'd like to point to, to orient you. I'll try and speak loudly so it comes across. The San Gabriel Valley is in the purple area up here. Then Central Basin starts from my hand and goes south, covers, as you can tell, much of Los Angeles and southern Los Angeles area. The dots on there, the red dots, are groundwater wells. The different colors are the different cities. We've mentioned some of them, and I'll mentioned them later, of Pico Rivera in this area and Montebello up here.
 Page 26       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. BOEHLERT. The Chair should point out, that our witnesses in California who are only participating via audio know this territory quite well. What is being done now by Mr. Miller is sort of giving us a geography lesson so the subcommittee will better understand it. Those of you out in California know this very well.
    Mr. MILLER. Correct, and when we mention the Whitter Narrows area, it's along a series of hills that expand between these very colors and the purple color, and it's a hill that separates San Gabriel Valley area from Central Basin with a narrow and low part at the Whittier Narrows.
    The underground aquifer comprising Central Basin covers an area of 277 square miles and stretches from the cities of Montebello, as mentioned before, Pico Rivera, Whittier in the north, all the way to Long Beach in the south. Over two-thirds of the freshwater supplies delivered to this area originate from groundwater, so it's a very significant source of water for the area.
    Groundwater contamination in San Gabriel Valley directly threatens water supply to Central Basin service area, as you can tell from the map. Our Central Basin, the groundwater aquifers and directly linked hydrologically to the San Gabriel groundwater system, and San Gabriel groundwater naturally flows through the Whittier Narrows in the Montebello forbay, which is the area near that color differentiation. Ultimately, hundreds of wells supply the entire basin. In fact, the state court judgment governing the management of the basins mandate that a significant volume of San Gabriel water pass through into Central Basin. It's according to a court decree.
    Unfortunately, we also know that the contamination that is threatening San Gabriel Valley is moving towards Central Basin, along with the groundwater. The rate of movement varies. In some places, it's extremely fast. Working together with Federal, state, and local agencies, the Central Basin district was involved in the development and implementation of a network of monitoring wells in the Whittier Narrows area to identify contamination that may be coming from San Gabriel. This network confirmed the existence of contaminated water. The threat of contamination in Central Basin has become a reality. Contaminated water has eminated from the Narrows and gone south into the extreme northern end of Central Basin.
 Page 27       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    The discovery of contamination in the Whittier Narrows monitoring well network has forced the locally involved parties to accelerate the development and financing of the Whittier Narrows treatment project, far ahead of EPA's timeline as a matter to protect groundwater supplies. Further delay in implementing this project will have resulted in a much more threatening and costly problem for both the San Gabriel and Central Basin communities. However, the impact of spreading contamination from San Gabriel Valley is already being felt in Central Basin communities.
    The city of Pico Rivera has already been forced to install expensive treatment components in one of its wells due to VOC, vault organic compound, contamination from San Gabriel. We know the problem in the San Gabriel Valley, and we know the solution. The San Gabriel Basin Water Quality Initiative will facilitate the timely implementation of a solution in the San Gabriel Basin before it becomes a major problem in Central Basin.
    In recent years, Federal, state and local agencies have all increased their understanding of the regional nature of complex groundwater issues. The legislation introduced by Congressman Dreier and the bipartisan Congressional delegation from the San Gabriel and Central Basin area reveal the growing awareness. We are thankful for the Congressional action to help our regional efforts. On behalf of the board of directors of the Central Basin Municipal Water District, I urge the committee to favorably consider H.R. 910, the San Gabriel Basin Water Quality Initiative. Thank you very much.
    Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you very much. I appreciate that testimony. Now we're pleased to go to the west coast and hear from the chairperson of the San Gabriel Basin Water Quality Authority, Ms. Margaret Clark. Ms. Clark?
    Ms. CLARK. Thank you Mr. Chairman and members of the committee for allowing us to give this testimony on behalf of H.R. 910.
    If I may, I want to stress the seriousness and scope of this problem. Mr. Miller has very aptly described the problem that is happening with the Central Basin. The San Gabriel Basin is 160 square miles, just a few miles east of downtown Los Angeles. It's a primary drinking source for 1.4 million people, and as Mr. Miller has described, the contamination is moving, and if it continues to move and pollute the groundwater of the Central Basin, it will affect the drinking water source of one-half of the greater Los Angeles County. So, you can see this is not a local issue.
 Page 28       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    [Interruption in transmission.]
    Mr. BOEHLERT. Ms. Clark, can you hear me OK? Ms. Clark? I think we're having some technical difficulties. While we're trying to sort out the technical difficulties, maybe we can all beat up on the Corps. No, no, we won't do that.
    Ms. NAPOLITANO. In the interest of using time until we get up, I'd like to make just a couple of comments if I may.
    Ms. CLARK. Can you hear me now?
    Mr. BOEHLERT. Are you there? Can you hear us OK, Ms. Clark?
    Ms. CLARK. I can hear everything you're saying. Are you able to hear us?
    Mr. BOEHLERT. Yes, now we can hear you. Why don't you start over?
    Ms. CLARK. OK.
    Mr. BOEHLERT. OK. Now we hear you loud and clear, and we'll jump in if anything happens to interfere with that.
    Ms. CLARK. Thank you very much. I want to thank the Chairman and the members of the committee for this opportunity to testify on behalf of H.R. 910, and we especially want to thank Congressman Dreier for being proactive in this issue, and those who signed on as co-sponsors, and for the leadership in bringing the varied interests in the San Gabriel Valley to work jointly toward solving this very serious problem.
    As it has been said before, my name is Margaret Clark, and I serve as the chairwoman of the San Gabriel Water Quality Authority, and also I am the Mayor Pro Tem of the city of Rosemead.
    If I may, I'd like to touch a little bit on the seriousness of this problem. Mr. Miller has outlined the problem that's happening in the Central Basin if the contamination from our basin is to migrate. Our basin is 160 square miles, just a few miles east of Los Angeles, and we serve as the primary drinking source for 1.4 million people. If the contamination continues to spread to the central basin, which he has already described the boundaries of, it will contaminate the drinking water of over one-half of the entire Los Angeles County. So you can see, it's not a local issue. It is an issue that needs to be addressed with more than just local resources. It is a serious regional problem.
 Page 29       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    It has already been mentioned, 20 years ago contamination was discovered in the San Gabriel Basin, and the Federal Government became involved by declaring the area as a Superfund site. We recognize the protracted litigation traditionally associated with the Superfund process would only allow the problem in the San Gabriel Valley get worse, and to that end, the state legislature created the agency, the San Gabriel Basin Water Quality Authority to accelerate the development, financing, and implementation of groundwater treatment programs in the San Gabriel Valley.
    The water quality authority is a public agency made up of a board of directors of locally elected representatives. We're working together with concerned interests throughout the valley, including residents, cities, enviromental groups and water producers to develop public-private partnerships that will achieve an effective and timely cleanup of the basin. We know that resources are limited at the Federal, state and local levels and as such, we believe that if taxpayer or ratepayer dollars are used in the cleanup, it is much more effective to use it in actual cleanup and not in litigation;
    The recent discovery of perchlorate, which is a dangerous inorganic chemical used in the production of solid rocket fuel and explosives has also hightened our need to act quickly. Since that discovery, additional wells have been forced to close down and caused the acceleration and the spread of contamination. Much of this perchlorate and volatile organic compound contamination is a direct result of the defense related activities in the valley, and we're sitting here enjoying the freedom to speak on this issue as a direct result of winning World War II.
    A portion of the funds authorized by H.R. 910 will be used to fund additional research in the perchloride treatment method. The water quality authority is currently working together with the main San Gabriel Basin Water Master, and the Upper San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District to build the first treatment system in the Nation to remove perchlorate from drinking water. We hope this project and the research made possible by H.R. 910 will help solve problems for entities in California and in the other 33 states in the Nation with perchlorate contamination problems.
 Page 30       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    We anticipate that the local cost of cleaning up the San Gabriel groundwater basin will be close to $320 million. The vast majority of this money, at least 70 percent, will come from businesses in the valley. We're encouraged that after 15 years of negotiating, the Federal Government has finally reached an initial agreement with some local businesses to contribute $200 million towards the cleanup of one of the five identified areas of contamination. The state of California will also contribute to the cleanup effort. The first installment of the state contribution, 7 million, is included in the water bond recently approved by the California legislature for a place on the ballot in March, 2000.
    The funds authorized under the San Gabriel Basin Water Quality Initiative will complete the financing needed for successfull cleanup that meets Federal environmental standards while also accommodating local needs. Successful implementation of the San Gabriel Basin drinking water initiative will allow the basin to be fully utilized for water storage. The basin has a storage capacity of over eight million acres, and this is equivalent to a reservoir as large as Lake Shasta, and it's more water than is annual exported through the environmentally sensitive San Francisco Bay Delta. If we do not act now and additional wells are shut down in the San Gabriel Valley due to contamination, more water will have to be imported. That will increase the demand for water exports from the Bay Delta ecosystem and the federally adjudicated Colorado River.
    Importantly, H.R. 910 does not prescribe any particular method of treatment or type of project. These decisions will remain in the hands of local and Federal officials working in partnership to determine the best cleanup strategy. This legislation instead capitalized an environmental restoration fund that will be used to facilitate the timely implementation of projects and plans deemed to be most effective by the responsible authorities.
    The San Gabriel Basin Water Quality Authority strongly urges the committee to approve the Federal investment authorized by the San Gabriel Basin Water Initiative. I'm happy to answer any questions that you might have and again, we thank you so much for your time.
 Page 31       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you so much, Ms. Clark. I really appreciate the testimony. We heard you loudly and clearly. This is Congressman Sherry Boehlert of New York, the Chair of the subcommittee.
    Mr. MERRY. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I am Ron Merry, representing the San Gabriel Valley Water Association, a group of over 50 producers, including public agencies, water districts and investor owned utilities, all concerned over the water future of the San Gabriel Valley. I am also representing my own water utility of the city of Monterrey Park, which provides water to over 52,000 customers.
    I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and our San Gabriel Valley Congressional delegation for your interest in our efforts to restore and protect our drinking water supply. The water pumpers of the San Gabriel Valley produce water for public consumption for a population of over one million residents in Los Angeles County. The San Gabriel groundwater basin is perhaps one of the most valuable natural resources in California. The more than 250,000 acre feet of water produced annually enables the growth and prosperity of the Los Angeles economy. Ninety percent of the water demands are currently met locally with only ten percent imported from either the Colorado River or state water projects.
    In December of 1979, it was revealed that the San Gabriel Basin had become contaminated. It started with the discovery of solvents in Baldwin Park. Drinking water wells were ordered closed by the Department of Health Services in early 1980, starting a water supply crisis that continues today, growing more serious every year. Quickly, many new sites were identified throughout the basin, and in 1985, the San Gabriel Valley was declared the largest groundwater Superfund site in the United States.
    By 1997, regional treatment plants were being planned, but the discovery of perchlorate, which is a component of solid rocket fuel and NDMA, which is a component of liquid rocket fuel, in our groundwater completely derailed the cleanup process. The situation was made even worse by the fact that there was no known treatment to remove perchlorate from drinking water. The ultimate blow was the discovery that perchlorate moves very rapidly through the groundwater, which meant that water supplies all the way to Long Beach and the Pacific Ocean could eventually be threatened by contamination from the San Gabriel Valley.
 Page 32       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    In 1997, the main San Gabriel Basin Water Master committed $300,000 to the issue of perchlorate treatment. We invested those funds in a local-Federal-public-private partnership with the Calgon Corporation and others. Ultimately, this collaboration results in the creation of an ion exchange process which removes perchlorate from our water supply. We also discovered that NDMA can be removed using ultraviolet treatment. A facility is nearing completion at this time at La Puente Valley Country Water District well site, which will provide the first treatment technology to remove VOC's, perchlorate, and NDMA. This will enable us to finally begin the process of cleaning up our own groundwater while also protecting the water supplies of our neighbors to the south.
    It has been 20 years since the discovery of the pollution of our basin with no final resolution in sight. Rate payers and citizens at large have borne the majority of the burden for cleanup thus far. Millions of dollars have been spent on isolated cleanup projects and studies, with little on the massive cleanup effort that is necessary. The fact that many wells have been shut down because of the pollution has created a water supply crisis in the valley.
    One water district in the San Gabriel Valley has had to increase their water rates over 100 percent due to the loss of their water supply. Other providers have experienced rate increases, although not as drastic. As more wells go out of production due to contamination, the San Gabriel Valley will become increasingly dependent upon imported water supplies. In California, this is a serious problem.
    Southern California has a fixed quantity of water from the Colorado River, and there are limits being negotiated for water from northern California, referred to as the CalFed process. For every well lost in the San Gabriel Valley, a new water source must be found somewhere else.
    Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Merry, we're losing your audio. I don't know if you can hear us out there, but we've lost you. We can still see you, but now we've lost the audio. So, if you'll bear with us one moment while the technicians are frantically trying to make some adjustments here, I'll tell you it's our intent to bring you live from California, Mr. Ron Merry.
 Page 33       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. BOEHLERT. I'm told we are on now. Shall we try it again, Mr. Merry?
    Mr. MERRY. I'll try to pick up from where I think I left off.
    We need your help now more than ever. After 20 years, the citizens of San Gabriel need Federal funding to help pay the cost of eliminating the current water supply crisis, future water supplies, achieving cleanup at the well-head.
    If the water goes untreated at the well-head, more wells will become contaminated as the pollution spreads, causing a virtual domino effect whereby wells are contaminated, Los Angeles becomes more dependent upon imported water, contamination spreads further south to yet another basin, the central basin, and another million people risk losing their water supply, the economy of the region becomes clouded, inflated, and less attractive to growth opportunities.
    H.R. 910 is needed now more than ever. Superfund will proceed with or without meeting the needs of the water supply crisis. Superfund, by statute, can only compel containment and cleanup. It does not address water supply issues. Therefore, we look to you for assistance. Keep in mind, the contribution sought is merely a supplemental source of funds to meet the needs of the basin.
    Thank you for your time, your support, and continued concern for the needs of the people of the San Gabriel Valley.
    Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you very much, Mr. Merry. Thank you for your indulgence as we tried to overcome some of these technical difficulties.
    Now the chair is pleased to recognize Ms. Sara Flores for her testimony.
    Ms. Flores, welcome.
    Ms. FLORES. Thank you. Good morning.
    Honorable Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Sara Flores. I am an active community worker. I have contributed many, many years to service to the community in the San Gabriel Valley. I have lived and worked in the Los Angeles area all of my life, and more specifically in the San Gabriel Valley for the past 40-plus years.
 Page 34       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    I applaud Congressman Dreier, I applaud Congressman Martinez and Congressman Rogan and Congressman Miller, who are all sensitive to the San Gabriel Valley, and the bipartisan committee. I applaud them because they are crucial to our needs.
    The San Gabriel Valley and the neighboring central basin are areas which is also affected by the contamination of the San Gabriel Valley. It is going downward. We are in the north, and it is going downward, and it is going down there rapidly.
    When I was very little, my father was a air raid warden, and I was dressed up and ready to be sent out. During the World War, the citizens of San Gabriel Valley willingly sacrificed to help the war effort. We sacrificed by rationing food, water, supplies so that government contractors could build the resources needed for the war. We all were part of that sacrifice, the sacrifice to win the war, not only with our lives of our young men but also with our comfort in the community.
    Fifty years later, people in the San Gabriel Valley are faced with a critical problem. Every morning when my mother woke up she would drink a glass of water and she'd say water is life, and now, these 50 years later, the people in the San Gabriel Valley are faced with a critical problem.
    I repeat myself. It is a critical problem.
    Ironically, it is a problem that, in large part, is directly related to the war effort that we were all willing to work and fight for. That is the groundwater contamination.
    Since 1979, when the contamination was first discovered, drinking water wells were shut down, leaving the citizens of the valley with less water supply and a contaminated water source. In my own home town of Glendora, three very natural water wells were closed, making water more expensive for its users.
    In 1984, the EPA placed the entire valley on the national priority list, but because of the magnitude and the complexity of the problem, it is now 15 years later. In addition, our neighbors in the central basin are being threatened because of the movement of that contamination. Day by day, it is going down.
 Page 35       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    The cost to clean up our resources and regain our water supply is enormous, and we, the people who live and work in the valley are paying for it.
    Sadly, many of those who helped during the war effort built their lives here in the valley and have since retired on fixed incomes on one of them, and we are continuing our sacrifice.
    In addition, the cost to the people of the valley could multiply if the contamination is not addressed and move southward towards the central basin, which supplies water for an equally large population.
    The valley ground water contamination issue are further exasperated by the fact that, because of the Superfund designation and the magnitude of the widespread problem, the economy of the valley has been detrimentally affected.
    Businesses do not want to come here. In fact, many of them that have been here for years would like to leave but can't because of the cloud of water contamination, the issue of associated liabilities, and when I refer to businesses, I am not referring to a large, multimillion-dollar corporation. I am referring to the many small to medium businesses that set up shop in the valley during and after the war, have since tried to grow and prosper. It has been difficult. Many of them have lost their businesses.
    It was a decade ago that a fellow valley friend and resident that I met at a chamber function asked how he could help, what can he do to save his business? The downward spin of his business was not due to the economy but was an innocent victim of a contamination issue in the valley.
    He bought his property 10 years prior and had successfully built up a business. To his dismay, he later found out that his property sat above a plume of groundwater contamination.
    Although he did not cause the contamination and was owner of the property, he was now in the midst of the contamination turmoil and could not enhance or expand his business. Eventually, he went out of business. He's a nice man with a big family.
 Page 36       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    This is not an isolated incidence, unfortunately. It has been repeated throughout the valley time and time again.
    H.R. 910 provides 75 million towards the San Gabriel Valley groundwater problem, a problem that exceeds 300 million in estimated cleanup cost.
    It would help the citizens of the basin have and will continue to clean up its resources and regain its own water supplies, but we need your help, too, to facilitate that work. We sacrificed, we are continuing to sacrifice, and we need your support.
    I would like to leave you with four points.
    The cost to clean up the San Gabriel groundwater basin and restore its own water supplies is in the hundreds of millions. It is very expensive.
    Most of the contamination is directly attributed to contractors working for the Federal Government during the war, which was extremely necessary, understood.
    While some of the businesses are stepping forward and taking responsibility, the cleanup water supply crisis is far from being resolved.
    We, the people, the grassroots who are the major sufferers, as well as the businesses that go out of business, the people who live and work in the San Gabriel Valley—we need you. We need your help.
    We need to know that you are with us.
    While I am not speaking on behalf of government or any agency involved in the cleanup, I am speaking in behalf of what I believe was what my mother taught me, that water is life, and I feel that my testimony echoes the voices of the residents and the people who really care and are really attributed.
    I congratulate you.
    I would like to echo the testimonies of those people, the people like myself that have built lives in the San Gabriel Valley and consider it our home.
 Page 37       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    We are thinking of our grandchildren, the future, and we are urging the subcommittee to support the San Gabriel Basin water quality initiative.
    I thank you. I appreciate and feel honored that you have heard me today, and I know that, with God's help, you will make the right decision.
    Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you very much for some very excellent testimony, compelling testimony, and let me say that your neighbors—and there are millions of them in your region—owe a debt of gratitude to you for your outstanding testimony.
    Now let us go to the questions.
    First of all, let me just ask Ms. Clark—according to an EPA fact sheet on San Gabriel, EPA is counting on the Water Quality Authority to slow the spread of contamination into the central basin aquifer while EPA develops plans to address that contamination.
    Does this mean that cleanup efforts in the San Gabriel Valley are a public-private partnership, and what would H.R. 910 do to facilitate this partnership? And this question is directed to the chairperson of the San Gabriel Basin Water Quality Authority, Margaret Clark.
    Ms. Clark?
    Ms. CLARK. Yes. I appreciate the question.
    EPA is proposing treatment plants at the Whittier Narrows treatment plants.
    Our agency has implemented barrier projects that are going to and are at this moment pulling contamination out and preventing it from going over the Whittier Narrows, and this legislation will help provide funding for those projects so that we can prevent the spread from going into the central basin.
    Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you.
 Page 38       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Here is a question that I would ask of the entire panel.
    Is the Superfund statute suited to address the problems faced by the San Gabriel Valley?
    Ms. Clark or Mr. Miller, anyone who would care to address that?
    Ms. CLARK. Is the Superfund process—would you repeat the———
    Mr. BOEHLERT. Is the Superfund statute, the statute that we now have on the books—we are working to reform it, but is that suited to address the problems faced by the San Gabriel Valley, or do we need something more than the Superfund statute?
    Ms. CLARK. I personally believe that we need more credit for businesses to come forward at the beginning of the process.
    The problem that we are finding is that businesses need to have litigation start to trigger their insurance coming in.
    If they come forward with money for pre-treatment and accelerated cleanup before the process is complete, with all the various stages of the Superfund process, they need to have assurances that the money that they put up at the beginning is credited towards their fair share.
    If they do not have those assurances, then they say, well, I am just going to wait in the weeds and wait until this process comes out and maybe I will turn around and sue others that I think might have contributed, and this is the major problem that we have found out.
    As a city official, we have the problem with the operating industry's landfill in Monterey Park, where the city was sued for just merely putting municipal trash in, and what happened was the Superfund process took its course, but the major companies that were named as principle parties then turned around and sued the city, so that our city almost spent a million dollars in the process of defending ourselves, and that money could have been used for programs in the city, and yet it all went for lawyers.
 Page 39       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    So, we are trying to prevent that from happening here, where if we can get people coming forward ahead of time and in a consensus approach, then the money actually goes for cleanup instead of for litigation.
    Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you very much. That is just compelling testimony that we will use in other fora as we deal with the need to advance Superfund reform.
    As you have observed, too many people are spending too much time suing each other rather than getting on with the task at hand.
    Mr. Miller, did you have a comment?
    Mr. MILLER. I do, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
    I think the statute is certainly adequate, and the intent is great.
    The process of implementation is slow, and that mimics what Mrs. Clark was just mentioning, and in the meantime, the groundwater movement is moving towards the central basin, and so, while that slowness exists, the groundwater continues to move into contamination.
    Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you very much.
    Ms. Napolitano, do you have an observation?
    Ms. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Miller and maybe some of the members of the witness panel might be able to answer this, but I have concerns that the current outreach to the Industry Hills area and some of those areas may not be covered by either current legislation or by the effort to be able to clean up.
    There are some other areas that are contaminated, the aquifers in that area, that I have not heard anybody address whether or not they are being included in that effort to clean up the whole upper San Gabriel Valley.
    Would somebody answer that, please?
    Mr. MILLER. It would best be answered by somebody on the video panel.
 Page 40       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. BOEHLERT. Is there someone on the west coast that could respond to Congresswoman Napolitano's question?
    Ms. CLARK. Sorry. We are having difficulty hearing. It goes in and out like a cell phone.
    Mr. BOEHLERT. Well, that is what we were having at this end earlier. We have cleared it up coming from you. Let us try it again.
    Congresswoman Napolitano.
    Ms. NAPOLITANO. Thank you.
    Hi, Margaret. Hi to my friends back in L.A.
    The question is, does the current bill, Congressman Dreier's bill, or the Superfund—am I OK so far? —cover the aquifers under Industry Hills and Baldwin Park and Puente Valley?
    There are areas in my area that I have been told might not be covered for cleanup, and I need somebody to answer that.
    Ms. CLARK. It is my understanding that the actual allocation of the 75 million will go for the various aquifer units, and the actual determination of how many dollars for each has not been made, but I believe you are talking about the Puente Hills?
    Ms. NAPOLITANO. I am.
    Ms. CLARK. Yes. I believe that that will be part of the solution, the money will go partly for that.
    Ms. NAPOLITANO. Thank you. Because all of that area will affect the contamination into Whittier Narrows and down into the central basin.
    Ms. CLARK. Absolutely. That is the major emphasis that we are focusing on.
    Did I answer your question well enough?
 Page 41       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Ms. NAPOLITANO. Yes, I think you have answered. We will get into it later, make sure that we are covered, but I thank you for your testimony simply because you have been at it for a long time, you understand it, and you are so well versed that all I can do is echo what you are saying.
    Thank you.
    Mr. BOEHLERT. The chair is pleased to recognize the vice-chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Sherwood of Pennsylvania, for a question, and the camera is now adjusting so it will focus in a moment or two on Mr. Sherwood.
    We are not quite there yet. The camera is moving. Bear with us. There we are.
    Mr. Sherwood of Pennsylvania.
    Mr. SHERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
    Obviously a very serious problem that has the bipartisan support of the delegation from that part of the world, and what I need to ask is, tell me how your proposal is to have this remedied.
    In other words, I understand that we have the pollution, I understand it is spreading, I understand how important it is, but you are asking us to pass a bill which would fund money.
    Who has the ideas about how you correct this problem?
    Ms. CLARK. I understand there are 33 states that have similar contamination problems. The money also will go into the treatment that is actually happening here in the San Gabriel basin.
    Mr. SHERWOOD. If you pump the contaminated water out and treat it, what effect does that have on the aquifer?
    In other words, do we know, does it pull more contamination, or as we pull the contaminated water out and treat it and use it for something, does that slow the spread of the contaminated pool into the greater pool of the aquifer?
 Page 42       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Ms. CLARK. Absolutely. The more that we can pull out, the less we will be moving toward the Whittier Narrows, and as I said before, we are doing barrier projects at the Whittier Narrows so that it will not go over into the central basin.
    So, the more we can pull out and treat, the better the situation is.
    Does that answer your question?
    Mr. SHERWOOD. Yes, that is what I wanted to know.
    The water that you treat—are you able to treat it for drinking purity, or do you treat it and use it for other things?
    Ms. CLARK. Yes, it will be treated for drinking purposes.
    Mr. SHERWOOD. Thank you very much.
    Mr. MERRY. If I could add one thing, the water producers are installing as we speak, a treatment facility to treat well-head—one of the elements included in this bill is that there is a comprehensive cleanup plan to address the water supply issue.
    Part of the issue is that the water that is treated may not always go into a system used for water supply.
    It can, but it may not, and so, the many well-head systems around the basin that have already installed or will be installing facilities need to be addressed, and that is where this bill could augment those expenses.
    Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you very much, Mr. Merry.
    Mr. Sherwood, do you have any further questions?
    Mr. SHERWOOD. The other question I had was, are there plans not only to treat the water but to stop some of this pollution that is already in the ground from getting in the aquifer?
    Do we have a pool somewhere of these solvents or chemicals that are not yet in the water supply but they are in the ground? Is there things that need to be done in that regard so that they do not continue to leach into the water supply?
 Page 43       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. MERRY. Individual companies are doing the cleanup of their properties to try to avoid having it further leaching into the groundwater. Much of it is already there, but they do have the responsibility for cleaning up the ground so that no future leaching takes place.
    Mr. SHERWOOD. Those sites have been identified?
    Mr. MERRY. Yes, they have.
    Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Sherwood, thank you.
    I want to thank our panel in California for your indulgence. We are trying something new here, and sometimes it does not work exactly as we like, but when all was said and done, it worked quite well.
    So, I thank our panelists from the west coast. Mr. Miller, I thank you for joining us here in person.
    Now the committee will move on to the third and final panel of the day. We will hear from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
    Brigadier General Hans Van Winkle, Deputy Commander for Civil Works—General Van Winkle is accompanied by Mr. Robert Anderson, who is the Chief Counsel for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and Mr. Thomas Caver, Chief, Program Management Division of the Corps of Engineers.
    General and Mr. Anderson and Mr. Caver, the floor is yours. Your statement will appear in its entirety in the record.
    At this juncture, I would ask that you try to summarize your overall position in approximately five minutes. We will not be arbitrary, but we have to be mindful of schedule considerations.
    So, with that, we will proceed to the third and final panel of the day.
 Page 44       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    General Van Winkle, the microphone is yours.
TESTIMONY OF BRIGADIER GENERAL HANS A. VAN WINKLE, DEPUTY COMMANDER FOR CIVIL WORKS, U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, ACCOMPANIED BY ROBERT M. ANDERSEN, CHIEF COUNSEL, AND THOMAS F. CAVER, CHIEF, PROGRAM MANAGEMENT DIVISION, U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
    General VAN WINKLE. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I will, in fact, do that, try to summarize briefly my testimony, which has been made available to the committee.
    First of all, we are pleased to be here, to appear before the subcommittee to discuss the three items that you have asked us to address: firstly, the Corps' execution of the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action program, commonly known as FUSRAP; potential future Corps roles in hazardous and toxic radiological waste remediation; and then, finally, H.R. 910.
    I sincerely hope this discussion will answer your questions regarding these topics and establish an appreciation for how the FUSRAP program complements the Corps' other remediation efforts such as our Formerly Used Defense Sites program, commonly referred to as FUDS, and our reimbursable work in partnership with the Environmental Protection Agency.
    As I have described in my complete statement, our role in FUSRAP is defined by a number of elements: first, the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Acts for Fiscal Years 1998 and 1999. It is also defined by CERCLA, by RCRA, and by the current Memorandum of Understanding that we have between the Corps and the Department of Energy.
    The Corps is proud of what we have done to date under FUSRAP.
    We will also continue our support for defense programs that involve HTRW remediation, where we manage approximately $225 million annually in our FUDS work, $420 million annually in our installation restoration program work, and about $197 million in our remediation work associated with our base closure program.
    The Corps is also assisting other Federal agencies doing important cleanup and reuse of formerly contaminated areas.
 Page 45       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    This year, we have performed construction management for approximately $300 million of EPA's total $550 million Superfund construction program.
    We do see a growing need to develop comprehensive solutions to HTRW problems, and we anticipate that our HTRW remediation expertise will continue to be available for supporting other members of the Federal family at their request.
    We also appreciate the opportunity to provide the Army's views on H.R. 910, the San Gabriel Basin Water Quality Initiative.
    Over one million people call the San Gabriel Valley in California their home, and the groundwater provides for as much as 80 to 85 percent of their water needs, as you have just heard.
    In 1984, EPA identified four large areas of groundwater contamination in the San Gabriel Valley, and each area, of course, as you know, is a separate Superfund site.
    More recently, there have been major concerns regarding the impacts to the San Gabriel groundwater basin from contamination discovered in 1997 and the potential for its movement into the Central Basin groundwater supply, as we have just heard from local residents.
    H.R. 910 would authorize the Secretary of the Army to assist in implementing water quality projects, providing a balanced, long-term solution to the San Gabriel groundwater contamination problem.
    While we appreciate the serious nature of the problems of this groundwater contamination, water supply, and water reliability affecting the San Gabriel groundwater basin in California, the Army must opposed H.R. 910.
    While the Corps has certain responsibilities under the FUSRAP program and does provide technical assistance on HTRW matters to other Federal agencies at their request, we do not believe that the Corps is the appropriate Federal agency to implement the objectives of H.R. 910.
 Page 46       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    We also have serious concerns about the basic approach proposed in this bill. If there is a need to revise or expand upon existing Federal authorities, it would seem to be preferable to do so on a programmatic basis rather than approach the issue one basin at a time.
    In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, the Corps is bringing its competencies to an array of remediation activities, including the FUSRAP program. These efforts complement and reinforce each other and contribute to our nation's environmental security.
    We look forward to working with Congress, as appropriate, to continue these efforts.
    Thank you for the opportunity to appear today. I will be pleased to take your questions.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you very much, General, and a number of the questions will be submitted to you and the Corps in writing, and we would expect timely responses, and we understand the difficulty in assembling your message and getting it to us, but those written submissions will be welcomed as soon as possible.
    Let me just ask a couple of basics.
    If the Corps is not willing to provide the Federal assistance called for in H.R. 910, who is or who should be?
    General VAN WINKLE. Well, again, as I have stated, we believe that EPA should be the lead agency, due to the Superfund nature of this particular activity. They should be the prime lead agency.
    Mr. BOEHLERT. Well, would you suggest, then, that we tell our friends in California watching via video that we are talking about another 15, 20 years before we get their problem properly addressed? That has been the history with Superfund.
    General VAN WINKLE. I understand, Mr. Chairman. I do not think I am qualified to answer that question.
 Page 47       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. BOEHLERT. It is probably an unfair question to ask of you, I understand that.
    Let me ask, how can the intent of 312, Section 312 of WRDA–92 be fulfilled if Corps policy is to not use 312 for the removal or remediation of contaminated settlements classified as hazardous, toxic, or radioactive?
    General VAN WINKLE. Mr. Chairman, let me state in general that the 312 authority is a relatively new authority for us, and we have been moving slowly toward implementation of 312. In fact, we have not yet completed a project under 312.
    We have moved cautiously because, of course, we do not have sufficient funds to cover all the dredging needs that the nation's navigation interests require. So, we've been cautious in that regard.
    Let me simply say that we are looking at 312, how it could be used and modified to, in effect, accomplish some of these activities.
    Mr. BOEHLERT. All right.
    Here is one that our colleague, Mr. Petri, will want to follow up with some written questions on, but he specifically asked that this be posed to you.
    Are there any specific plans to revise Policy Guidance Letter 49 to reflect the changes made by WRDA–99 and the accompanying legislative history? If so, when?
    We want to follow this closely so that we can help to avoid any similar problems created by an unduly narrow interpretation.
    This is, as you know full well, an important issue for specific sites ranging from the east coast to the Great Lakes to the northwest. So, it is coast to coast.
    General VAN WINKLE. Yes. Let me say that we do have specific plans to revise that Policy Guidance Letter. I, at this point, cannot give you a specific date. Given your interest, we will, in fact, work with this committee to address your concerns.
 Page 48       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. BOEHLERT. All right.
    In those core districts that are actively involved in this FUSRAP work, what impact does the program have on the other important work that the Corps does?
    General VAN WINKLE. Let me say that as I have mentioned in my testimony and in my statement, we have a large program overall and specifically in hazardous, toxic and radioactive waste programs.
    We do not believe that the FUSRAP program has any detrimental effect on any of our other work. We believe we are a large agency that can, in fact, handle multiple missions.
    We believe that this work is synergistic with some of the other work we do, and therefore, we believe that the Corps of Engineers can handle this FUSRAP program without any negative impact on our civil works responsibilities.
    Mr. BOEHLERT. We have heard that the Corps has introduced more competition into the process by finding additional suitable disposal sites for contaminated material.
    Could you explain how you have done this and what would be the effect of some proposed legislation that would require you to use only sites licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission?
    General VAN WINKLE. Yes, I can.
    We have looked very closely at the issue. We have identified the contaminants, the remedial actions, and tried to pair those with the appropriate disposal activities and disposal sites.
    We believe that, by matching the requirements for disposal with the appropriate sites, that we can, in fact, achieve some cost savings, achieve remediation at a much greater speed and at lower cost to the American taxpayer. So, therefore, we have used a variety of sites using the process of competition.
 Page 49       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    We do believe that we do need that capability to make the decisions of where to move the material. We do believe we can do that in a timely fashion, and we believe we can save money in the process.
    Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you very much, General. As I indicated at the outset, we will have some submissions in writing.
    Mr. Sherwood.
    Mr. SHERWOOD. Thank you.
    I have a question of how this differs from your mission on FUSRAP.
    As you know, Dr. Westphal, the Assistant Secretary, on August 20th, talked about the role of the Corps in environment restoration, in that speech, to paraphrase, our nation's investment in the future should rely on the Corps' capability in hazardous waste management, toxic waste, waste-water management, solid waste disposal, and water supply to include groundwater protection and supply, and I sort of see where the bill they have given us, H.R. 910, that sort of gives you the authority that Dr. Westphal described as a role. How does this differ—I mean it seems to me you are reluctant to take on this additional mission, and I understand there could be many reasons for that.
    General VAN WINKLE. Yes, sir.
    Mr. SHERWOOD. Isn't this very similar to your role in FUSRAP?
    General VAN WINKLE. Well, I think the answer is yes and no.
    Yes, in terms of it being an area that Dr. Westphal identified. No, in the sense that, in this specific issue, because of EPA's activities under Superfund in this specific area, we take the position that EPA should take the lead.
    Now, it certainly would be possible for us to work with the EPA—for example, we do that at our Superfund sites, where our expertise is used by EPA directly.
    So, I believe that explains what seems to be a difference in his statement and our position on this bill.
 Page 50       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. SHERWOOD. Am I correct in paraphrasing your comment, then, as you would be glad to be a subcontractor to EPA on this problem but you would rather not take the lead?
    General VAN WINKLE. Well, I am not sure if I like the term ''subcontractor,'' but I would say that, yes, we would———
    Mr. SHERWOOD. You phrase it for me, then.
    General VAN WINKLE. Well, we would—in the cases—the current cases of Superfund support, we acted as the executing agency for EPA in disposal activities, for example. But I think your characterization is exactly correct.
    Mr. SHERWOOD. Why do you think the bill that the folks—the congressmen and women from the area in question have proposed puts you in the lead?
    General VAN WINKLE. Well, in our reading of the bill, it would give us the requirement to administer with the local agencies this particular program.
    Mr. SHERWOOD. It seems to me I have come to this problem very late. I am trying to take a look at it with limited information and no background, but it seems to me that there is some faith that the Corps can get it done, and they need it done.
    General VAN WINKLE. Yes, sir, we understand that.
    Mr. SHERWOOD. They are appealing to us to get it done.
    General VAN WINKLE. Yes, sir, and we acknowledge that, and my statement is that we are willing to help, but we believe that EPA should remain the lead agency.
    Mr. SHERWOOD. Thank you very much.
    Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Sherwood's questions relate to Section G of the legislation, which stresses nothing in this act shall be construed to affect other Federal or state authorities that are being used or may be used to facilitate the cleanup and protection of the San Gabriel groundwater basin.
 Page 51       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    We are just anxious to solve the problem, to address it, and we want to do it in a responsible way. So, we look forward to working cooperatively with you and with any other representatives of this great Federal Government that recognizes we have a responsibility to be partners to help solve the problem, and it does not do any of us any good if we continue to point to the other guy and say, well, we would rather have you take the lead.
    We will try to determine in a responsible way who should take the lead, but what we should be committed to is the proposition that we have a serious problem presented to us and we have got to come up with a way to address in a timely manner the problem, and some of the suggestions do not offer the timeliness that I think the people of that region have every right to expect.
    Congresswoman Napolitano.
    Ms. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    General Van Winkle, I listened to you and I cannot believe my ears, because we really counted on the expertise that the Army Corps has and their ability to work with the community the way you have always worked, and somehow I am missing the point.
    If we are faced with a tremendous challenge in the area and you are able to help, why can't the Corps take on an additional role?
    General VAN WINKLE. Well, I thank you for your vote of confidence and certainly say we can; and certainly, if we are directed to do so by this bill or any other bills that is worked out, we would be very pleased to apply our competencies to your problem.
    Ms. NAPOLITANO. Well, I guess maybe my question would be how much are you willing to help?
    General VAN WINKLE. As much as we can within our competencies.
    Ms. NAPOLITANO. As much as you can, meaning you will be able to take some of the larger role, not necessarily the leading role, but you have heard the testimony, you have heard the Chairman state that it has been 20 years already wasted, and we have come to this conclusion, is we need to move, and if we leave it up to EPA, I am sorry, but it is not going to happen for another decade, and my concern is that we move cooperatively, and so, I am begging the agency to find a way.
 Page 52       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    General VAN WINKLE. Yes, ma'am, I understand, and we will certainly work within that guidance.
    Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you very much, and General, I want to welcome you to your new and important responsibilities and tell you I look forward to working cooperatively with you.
    We are not the enemy up here, and we try to be facilitators, and we think that we have a partnership, and I am very proud of the partnership we have enjoyed with the Corps over the years, and we just want to make your life easier as we march forward together to fulfill our mandate.
    Thank you very much to you and your team. Questions will follow. We would appreciate timely responses.
    Thanks to those who have joined us from the west coast for their participation.
    Thanks to all who have endured this experiment. I hope we have learned something from it and we can improve upon it for the next time.
    This hearing is now adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 2:51 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

    [insert here]