[Senate Hearing 114-313]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 114-313
EXAMINING EPA'S UNACCEPTABLE RESPONSE TO INDIAN TRIBES
=======================================================================
FIELD HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
APRIL 22, 2016
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Indian Affairs
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
20-899 PDF WASHINGTON : 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
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 INDIAN AFFAIRS
JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming, Chairman
JON TESTER, Montana, Vice Chairman
JOHN McCAIN, Arizona MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska TOM UDALL, New Mexico
JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota AL FRANKEN, Minnesota
JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii
STEVE DAINES, Montana HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota
MIKE CRAPO, Idaho
JERRY MORAN, Kansas
T. Michael Andrews, Majority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Anthony Walters, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Field hearing held on April 22, 2016............................. 1
Statement of Senator Barrasso.................................... 1
Statement of Senator McCain...................................... 2
Witnesses
Bates, Hon. Lorenzo, Speaker, Navajo Nation Council.............. 26
Prepared statement........................................... 28
Begaye, Hon. Russell, President, Navajo Nation................... 13
Prepared statement........................................... 14
Honanie, Hon. Herman G., Chairman, Hopi Tribe.................... 18
Prepared statement........................................... 20
Kirkpatrick, Hon. Ann, U.S. Representative from Arizona.......... 4
Lantz, R, Clark, Ph.D. Professor and Associate Head, Cellular and
Molecular Medicine, University of Arizona...................... 35
Prepared statement........................................... 37
Stanislaus, Hon. Mathy, Assistant Administrator, Office of Land
and Emergency Management, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 6
Prepared statement........................................... 9
Appendix
Response to written questions submitted by Hon. Steve Daines to
Hon. Mathy Stanislaus.......................................... 61
EXAMINING EPA'S UNACCEPTABLE RESPONSE TO INDIAN TRIBES
----------
FRIDAY, APRIL 22, 2016
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Indian Affairs,
Phoenix, AZ.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:30 a.m. in the
City of Phoenix, Council Chambers, Hon. John Barrasso, Chairman
of the Committee, presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO,
U.S. SENATOR FROM WYOMING
The Chairman. I call this hearing to order. Good morning,
I'm John Barrasso, a U.S. Senator from Wyoming and Chairman of
the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs.
Today is Earth Day, a day generally recognized for
reflecting on environmental protection. Instead, we're called
upon to exam the environmental disaster caused by the
Environmental Protection Agency. This hearing will focus on the
EPA'S unacceptable response to Indian tribes.
Eight months ago, August 5th, 2015, one of the largest
environmental catastrophes this region has seen occurred in the
Rocky Mountains. This event, which affected thousands in three
states, and at least two Indian tribes, occurred under the
direction and supervision of the EPA. It's called the Gold King
Mine blowout.
In this disaster, over 3 million gallons of toxic
wastewater was unleashed into Cement Creek, a tributary of the
Animus River, and then flowed downstream to the San Juan River,
affecting thousands of lives on the Navajo Nation.
Pictures of that event are on the easels in front of us
today. Words simply cannot describe the devastation that
ensued.
In September of last year, the Committee on Indian Affairs
and the Senate held a hearing on this disaster, and heard
testimony from the Navajo Nation and the Southern Ute Indian
tribes.
The president of the Navajo Nation, Russell Begaye, told
our Committee that for the Navajo Nation and the people,
``Water is sacred and the river is life for all of us.''
Unfortunately, for the Navajos and the other surrounding
communities--and this is a bottle of water from there--this is
what life became for thousands last summer.
I can see why President Begaye and the other members of the
Navajo Nation are afraid to use the river. We know that the EPA
caused the spill more than eight months ago, because they made
critical mistakes and they failed to take basic precautions.
In a few weeks, spring runoffs will begin in the Rocky
Mountains. The spring runoff is causing another round of fear
among residents along the banks of the Animus River and the San
Juan River, according to a recent study, and a report by the
Wall Street Journal article.
On April 8th an article states, ``The EPA hasn't returned
to conduct more tests and now others are worried that lead and
other toxic materials that settled in the river will be stirred
up and contaminate the water again as the Animus swells with
spring snow melt from the Rocky Mountains.''
Furthermore, the article goes on to say, ``The sludge
turned the Animus mustered yellow for days''--as the pictures
show--``and Federal officials found high levels of toxicity
from lead and arsenic.''
EPA officials eventually cleared the water for drinking and
recreation, but warned that chemicals in the riverbed could be
stirred up again and that a full cleanup could take years.
The carelessness of the EPA is disturbing, to say the
least. It is almost as careless, or to put it more bluntly,
disrespectful of the people of the West for the EPA not to send
a single witness here when we announced this hearing almost a
month ago.
It is a sad day when a subpoena must be issued from the
Committee to compel an administration witness to appear.
Not since the hearings of Jack Abramoff has this Committee
needed to compel a witness to come forward. It's shameful.
You know it, and Indian country knows it. Let me be clear,
the Committee is not finished with the EPA spill. I intend to
have further hearings as needed, and I will do whatever it
takes for Indian communities to get answers. This isn't the
end.
Today's hearing will highlight how the EPA's actions
continue to impact tribal communities. This includes the
inadequate handling of the Gold King Mine disaster, and the
agency's response to cleaning up Cold War-era uranium mines
across the Navajo and the Hopi reservations.
I think that the Navajo Nation and other tribes in the West
are right to not trust the EPA, which I understand people along
the river are actually calling the environmental polluting
agency and the environmental poisoning agency.
Before we can receive testimony from our witnesses, I want
to thank Senator John McCain. I want to thank him for
requesting this hearing on behalf of the Indian tribes, and for
his resolute leadership on this matter.
Senator McCain.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN McCAIN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM ARIZONA
Senator McCain. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I appreciate
you taking the time from your very busy schedule as chairman of
the Indian Affairs Committee and the United States Senate to be
here and hold this hearing today.
And from your statement and comment, I know how much you
are concerned about this issue, and how important it is, not
only to our Committee but to the Navajo and Hopi people and all
members of Congress.
So I appreciate you being here. I appreciate the Honorable
Ann Kirkpatrick being here, who represents in her congressional
district the Navajo and Hopi Nations. And we welcome you,
Congresswoman Kirkpatrick.
As the title of today's hearing indicates, the EPA's failed
on many occasions to meet its obligations to Native American
tribes. And I'd like to, again, express my dismay, Mr.
Chairman, that the EPA had first refused to send a witness.
I don't like to compare things. But suppose there had been
a request for an EPA representative in Flint, Michigan at a
hearing and the EPA had refused. I think you would have seen an
uproar of enormous proportions.
And so, unfortunately, in a bipartisan basis, both
Democrats and Republicans on the Committee agreed that we had
to subpoena an EPA witness to be here today.
That is indicative of a lot of things, including the
priority that the EPA has given this disaster. And it is a
disaster.
Today we will focus on their failing government-to-
government relations with Indian country. And, obviously, the
Gold King Mine disaster is the catalyst for all this.
There's no question as to the EPA's culpability and
negligence in this disaster. EPA employees were on site,
directing work at the mine. They knew the potential for a
catastrophe blowout, for a catastrophic blowout.
Congressional and Federal investigations have since
revealed that the EPA did not conduct adequate water pressure
tests behind the mine edit, nor did it adequately consult with
partnering Federal agencies before excavating around the mine's
containment plug.
And as you mention, Mr. Chairman, as a result, more than
400 tons of pollutant, including lead, arsenic, and other
hazardous metals entered the San Juan River.
During the peak of the spill, water quality tests
registered arsenic levels at 300 times above normal lead
levels. 300 times above arsenic levels. And 3,500 times above
normal lead levels.
This forced the closure of tribal immigration systems,
which has devastated agricultural communities in and around
Farmington. An estimated 1,500 Navajo farmers, largely
subsistence farmers, have gone without water for their crops
and livestock. Roughly 30,000 acres of farmland have been
essentially fallowed.
An economic analysis by Douglas Holtz-Eakin, noted
economist and former chief of the non-partisan Congressional
Budget Office told the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs last
year that the Navajo Nation lost an estimated $892,000 in
agricultural production alone within the first few weeks.
As information about the devastation continues to mount in
months and years to come, the total impact economically could
reach upwards of $335 million.
And the economic impact, Mr. Chairman, alone doesn't
account for the human tragedy. In the days following the spill,
Navajo officials reported several suicides believed to be
connected to the disaster.
Today, more than eight months after the spill, questions
linger about the presence of toxic chem icals in the river.
Sediment, as you pointed out, which experts warn can resurface
during periods of heavy rainfall or snow melt.
This isn't the Committee's first hearing on the Gold King
Mine disaster, as you mention. No criminal charges have been
referred to the Justice Department. And the Navajo has received
only $156,000 from the EPA in, quote, reimbursements.
I want to welcome our witnesses here today. Particularly,
Navajo Nation President Russell Begaye and Navajo Counsel
Speaker LoRenzo Bates who know intimately well the financial
and emotional toll this disaster has had on the Navajo people.
We're also joined by Hopi Tribal Chairman Herman Honanie
whose people have suffered under EPA's apparent disregard for
the Tribe's economic and environmental priorities.
I want to point out, again, Mr. Chairman, to date the EPA
has spent $80 million in Flint, Michigan, while spending
$157,000 here in the response to this disaster for tribes to
deal with this scandal. Native people here in Arizona deserve
better answers. What is clear now is that not enough has been
done.
And, finally, in closing, after many months and many
hundreds of hours involved in this issue, I've come to the
conclusion that the Department of Justice criminal
investigation is merited and must now occur.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Well, thank you very much, Senator McCain. We
have several witnesses before us today. I'd like to remind the
witnesses that your full written statement will be made part of
the official hearing record, so I ask that you please try to
keep your statements to five minutes so that we may have time
for questions. I look forward to hearing from our first
panelist, which is the Honorable Ann Kirkpatrick. Welcome and
please proceed.
STATEMENT OF HON. ANN KIRKPATRICK,
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM ARIZONA
Ms. Kirkpatrick. Thank you, Chairman Barrasso and Senator
McCain, for this opportunity to testify today before the
Committee on an issue of critical importance to the Tribes in
my congressional district, specifically, the Navajo Nation and
the Hopi Tribe, which I represent.
Chairman Honanie, President Begaye, Speaker Bates. It is an
honor to testify with each of you today.
The Gold King Mine spill in August of 2015 sounded many
alarms. Not only as an environmental and economic disaster, but
also as a failure by the EPA on multiple fronts: a failure to
respond swiftly and transparently, a failure to immediately
engage tribal governments, and a failure to mitigate the short-
and long-term burdens on our tribes from this agency-created
disaster.
These failures began on August 5th, 2015, when
approximately 3 million gallons of contaminated water were
discharged from the Gold King Mine into a Colorado tributary of
the Animus River while EPA contractors were conducting
investigation of the mine.
By August 8th, the toxic water had spilled into the San
Juan River, an important water source for Arizona's tribal
communities, agriculture, recreation, and small businesses.
Despite the potential implications of the spill, state and
tribal leaders were not immediately notified. The EPA
implemented an emergency response within the agency, but it
took over 24 hours for the agency to send out any official
notice of the incident.
The EPA first contacted state and local officials, with
tribes, unfortunately, being the last to know. The delay in
notifying impacted communities and the leaders responsible for
responding to such a disaster is inexcusable.
For tribal communities downstream of the spill, those were
precious hours wasted. Water is life for these communities. And
the EPA failed to take appropriate action to respond to the
risks to their water supply.
The Navajo Nation has suffered substantial losses as a
result of this spill. Loss of crops and livestock, as well as
the immense cost of water sampling and monitoring to protect
the public health. All of these have been a challenge, to say
the least.
In the days after the spill, I was in northern Arizona to
meet with EPA officials and local leaders in communities where
the jobs and livelihoods of many Navajo families were at
serious risk.
The potential for devastating economic impact was looming.
On August 8th, the Navajo Nation declared a state of emergency
in response to the health risks posed by the contaminated water
traveling toward their essential water sources.
In light of the Navajo Nation's limited resources to
address such a severe and evolving hazard, the Tribe appealed
to FEMA for assistance, but they were denied.
Our tribes are sovereign nations. And as someone who was
born and raised on tribal land, I have a deep understanding and
respect for what that means.
The Federal Government has historic government-to-
government obligations to our tribes and responsibilities to
protect tribal land and natural resources.
And until the EPA is held responsible for the cleanup of
this contamination, as well as the long-term mitigation of the
harm caused by this disaster, that obligation remains unmet.
On August 11th, 2015, Administrator Gina McCarthy stated
that the EPA would take full responsibility for the spill.
However, as we will hear today, the Navajo Nation as a list of
needs that have not been met. And the costs that the Nation
incurred responding to this EPA-caused disaster have not been
made right.
My colleagues and I in the House of Representatives are
asking for exactly that. I have co-sponsored H.R.602, the Gold
King Mine Spill Recovery Act of 2015, which would provide
compensation to farmers and others who sustained losses related
to the Gold King Mine spill.
Congress needs to pass this legislation immediately.
Arizona and the Navajo Nation have historically challenging
relationships with the EPA, in my view.
The agency often demonstrates a lack of understanding of
our western issues, especially in regards to land, energy, and
natural resources.
Government-to-government communication and cooperation are
key to strong relationships. EPA's lack of transparency on
information regarding the Gold King Mine spill is only adding
to the feeling of distrust in a community that is already
distrustful because of the Agency's troubling response to a
disaster it caused.
And I hope we will hear today about the EPA's efforts to
better meet the needs of Arizona's tribal communities now and
in the future. Our tribes deserve nothing less.
Thank you for hearing my testimony today. And I look
forward to answering any questions you may have.
The Chairman. Thank you very much for your testimony. I
appreciate you being here to share your thoughts with us.
Ms. Kirkpatrick. Thank you.
The Chairman. We are going to move to the second panel--we
have five members of the panel. And if I could ask you to come
to the table, our first witness will be assistant administrator
of the EPA, Mathy Stanislaus.
We will also hear from the Honorable Russell Begaye,
President of the Navajo Nation Council; the Honorable Herman
Honanie, who is the Chairman of the Hopi Tribe; the Honorable
LoRenzo Bates, who is the Speaker of the Navajo Nation; and
Clark Lantz, Dr. Clark Lantz, who is Professor and Associate
Head of Cellular/Molecular Medicine at the University of
Arizona.
Thank each of you for being here. As I said, your full
statements will be made part of the official record of today's
hearing. We ask that you try to keep your comments to within
five minutes so it will leave time for questioning.
And with that, I welcome you and ask Assistant
Administrator of the EPA Stanislaus to proceed.
STATEMENT OF HON. MATHY STANISLAUS, ASSISTANT
ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF LAND AND EMERGENCY
MANAGEMENT, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
Mr. Stanislaus. Good morning, Chairman Barrasso and Senator
McCain. I'm Mathy Stanislaus, Assistant Administrator for the
U.S. EPA Office of Land and Emergency Management that is
responsible for EPA's cleanup and emergency program. Thank you
for the opportunity to appear here today.
I'm also accompanied by EPA Regional Administrator Jared
Blumenfeld, who is responsible for Arizona, among other states.
So he's going to join me in terms of specific questions.
The U.S. EPA has a long history working closely with Indian
tribes, and is one of the first Federal agencies with the
formal policy specifying how it would interact with tribal
governments and consider tribal interests in carrying out its
programs to protect public health and the environment.
The EPA policy for the administration of environmental
programs on Indian reservations signed in 1984, remains the
cornerstone of EPA's Indian program.
The EPA continues to enhance our effort to work with tribes
based on constitutional authorities, treaties, laws, executive
orders, and a long history of Supreme Court rulings.
We are also strengthening our cross-cultural understanding
with tribes, recognizing that tribes have cultural,
jurisdictional and legal features that must be considered when
coordinating and implementing environmental programs in Indian
country.
EPA issues its first-ever Tribal Treaty Rights Guidance,
issued February of this year. The guidance will further
strengthen EPA's close partnership with tribal communities by
initiating meaningful discussions with tribes about their
partnership with tribal communities be initiating meaningful
discussions with tribes about their treaty rights during
consultation.
The Guidance will also support the Agency's continued
efforts to learn from and expand our collaborations with tribes
as we work to achieve our shared mission of protecting human
health and the environment.
My office has supported the development of tribal cleanup
and response programs through funds through federally
recognized tribes who are Superfund authority. More than a
hundred tribes have received funding over the years.
In fiscal year 2015, more than $12.7 million was allocated
to 106 tribes for their tribal response programs.
These programs have resulted in the Tribes cleaning up over
a thousand tribal properties, and resulted in about 3,600 acres
being made available and being protected.
Specifically, with the EPA Region 9, more than $15 million
was awarded last year to invest in Arizona tribes, including
the Navajo Nation, for environmental programs, water, and
wastewater infrastructure development, community education and
capacity building.
Since 1984, the EPA has provided more than $93 million to
support the Navajo Nation's leadership in establishing their
own environmental programs.
In addition, the EPA Region 9, partnered with five other
Federal agencies, and in consultation with the Navajo Nation
developed and implemented a five-year plan in 2008 to address
the human health and environmental risks posed by radiological
contamination associated with the abandoned uranium mining
sites on Navajo Nation lands.
The EPA and its Federal partners have expended more than
$100 million to reduce the highest risks to Navajo people by
remediating contaminated homes, providing drinking water, and
conducting urgent cleanup actions.
Much more work remains. Under the leadership of Regional
Administrator Blumenfeld working with the same Federal
agencies, we issued a second five-year plan to continue our
work with respect to uranium-contaminated mines.
In January of this year, I met with Navajo President
Russell Begaye to discuss addressing the historic problems of
abandoned mines that has degraded water quality over the
decades.
Gold King Mine, and the three other adjacent mines alone,
emit 330 million gallons of contaminated wastewater into Cement
Creek and Animus River every year.
President Begaye specifically requested a long-term
restoration of the river to occur by addressing the emissions
of wastewaters from these long abandoned mines in the West
through the Superfund national listing process.
EPA conducted extensive outreach with the Navajo, with
tribes and communities. And just recently we had proposed the
listing of a number of mines to restore a long-term restoration
of the river.
This consists of 48 mines, including the Gold King Mine,
which collectively discharge 5.5 million gallons a day, every
day, and continues to this day. A public comment period
continues at this moment.
EPA has been working with the state of Colorado to prevent
contaminated abandoned mine discharges that plague the water
resources and the Animus River watershed for decades. As part
of this effort, an accidental release did occur of about 300
million gallons from the Gold King Mine last year.
After the accidental release, EPA closely coordinated with
our Federal partners, with officials in Colorado, New Mexico,
Utah, the Southern Ute, Ute Mountain tribes and Navajo Nation
who all provided personnel for the unified command center or
incident command. I also met with the inter-tribal council of
Arizona to address spill response during that event.
One of the initial lessons learned from the aftermath of
the incident is that EPA could do a better job in communicating
and working with our state and tribal partners. To support
enhanced notification, I issued a memo to all the regions to
make sure there is expanded notification.
And it should be noted that all notifications did occur
before the plume arrived at any of the locations so that the
tribes and communities can take action.
To date, the EPA has expended $22 million in response
efforts. Including $1.1 million to provide more than 1 million
gallons of agricultural and livestock water. And nearly 9,000
bales of hay for the Navajo communities along the San Juan
River.
The EPA has also provided more than 150,000 reimbursement
to Navajo Nation for their response course, and are working to
respond to more of their requests with the Navajo Nation.
The agency has allocated 465,000 to the Navajo Nation to
monitor water quality conditions in this river. This is in
addition to the more than $1 million of Clean Water Act based
funding provided to the Navajo Nation in October 2015 to
provide water quality monitoring support and water quality
compliance and fund sediment remediation projects.
During our ongoing engagement with tribes, states, and
local communities, EPA has received a request for real-time
water monitoring, particularly related to the expected increase
in spring water rates.
EPA is committed to enable the states and tribes to install
real-time monitoring in the upper Animus River so that they can
take actions based on their monitoring results.
EPA's core mission is protecting human health and the
environment. We will continue our longstanding commitment to
consult with tribes, respectful of their sovereignty to protect
public health and the environment.
We will continue to work with and support the tribes,
states, and local communities throughout the four corners
region who are relying on the Animus and San Juan rivers for
their drinking water, irrigation water, and recreation.
We know how important rivers are to them. And we're
committed to work in collaboration to restore the health
through this long-term strategy.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Stanislaus follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Mathy Stanislaus, Assistant Administrator,
Office of Land and Emergency Management, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
Good morning Chairman Barrasso and Members of the Committee. I am
Mathy Stanislaus, Assistant Administrator for the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA) Office of Land and Emergency Management
(OLEM) that is responsible for EPA's cleanup and emergency response
program. I am joined today by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator
for EPA Region 9, which serves Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada,
Pacific Islands, as well as 148 Tribal Nations. Thank you for the
opportunity to appear today to discuss the EPA's work with and
engagement with Indian tribes.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has a long history of
working closely with Indian tribes and was one of the first federal
agencies with a formal policy specifying how it would interact with
tribal governments and consider tribal interests in carrying out its
programs to protect human health and the environment. The EPA Policy
for the Administration of Environmental Programs on Indian
Reservations, signed in 1984, remains the cornerstone for EPA's Indian
program.
The EPA's work with tribes is facilitated through the National
Tribal Caucus (NTC), a national body of high-level tribal advisors.
Members are selected on a regional basis by each Regional Tribal
Operations Committee (RTOC) or its equivalent, and represent all tribes
within their regions. Their primary focus is to identify and address
tribal environmental issues that are national in scope, cross-agency or
cross-media in nature, or that may be emerging or time-critical.
Through consultation, collaboration, and shared accountability, the
EPA continues to strengthen its partnerships with tribes to help ensure
the success of the national environmental program. The EPA focuses on
increasing tribal capacity to establish and implement environmental
programs while ensuring that our national programs are as effective in
Indian country as they are throughout the rest of the Nation.
Under this policy, the EPA is also enhancing our effort to work
with tribes based upon constitutional authorities, treaties, laws,
executive orders and a long history of Supreme Court rulings. We are
also strengthening our cross-cultural understanding with tribes,
recognizing that tribes have cultural, jurisdictional and legal
features that must be considered when coordinating and implementing
environmental programs in Indian country.
After engagement with our tribal partners and reviewing feedback
received at the 2014 White House Tribal Nations Conference, the EPA
undertook an effort to further preserve the resources protected under
treaties. The EPA issued a memo to agency offices stressing the
importance of honoring tribal rights and the resources protected by
treaties and directed the development of agency-wide guidance. Where
the EPA has the discretion and opportunity to do so, EPA programs
should be implemented to enhance protection of tribal treaty rights and
treaty-covered resources to honor our trust relationship with tribes.
This effort produced EPA's first-ever Tribal Treaty Rights
Guidance, issued in February of this year. The Guidance will further
strengthen EPA's close partnership with the tribal community by
initiating meaningful discussions with tribes about their treaty rights
during Consultation. The Guidance will help support the agency's
continued efforts to learn from and expand our collaborations with
tribes as we work to achieve our shared mission of protecting human
health and the environment.
OLEM Tribal Activities
EPA's Office of Land and Emergency Management and regional offices
work in partnership with tribes as co-regulators to address solid and
hazardous waste, emergency response actions, as well as land
restoration and clean up issues in Indian country. The EPA seeks to
build tribal capacity in assuming program management responsibilities
for the cleanup and reuse of land, as well as to forge strong
partnerships with tribes and engage tribes in meaningful dialogue and
information sharing in a timely manner.
EPA headquarters offices are responsible for providing national
policy direction and support for OLEM's tribal work. Working in
collaboration with EPA's regional offices, the EPA works with tribes to
enhance capacity and participation in the environmental decision-making
process. Through a wide array of program activities, OLEM works with
interested tribal government to help ensure that land is cleaned up and
restored.
To facilitate our continued work with tribes, OLEM, in cooperation
with EPA's Office of Water, awarded a new five-year cooperative
agreement in 2014 totaling $2.9 million to the Institute for Tribal
Environmental Professionals (ITEP) located at Northern Arizona
University, to support the Tribal Waste and Response Assistance Program
(TWRAP). Building off the successful work that started through a 2008
award, ITEP continues to strengthen and expand its training, technical
assistance, and resources to Native American tribes and Alaska Native
Villages (NA/ANV) for subjects related to solid and hazardous waste,
resource conservation, brownfields, Superfund, underground storage
tanks, emergency response, and water infrastructure. The program
supports a national Steering Committee of tribal professionals, the
tribal Superfund Working Groups, as well as the Tribal Lands and
Environment Forum, a key training event for tribal environmental
professionals. This training, technical assistance and targeted
outreach provides an opportunity to address the many barriers and
challenges tribes experience when it comes to restoring and preserving
our land.
We have been helping to ensure that tribal needs and priorities are
addressed in EPA's budget and planning documents, by supporting the
work of the Tribal Waste and Response Assistance Program Steering
Committee that issued their first ever Priorities Document to OLEM and
our senior management. This document provided key insights for the
programs to consider in developing future areas to prioritize and fund.
To address contaminated properties, OLEM has supported the
development of tribal response programs. The Brownfields State and
Tribal Response Program provides cooperative agreement funds to states
and federally recognized tribes under Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA or Superfund) 128(a)
authorities. More than 100 tribes have received 128(a) funding over the
years. In Fiscal Year 2015, more than $12.7 million dollars was
allocated to 106 tribes for their tribal response programs. These
programs have 1,034 tribal properties enrolled and have resulted in the
cleanup of 388 properties, totaling 3,654 acres. In addition, in FY
2015, the EPA provided $800,000 of CERCLA 104(k) funding that supported
assessment, job training, and revolving loan fund grants. Together,
these two programs have supported the creation of 191 jobs,
approximately $20 million additional funds leveraged, and 9 property
clean ups and 48 site assessments completed in Indian country.
OLEM also supported efforts to increase capacity and help ensure
tribes are trained on how to inspect, develop, and implement hazardous
waste and hazardous waste programs, which includes the collection and
disposal of household hazardous waste. The EPA provided funding to
tribes through the Hazardous Waste Management Grant Program. Further,
to help ensure tribal communities have a better understanding of the
technical issues related to a Superfund cleanup and key considerations
for a site's future use, in FY 2015, the EPA provided technical
assistance to tribes by funding 32 cooperative agreements with 12
different tribes, totaling approximately $8.6 million.
In addition, in 2008, the EPA partnered with the Bureau of Indian
Affairs, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Department of Energy,
the Indian Health Service, and the Agency for Toxic Substances and
Disease Registry, and in consultation with the Navajo Nation, developed
and implemented a Five-Year Plan to address human health and
environmental risks posed by radiological contamination associated with
abandoned uranium mining sites on the Navajo Nation. The EPA and its
federal partners expended more than $100 million to reduce the highest
risks to the Navajo people by remediating 47 contaminated homes,
providing drinking water to more than 3,000 homes, and conducting
urgent cleanup actions at 9 mine sites. Much work remains and the same
federal agencies collaborated to issue a second Five-Year Plan in 2014.
The second Five-Year Plan builds upon the work of the first plan to
address the most significant risks to human health and the environment.
Over the next five years, the Navajo Nation plans to assess and scan
100 homes per year, with the EPA planning to conduct remediation at up
to ten homes per year depending on the number of homes found to pose a
health risk.
EPA's Longstanding Relationship with the Navajo Nation
EPA's Pacific Southwest Office (Region 9) serves the Navajo Nation
and 147 other federally recognized tribes within Arizona, California,
and Nevada, on whose lands we retain responsibilities for directly
implementing federal environmental statutes. Last year, more than $15
million was awarded to invest in Arizona tribes, including the Navajo
Nation, for environmental programs, water and wastewater infrastructure
development, community education and capacity building. These grants
will help support the significant accomplishments that have been
achieved through the collaborative efforts of the tribes in Arizona,
the Navajo Nation, and the federal government. Since 1984, the EPA has
provided more than $93 million to support the Navajo Nation's
leadership in establishing their own environmental programs.
Addressing Impacts to the Animas River
Many decades of mine drainage has degraded water quality and
contaminated sediment in the Upper Animas watershed and downstream
water resources. Based upon 2009-2014 flow data, roughly 330 million
gallons of contaminated mine water from four mines discharged annually
into Cement Creek and the Animas River. Our most recent studies
indicate more than 3,700 gallons per minute, or 5.4 million gallons per
day, of mine wastewater is being discharged from 32 mines in the
watershed.
In January of this year, I met with Navajo President Russell Begaye
to discuss addressing these impacts through Superfund National
Priorities Listing process. The EPA conducted extensive outreach with
local communities, tribes, and states during the fall of last year and
winter of this year to discuss the potential listing of abandoned mines
in the Upper Animas Watershed to the Superfund National Priorities List
(NPL). After months of engagement and receiving support from the Navajo
Nation, the state of Colorado, and local governments, the EPA proposed
adding the Bonita Peak Mining District site in San Juan County,
Colorado to the NPL on April 7 of this year, to address the discharge
of water from abandoned mines posing a risk to public health and the
environment. The proposed Bonita Peak Mining District site consists of
48 mining related sites, including the Gold King Mine. A public comment
period is underway to solicit comments regarding the NPL proposal.
Mutual respect and accountability, rooted in EPA's 1984 Indian
Policy, and recognition of the sovereignty of the Navajo Nation,
Southern Ute and Ute Mountain tribes has been the foundation of our
long-standing partnership. The EPA recognizes that partnership has been
challenged by the accidental August 5, 2015 Gold King Mine release. We
all share the same goal, protecting human health and the environment
today, and for future generations. We are hopeful that this partnership
will allow us to achieve this goal.
After the August 5 accidental release, EPA and Colorado officials
informed downstream jurisdictions within Colorado the day of the event
and before the plume reached drinking water intakes and irrigation
diversions. The following day, other downstream jurisdictions were
notified, again, before the plume reached drinking water intakes and
irrigation diversions. The EPA deployed federal On-Scene Coordinators
and other technical staff within 24 hours to Silverton and Durango
Colorado, Farmington, New Mexico and the Navajo Nation to assist with
preparations and first response activities in these jurisdictions.
In addition, the agency activated its Emergency Operations Center
in Washington D.C. and established a Unified Command Center in Durango,
Colorado and an Incident Command in Farmington, New Mexico to help
ensure coordination among its regions, laboratories and national
program offices. The EPA closely coordinated with our federal partners
and with officials in Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, the Southern Ute and
Ute Mountain Ute tribes and the Navajo Nation who all provided
personnel for the Unified Command Center and/or Incident Command. I
also met with the Inter-Tribal Council of Arizona to address the EPA's
spill response.
One of the initial lessons learned in the aftermath of the
accidental Gold King Mine release is that the EPA could improve its
communications regarding releases and other environmental events that
may affect multiple jurisdictions. To support response related
notifications and communications between the EPA and our state, tribal
and local partners, I issued guidance to Regional Response Teams
(comprised of representatives from the EPA, other federal agencies and
states) to strengthen their Regional Contingency Plans, particularly
regarding the need to alert and coordinate with responders in
downstream alerts.
As part of the response efforts, water quality samples were
collected throughout the water system from multiple locations in
Colorado and New Mexico to the Navajo Nation at daily intervals
beginning on August 6, 2015. \1\ Sediment sampling began on August 11,
2015. The EPA has also sampled private domestic drinking water wells
from along the rivers in both Colorado and New Mexico. Drinking water
well data was provided directly to the well owner. Results consistent
with this sampling data were utilized by jurisdictions along the Animas
and San Juan Rivers to lift water use restrictions for irrigation,
livestock watering, and recreational purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See: http://www2.epa.gov/goldkingmine/data-gold-king-mine-
response
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA has expended more than $22 million on response efforts,
including $1.1 million to provide more than 1 million gallons of
agricultural and livestock water and nearly 9,000 bales of hay for
Navajo communities along the San Juan River. The EPA has also provided
more than $157,000 in reimbursement to Navajo agencies for their
response costs. We are currently reviewing additional costs incurred by
the Navajo government.
The first round of sampling conducted last fall under EPA's Post-
Gold King Mine Conceptual Monitoring Plan for the San Juan River did
not show exceedances of Navajo Nation agricultural water quality
standards, or of EPA recreational screening levels. The EPA has shared,
and will continue to share its data and analysis with the Navajo
Nation, and is fully open to reviewing and discussing any data or
analysis generated by their government or other investigators. The
agency has allocated $465,000 to the Navajo Nation to monitor water
quality conditions in the river, this is in addition to the more than
$1 million of Clean Water Act based funding provided to the Navajo
Nation in October 2015 to perform water quality monitoring, support
water quality compliance efforts, and fund sediment reduction projects.
Public Information--Water Quality Monitoring Efforts
One of our foremost priorities during the response has been to
collect and publicly release information to help ensure the health and
safety of affected communities. Since the August release, numerous
status reports, water and sediment sampling results, and documents have
been posted on the agency's Gold King Mine website.
On March 24 of this year, the EPA released its final monitoring
plan for the Animas and San Juan rivers. The final Conceptual
Monitoring Plan is posted on EPA's website. The agency also posted on
its Gold King Mine website another round of results of surface water
and sediment sampling collected as part of its effort to gather
scientific data to evaluate ongoing river conditions.
The Conceptual Monitoring Plan will guide EPA's work to identify
changes in surface water and sediment quality. It is designed to gather
scientific data to consistently evaluate river conditions over time and
compare post-release data against pre-release or historic trends. The
EPA has also been working with tribal, state, and other partners to
develop a consistent monitoring approach to gather scientific data to
assess conditions in the Animas and San Juan rivers. The EPA has made
$2 million in initial funding available to launch these additional
tribal and state monitoring efforts.
Under the Conceptual Monitoring Plan, the EPA is examining water
quality, sediment quality, biological community and fish tissue at 30
locations under a variety of flow and seasonal river conditions. The
sampling locations are located within Colorado, Southern Ute Indian
Reservation, New Mexico, Ute Mountain Ute Reservation, the Navajo
Nation and Utah, spanning Cement Creek, the Animas and San Juan rivers,
and the upper section of the San Juan arm of Lake Powell.
When fully implemented, the monitoring plan will provide the EPA,
state, local governments and tribes a robust set of scientific data
about water quality in the rivers and will help to explain the
fluctuations over time and location based on seasonal factors that
influence river flow, such as precipitation and snow melt. Initial
monitoring data collected during the fall are below risk-based
recreational screening levels and consistent with pre-event data which
are limited in many areas outside the upper Animas. The spring sampling
event is currently taking place, and will be followed by additional
sampling planned in June and in the fall of 2016. The EPA will also
coordinate with local jurisdictions and tribes to sample the rivers
during heavy rain events in the summer.
During our ongoing engagement with tribes, states, and local
communities, the EPA has received requests for real-time water
monitoring, particularly related to expected increased spring flow
rates. The EPA has agreed to contribute additional funds, that in
combination with prior funds, will enable states and tribes to fund
real-time monitoring in the upper Animas area above Silverton to assess
contributions from Cement Creek, Mineral Creek and the upper Animas, as
well as above Durango and below the confluence of Mineral Creek and the
Animas River. This real-time monitoring would also serve to ensure
successful coordination and implementation of notification and
preparedness activities for communities downstream.
Conclusion
The EPA's core mission is protecting human health and the
environment. We will continue our longstanding commitment to working
with tribes to accomplish our shared mission. We will continue to work
with and support the tribes, states, and local communities throughout
the Four Corners Region who rely on the Animas and San Juan Rivers for
their drinking water, irrigation water and recreation. We know how
important the rivers are to them, and the EPA is committed to continue
to take action to help prevent future releases to protect our vital
water resources.
The Chairman. Thank you very much Administrator Stanislaus
for being with us today. I'd like to now turn to the Honorable
Russell Begaye, President of the Navajo Nation. Welcome.
STATEMENT OF HON. RUSSELL BEGAYE, PRESIDENT, NAVAJO NATION
Mr. Begaye. Thank you, Chairman Barrasso and Senator
McCain. Senator McCain especially, thank you for taking the
challenge on having this follow-up hearing. And Chairman
Barrasso for stating that we're not finished yet. ``We are
going to have further hearings,'' that is music to our ears,
because if you look at that right there, is that anyone looking
at that picture right there, should be not only mad but also
afraid that this is going to continue, as has been stated just
now, is that you have millions of gallons of these contaminates
coming onto Navajo land, and nothing, nothing, nothing has been
done.
And so we want the wrong to be right. And it hasn't been
done yet. Only 8 percent of what EPA owes us has been paid to
us, 8 percent. And this is going on for months.
Let me tell you, if another company, a private company did
this and they took responsibility for it, guess what, there
will be people in jail, there will be public hearings, the
company will be shut down, and the company will be forced to go
out into the river beds and pick up those contaminates off the
river bed.
Has it happened on Navajo land? Nothing has happened. And
so we appreciate the hearing, because we want the wrong that's
been done to Navajo--especially our farmers are suffering right
now.
You know, we're not flushing out the irrigation ditches.
And the farmers are afraid. Because they know that there are
contaminates up river. When the water spikes, when it goes up,
when there's a monsoon, we know that those contaminates upriver
will flow down onto our land, onto possibly our farms.
So we're going to keep a very close watch on that. We asked
for a mobile lab. Mobile lab has not been provided ever. It was
promised but never been delivered. We want a mobile land on the
ground so that when the water spikes, we will test it
immediately. And that will determine whether we shut down the
irrigation gates or not.
And we need that. We need those tools. So I appreciate the
testimony on the Gold King Mine spill today.
We're just saying simply that U.S. EPA today has not fully
compensated the Navajo Nation or individual Navajo people for
the harm suffered as a result of the Gold King Mine spill. The
farmers, my people, they have not been compensated.
The standard Form 95 has not been altered, has not been
amended, meaning this, is that when a farmer submits a claim is
that, when they get a check from EPA, that's it. That's all
they're going to get.
And if they submit a claim for the first three weeks or six
weeks after the spill and the consequences of us shutting down
the irrigation to protect our land, is that when they submit it
and they get a check from EPA, guess what, that's it. They're
not going to get anymore, even though as farmers, as I was
raised on a farm. And so there's continuing loss that occurs
when that kind of event takes place.
And so there will be continuing contamination, there will
be continuing damage that will be done. And so that standard
Form 95 needs to be amended. There needs to be a language that
says, ``We will waive this.''
Now, they're saying, ``Well, you have two years.'' You
know, that means that our farmers will have to wait two years
to get compensated. And these guys, the farmers, live off the
land. That is their revenue. The products that they produce,
that's what they sell and that's how they pay their bills.
That's how they put food on the table. And that's what sustains
them. And to wait for two years is nonsense, you know.
And this basic human right is being violated by that
standard Form 95. We want that thing amended. We want new forms
put forth. And EPA says, ``Well, that's the law.''
You know, the laws are always brought up and put in our
face when these types of things happen to Indian people. To
Navajo Nation specifically.
And, secondly, we want U.S. EPA to designate the upper
Animus mining district as a Superfund site. And I was
disappointed when the list came out recently. It said these are
the NPL sites. And I look on there, thinking that Gold King
Mine would be a part of that, but it was not a part of that.
And you read down the next section, it says, well, it's being
recommended that this will be designated as such.
So meaning that to this day--that to date, this very day on
Earth Day, the Gold King Mine is not on the NPL listing.
Superfund site has not been designated for Gold King Mine.
And the mines are ready to explode. And EPA knew that Gold
King Mine was going to explode. They knew that. They had the
information, did nothing about it.
And back in Washington, D.C., they said they will hold
themselves fully accountable. Has that happened? Navajo Nation,
that has not occurred.
And so I just want to, again, thank the Committee for
allowing us to be here today. And I also wanted to say that the
tools have not been provided. The harm is there. Our people are
still suffering today. And we appreciate the Committee allowing
us to come and testify today.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Begaye follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Russell Begaye, President, Navajo Nation
I. Introduction
Ya'at'eeh (hello) Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Tester, and
Members of the Committee. My name is Russell Begaye, and I am the
President of the Navajo Nation. Thank you for this opportunity to
testify before your Committee on an important matter that continues to
affect the Navajo Nation every day.
As you know, on Wednesday, August 5, 2015, the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), and other involved parties,
caused a massive release of approximately three million gallons of
acidic mine water laden with toxic contaminants, including heavy metals
and other chemicals, into the Animas and San Juan Rivers. We now know
that it was more than 800,000 pounds of metals that entered the Animas
River as a direct result of the discharge from the Gold King Mine on
that day. We also know that approximately 80 percent of the toxic
materials released during the Spill have now settled into the sediments
and shorelines of the Animas River and the San Juan River upstream of
the Navajo Nation, waiting to be carried downstream during the heavy
Spring runoff expected this season.
The San Juan River courses through 215 miles of the Navajo Nation's
territory and serves as a major water source for the Navajo people,
their livestock, and their crops. The River also holds a profound
spiritual significance to the Navajo Nation. The Gold King Mine Spill
caused severe damage and devastation to our people. We have lost too
much. Crops that served as many Navajo families' primary source of
income and stability for generations have been destroyed. The Navajo
people have redirected their scarce financial resources to alternate
water supplies in desperate attempts to save their crops, their
livestock, and their families.
Unfortunately, the damage is not yet done. Because the toxic
contaminants have been embedded in the sediment of the River, the
Navajo Nation now faces the continuous threat of re-contamination with
every storm and increase in River flow. The heaviest flow is typically
felt in the Spring as a result of snowmelt, and we are currently
experiencing a higher than normal volume of flow due to increased
snowpack from winter storms. Although we will be aggressively
monitoring and sampling the water throughout this season, there is
nothing we can do to prevent the damage from occurring.
Last Fall, you and I both heard from representatives of the USEPA,
including Administrator McCarthy herself. The USEPA assured all of us
that the EPA has and will continue to take responsibility to help
ensure that the Gold King Mine release is cleaned up. They repeatedly
vowed to take care of those affected by the Spill. And they promised to
work closely and cooperatively with the States and Tribes to right the
wrongs. But the USEPA has not fulfilled its commitments to us. I have
spoken and written to Administrator McCarthy to lay out the Navajo
people's reasonable requests to be made whole as a result of the Spill
and to help us avoid future effects from this and other contaminations.
But our needs continue to be unmet. I am here today to share with you
our experiences over the past eight months and to request that the
Congress intervene to protect the Navajo Nation and our Navajo people.
II. The USEPA Has Repeatedly Resisted and Questioned the Navajo
Nation's Demands
It has been over eight months since the Gold King Mine Spill, an
environmental catastrophe that caused and continues to cause extreme
hardship to the Navajo Nation. Over this time, the USEPA has avoided
any real sense of accountability for its actions, even though it
repeatedly and publicly claimed responsibility last Fall. Eight months
later:
1) The USEPA has yet to fully compensate the Navajo Nation or
individual Navajo people for the harms suffered as a result of
the Gold King Mine Spill.
2) The USEPA has yet to designate the Upper Animas Mining
District as a Superfund site.
3) The USEPA has yet to implement, with Navajo input, a
comprehensive plan to ensure no future contamination of Navajo
land or waters.
4) And the USEPA has yet to provide the Navajo Nation with the
tools it desperately needs to address the harms already caused
and to mitigate against future harms.
It is time for the USEPA to stop making false promises and act.
Over the past eight months, representatives of the Navajo Nation
have engaged in numerous conversations with the USEPA in an effort to
obtain justice for the Navajo people. Each one of our requests and
suggestions has been unreasonably and disrespectfully denied and
minimized.
First, while the USEPA has technically agreed to engage in
discussions regarding a ``cooperative funding agreement'' designed to
cover the Nation's response costs, even that process has been met with
resistance and counter-demands. The Navajo Nation submitted detailed
paperwork delineating the resources the Nation expended as a direct
result of the Gold King Mine Spill. These costs included things like
hauling clean water to the Navajo people, assessing the extent of the
Spill's impact to the Navajo farms, paying expenses related to
irrigation canal closures, and more. The Nation's submission was
practical and conservative. But the USEPA questioned the accuracy and
reasonableness of our expenses. We requested a little over two million
dollars in actual expenses incurred as a direct result of the Gold King
Mine Spill. The USEPA's initial ``offer'' was insulting. After months
of cooperating with the USEPA, the USEPA offered the Navajo Nation a
mere $157,000--less than eight percent of what we spent. They claimed
this was an initial award but we do not know when or in what amount
will be the future awards. We cannot afford that. After the USEPA
caused us to incur these expenses, they should not be able to slow play
our recovery.
To add insult to injury, the USEPA couched this insignificant
amount as a ``grant'' to the Nation, thereby giving itself substantial
control and oversight with respect to how the money is spent. The money
was not even recognized as a reimbursement for costs spent as a direct
result of the USEPA's actions in causing the Spill.
Second, the Nation repeatedly requested from the USEPA an interim
claims process that would provide prompt payment to the Navajo people
on an ongoing basis, rather than forcing the Navajo people to either
(a) wait for months or years to determine the total amount of the
damage and money spent as a result of the Spill, or (b)--the more
likely scenario--force the Navajo people to accept less than they are
rightfully due simply because they need something to support their
families now. The USEPA summarily brushed off this idea, claiming they
did not have the authority to set up this sort of process. But this
unprecedented Spill calls for new procedures.
We then asked the USEPA for assurances that if a Navajo person does
accept an award for current losses now, that they would still be
permitted to seek further damages for unknown, future harms as a result
of the spill (for example, if their children develop chronic diseases).
The USEPA denied authority to do that, as well. Apparently the USEPA
does not have the authority to address the problems caused by its own
wrongdoing.
These are just two examples of our requests that have been brushed
aside and denied by the USEPA. Recently, I sent Administrator McCarthy
a letter addressing our legitimate and narrow requests once again. In
addition to the interim claims process mentioned above, we renewed our
request for the following:
1) A fair and independent assessment of the role the USEPA,
and others, played in the events leading up to and causing the
Gold King Mine Spill.
The House Committee on Natural Resources issued a report in
February criticizing the USEPA's and Department of Interior's failed
attempts to provide this assessment. Their investigations are riddled
with conflicts of interest and information gaps, and do nothing to
answer the ultimate outstanding questions: Who is at fault for the
Spill? And who will be held accountable?
2) Resources to conduct our own water, sediment, and soil
monitoring; to conduct our own testing and assessment of farms,
crops, and livestock; and recognized authority for the Navajo
Nation EPA and the Navajo Nation Department of Agriculture to
do the necessary work.
We have repeatedly asked the USEPA for funding to conduct necessary
sampling to determine the extent of the harm caused by the Gold King
Mine Spill, but the USEPA has resisted and tried to bind us to the
results of its own sampling. As we have stated before, the Navajo
Nation should not be required to trust sampling conducted by the same
agency that caused the harm at issue. The conflict of interest in that
scenario is obvious.
The Nation would like an on-site laboratory on Navajo land, funding
for additional staff and sampling, and funding for the Navajo Nation to
execute its own long-term plan to address the harms caused by the
contamination (including studying and addressing the contamination's
long-term environmental and health impacts).
We recently requested funding specifically dedicated to Spring
runoff sampling and monitoring. As I mentioned earlier, approximately
80 percent of the toxic contaminants released from the Gold King Mine
on August 5, 2015, are now embedded in the sediments and shorelines of
the Animas and San Juan Rivers. The Rivers' strongest water flows occur
during the Spring season. We are now enduring the first Spring since
the Spill--and a particularly heavy runoff period--and it is crucial
that we pay close attention to possible re-contamination of the River
during these months. We need funding to do that. We don't want to incur
further costs to conduct sampling due to the USEPA's misconduct, only
to have the USEPA resist our requests for reimbursement as they have
done in the past.
3) Coordinated and meaningful data and information access,
with full transparency and immediate turnaround.
The USEPA has taken too long to turn data around. The objectives in
the current version of the USEPA's conceptual monitoring plan do not
provide for ongoing, timely reporting of water quality. Data collected
during the first sampling event in late October 2015 was only made
available to partner agencies on March 7, 2016--five months later--and
still has not been released to the public. The USEPA needs to provide
quick turnaround of its own data, so that we may do our job of
protecting our people.
4) Identification and recognition of the full scope of
upstream threats and contamination flowing into the San Juan
River, and the resources to address the long-term environmental
and human health impacts of the Spill.
This would include placement of a water treatment facility at the
headwaters of the Navajo Nation and resources to explore alternative
water supply systems in the event of an emergency. We cannot again be
put in the position of having to pick between turning off the water and
losing economic sustenance or turning on the water and risking our
health and crops.
5) Recognition of the San Juan River's spiritual and cultural
significance to the Navajo Nation.
The San Juan River holds a deeply embedded spiritual and cultural
significance to the Navajo community. Contamination of the River takes
a profound economic, cultural, and spiritual toll on our people.
Indeed, the Nation has suffered a dramatic increase in suicides since
the Spill. The psychological trauma resulting from contamination to one
of our most important deities should not be ignored or minimized. We
deserve recognition, from the agency that caused this contamination,
that the damage goes far beyond economic and environmental damage, and
the resources to address the emotional and psychological impacts of the
Spill.
6) Funds dedicated to emergency preparedness for future
environmental disasters like the Gold King Mine Spill, given
the continued threat posed by the Upper Animas Mining District.
Despite the warning signs indicating the chance of a blowout, the
USEPA was unprepared for the Gold King Mine Spill. As we have discussed
in the past, their immediate response to the spill was handled very
poorly, and it took far too long for the Navajo Nation to receive
notice. Once we received our delayed notice, we did not have much time
to mobilize efforts and resources to respond quickly and effectively.
Everyone knows that the Navajo Nation and other downstream communities
face an ongoing threat of contamination from the mines in the Upper
Animas Mining District. We need the resources to assure that we are
adequately prepared to take care of our people in the event of another
similar environmental disaster.
7) The USEPA's full support of listing the Upper Animas Mining
District on the National Priorities List.
For a long time, we have requested that the Upper Animas Mining
District be listed on the National Priorities List and that the
contamination caused by that district receive the attention and
resources that come with such a listing. As you are aware, town and
county leaders in Silverton have, after the Spill, unanimously voted to
begin negotiating with state and federal environmental officials on
accepting a Superfund designation. This was significant. I further
understand that the USEPA has now released its proposal that nearly 50
mines in the district be designated a Superfund site. As of today,
however, the Upper Animas Mining District is still not listed on the
National Priorities List. We need the USEPA to act quickly to have the
entire Upper Animas Mining District listed on the National Priorities
List and for dedicated and focused federal resources to address the
threat posed to the Navajo Nation and other downstream communities.
8) Resources to restabilize farming along the San Juan River.
As I mentioned earlier, the Spill caused extensive damage to Navajo
farms. Strains of crops that have been around for generations have been
harmed, and in some cases, destroyed. Our people need resources to help
rebuild the foundation that previously provided stability, support, and
income to their families.
In a March letter we sent to Administrator McCarthy, we asked the
Administrator to propose a date within the next thirty days to meet to
discuss these goals. We received her response letter this week and we
will discuss the details of how we move forward with the USEPA, but I
have to say, the Navajo Nation has lost further trust in the USEPA
through this frustrating process.
III. Conclusion
After over eight months, we are still waiting for the USEPA and
other parties responsible for the Spill to make us whole by providing
us with the resources needed to address the Spill and its continuing
impacts to our community. We still do not have a clear understanding of
how or why this happened, or who is to be held responsible. We need
answers.
The Navajo people are not wealthy. Before the Spill, we were
already facing a daunting unemployment rate of 42 percent. Farming and
ranching are critical means of survival and supporting a family. But
ever since the Spill, the farmers and ranchers have had to spend money
they don't have in a desperate attempt to salvage their crops and
livestock. Our subsistence farmers and ranchers watched their crops die
and relocated their livestock away from the River at great expense.
Many have lost crucial sources of income and are still suffering. The
Navajo people cannot afford to endure the complexities and
uncertainties of the legal process for years before they see a dime.
They need to be made whole now. We have asked for and deserve full,
fair and fast recovery.
The Navajo Nation continues to be eager to work cooperatively and
equally with the USEPA to gear all parties toward a productive
resolution. As is true for the people suffering in Flint, Michigan--to
whom our hearts go out--we want justice for our people. As long as the
USEPA continues to disrespect our needs, we cannot achieve that
justice.
It means a great deal to the Navajo Nation that your Committee is
still focused on this matter after eight months. We are hopeful that
the pressure from your Committee, the local States, and the local
Indian nations will eventually force the USEPA and other responsible
parties to cooperate and provide those harmed with the resources needed
to move forward after this unfortunate catastrophe. We hope that the
Congress will pass legislation to ensure full, fair, and prompt
recovery for our people.
Ahehee.' Thank you for your time and attention to this important
issue.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, President Begaye.
I'd like to now turn to the Honorable Herman Honanie, who
is the Chairman of the Hopi Tribe. Welcome, and please testify.
STATEMENT OF HON. HERMAN G. HONANIE, CHAIRMAN, HOPI TRIBE
Mr. Honanie. Thank you, Senator Barrasso, Senator McCain.
Good morning.
Thank you to President Begaye, Speaker Bates. Thank you for
giving me this opportunity and allowing me to speak before you
with our concerns.
I am Herman Honanie, Chairman of the Hopi Tribe. I have
matrilineal lineage to the oldest continuously community of
Orayvi on the North American Continent, and I'm very proud of
that.
Senators, the United States has a special trust
relationship with federally recognized Indian tribes, including
the Hopi Tribe. However, recently there have been several
missed opportunities for the EPA working with other Federal
agencies to fully embrace the trust obligations of the United
States to the Hopi Tribe.
We have some current examples to share with the Committee.
They are described in the written testimony we are submitting
on behalf of the Hopi Tribe. And I will just briefly touch on
them here.
The first is the Navajo generating station. Despite the
economic importance to the Hopi Tribe, the United States, a
part owner of the plant, recently decided to shut down one or
more of the three units at NGS rather than investing in
standard pollution control devices.
The Hopi Tribe has been asking the United States, its
trustee to assist the Tribe in finding the replacement revenues
for the substantial revenue generated by the coal use at the
NGS, but there is currently no plan to do so.
We have the Tuba City open dump. This formerly BIA-operated
open dump site is being investigated by the EPA and BIA under
the Superfund program.
While the Tribe remains fully engaged in the regulatory
process with EPA and BIA on their actions at the Tuba City open
dump to complete the remedial investigations and feasibility
study, the Tribe has become increasingly concerned that the
Tribe's requirement for the cleanup will not be treated as
applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements in the
remedy selection process.
The Hopi Tribe has had numerous discussions with EPA Region
9 on this issue, nonetheless, to date EPA has not provided a
commitment to the tribes requirement will be treated as ARARs.
The third item is the Hopi Arsenic Mitigation Project.
Certain water supply systems installed by the United States on
the Hopi reservation have been shut down have been shown to
contain arsenic at levels exceeding the limits.
The Hopi Tribe continues to work with the United States to
further the Hopi Arsenic Mitigation Plan we call the HAMP;
however, this process has been very slow. And, meanwhile, the
drinking water system at the Hopi Tribe continues to contain
elevated arsenic concentrations.
The Hopi Tribe is requesting that this Committee review the
handling of this matter by the United States.
While EPA and the Indian Health Service has been
instrumental in the initial funding and planning for the HAMP,
the funding for the pipeline to connect the replacement water
wells to the villages has not yet been identified and made
available.
These are a few of the examples we are hoping that the
Committee will help in its evaluation, and how the United
States can better fulfill its obligations to the Tribe in the
environmental and public areas.
We know EPA and the Tribes can continue to improve the
efforts to address the environmental problems in Indian country
and look forward to better cooperation in this regard.
And, also, I just want to say, Senators, that I'm very
happy that we're discussing these issues today on Earth Day. I
feel it's very, very appropriate.
We have a saying in Hopi: Water is life, water is sacred.
Without water, what is there?
And when we talk about issues, such as what President
Begaye explained, and our own issues--and maybe they may be
small in comparison--but these issues, especially the open dump
mine in Tuba City, and the arsenic, they affect and impact
water. The long-term effect of health on our people is of great
concern.
I feel collateral damage is in the opening. It's coming.
Something needs to be done. We need to work together to address
these and correct these issues for the health of my people, for
the survival of my people.
And I'm glad that we're here today. You calling us here to
testify, you calling on us sends a great and sharp and loud
signal to Indian country that, hopefully, we'll renew our faith
and confidence in the United States Congress and its
leadership.
I thank you for your time. I thank you for giving me the
privilege to be here this morning.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Honanie follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Herman G. Honanie, Chairman, Hopi Tribe
The United States has a special trust relationship with federally
recognized Indian tribes, including the Hopi Tribe. The Hopi Tribe has
occupied what is now the Hopi Reservation in Arizona since time
immemorial and has had a long and peaceful relationship with the United
States. The United States officially recognizes the Hopi Tribe,
acknowledging that the Hopi Tribe is entitled to ``the immunities and
privileges available to federally recognized Indian tribes by virtue of
[its] government-to-government relationship with the United States. .
.'' 80 Fed. Reg. 1,943 (Jan. 14, 2015). However, recently there have
been several missed opportunities for the EPA, working with other
federal agencies, to fully embrace the trust obligations of the United
States to the Hopi Tribe. We have some current examples to share with
the Committee summarized below. Additionally, with regard to proposed
and future regulation of coal fired power plants in Indian Country, we
submit that the United States, as part of its trust responsibilities to
Tribes, make sure to off-set adverse economic impacts on Tribes, so
that Tribes to not end up bearing a disproportionate burden.
The Hopi Tribe respectfully requests that this committee review the
mandatory trust obligations of the United States under applicable
statutes in the environmental and public health areas because the
federal courts have been reluctant to adequately enforce these
obligations unless they are enumerated by statute. We believe that the
federal trust obligations to tribes are falling through the cracks as a
result, particularly when EPA and other federal agencies are involved,
and the tribes have inadequate means to enforce these obligations.
Several specific examples involving the Hopi Tribe are set out below.
Navajo Generating Station
The Navajo Generating Station (NGS) is a coal-fired power plant
located near Page, Arizona on the Navajo Reservation. It is unique as a
``mine-mouth'' power plant. NGS exclusively uses coal from the Kayenta
Mine Complex (KMC), which is located on the Navajo and Hopi
reservations, and KMC's only customer is NGS. KMC is geographically
isolated, and currently there is no way to sell coal mined there to any
other potential purchaser. NGS and KMC were designed by the United
States as a single integrated system. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
owns a 24.3 percent interest in NGS, and, as such, is the largest NGS
shareholder. The U.S. Department of the Interior, the U.S. Department
of Energy, and the U.S. EPA have formed a Federal Agency Work Group for
NGS.
Activities related to NGS are responsible for a major portion of
the revenues of the Hopi Tribe's government. The Hopi Tribe annually
receives approximately $13 million in coal royalties and bonus
payments, $1.6 million in water fees, and hundreds of thousands of
dollars in scholarship funds related to KMC and NGS. The Hopi Tribe
uses the NGS coal revenues for the provision of basic services and
other essential government functions such as health care, education,
housing, law enforcement, and social services. These services are
crucial, but without any replacement of the lost revenues, the Hopi
Tribe's goverment will not be able to provide them.
The Hopi Tribe has communities challenged by poverty. Nearly fifty
percent of the people and fifty-four percent of the children living on
the Hopi Reservation are living below the poverty level by federal
standards. This is more than twice that of Arizona as a whole. The
average annual income on the Reservation is half that of the population
elsewhere in Arizona. Of the employment that is available on the
Reservation, NGS and KMC are responsible for fifty to seventy percent
of it--an estimated 1,400 to 1,900 Hopi jobs.
Despite the economic importance to the Hopi Tribe, the United
States recently decided to shut down one or more of the three units at
NGS rather than investing in standard pollution control devices known
as Selective Catalytic Reduction Equipment (SCRs). EPA determined in
February, 2013, that SCRs were the Best Available Retrofit Technology
(BART) for NGS, and installation at NGS would be affordable and cost-
effective. Proposed Rule, 78 Fed. Reg. 8,274 (Feb. 5, 2013). EPA also
recognized that early plant retirement would be the only option that
would seriously harm the Hopi Tribe's economy.
After publication of the Proposed Rule, a number of stakeholders,
including the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, formed a ``Technical Work
Group'' (the ``TWG''). EPA was also involved with the TWG to a lesser
extent. The Hopi Tribe was intentionally excluded from the TWG by the
United States and the other TWG members. From at least March through
July, 2013, the TWG met pursuant to a confidentiality and non-
disclosure agreement.
The result of these negotiations was the TWG Agreement, which set
forth a proposal for an alternate scenario to reduce emissions from
NGS. The United States signed the TWG Agreement, which imposes specific
requirements on the United States to support the TWG Proposal. The TWG
Proposal included shutting down one of three units at NGS by 2019 and
permanent cessation of conventional coal-fired generation by the end of
2044. 79 Fed. Reg. 46,514 (Aug. 8, 2014). In other words, under the TWG
Proposal negotiated and agreed to by the United States, NGS will be
closed partially by 2019 and completely by 2044. Coal sales and
royalties, water fees, and economic conditions on the Hopi Reservation
will follow suit. The day the TWG Proposal was submitted to EPA was the
first time that the Hopi Tribe learned of the existence of the TWG. EPA
adopted the TWG Proposal. Supplemental Proposed Rule, 78 Fed. Reg.
8,274 (Oct. 22, 2013).
After publication of the Supplemental Proposed Rule, the Hopi
Tribe, including the Chairman, Council members, and Tribal members
participated in meetings with the United States to voice their concerns
about the economic effects of this decision on the Tribe and to request
additional information that would help the Tribe further understand how
the Supplemental Proposed Rule would impact the Tribe, its members, its
lands and how its trustee, the United States, was planning to address
this impact. At this point, however, the United States had already
signed the TWG Agreement and the Hopi Tribe's opportunity for early
meaningful consultation was lost. Even though it recognized that the
Hopi Tribe would be severely adversely impacted financially, the United
States failed even to analyze or address those impacts. The United
States, the Hopi Tribe's trustee, has failed to put a plan in place to
address the loss of revenues and resulting impacts to the Hopi Tribe.
On August 8, 2014, EPA issued the Final Rule, largely adopting the TWG
Proposal. Final Rule, 79 Fed. Reg. 46,514 (Aug. 8, 2014).
A review shows that multiple generating stations in Indian Country
have been forced into closure by EPA. Indian Tribes are
disproportionately impacted by these closures. A number of tribe's
economies are dependent on these plants, and there is inadequate
mitigation being provided to these tribes. As appropriate, we can share
this additional information with the Committee in a follow-up meeting.
The Hopi Tribe has engaged in extensive discussions and negotiations
with the United States concerning ways to offset the economic impact
that EPA's rule will have on the Hopi Tribe but no resolution has been
reached to date. EPA should be required to review its enforcement
initiatives to determine whether EPA is acting in accordance with its
trustee duties.
Tuba City Open Dump Superfund Site, Upper Moenkopi Village, Arizona
The Tuba City Open Dump (TCOD) lies south of Highway 160, south and
east of Tuba City, Arizona and adjacent to the Upper Moenkopi Village
of the Tribe. The TCOD was operated as an unregulated open-burn dump by
the United States Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) from the late 1950s
until 1997. The TCOD was not approved or permitted as a solid waste
disposal facility under any provision of the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA).
The TCOD was largely operated as an unregulated cut-and-fill trench
type dump. BIA periodically excavated trenches for waste deposition.
The trenches were filled with waste, burned, and periodically covered
with soil by BIA. Dumping was largely uncontrolled and unsupervised by
the BIA. The cycle of opening trenches, depositing wastes, burning the
waste, and covering the waste continued until 1997, when the TCOD was
closed by the BIA.
The TCOD occupies approximately 30 acres, and is comprised of an
``old cell'' and a ``new cell.'' The old cell comprises approximately
10 acres, while the new cell, developed in the late 1980's, comprises
approximately 20 acres. BIA covered the waste in the new cell and
constructed a fence around that cell. More recently, in 2009, BIA
constructed a fence around the old cell.
The TCOD was used by both the BIA and the Indian Health Services
and may have been used by other departments of the United States
government and their contractors. There is information developed by the
BIA that wastes from a nearby uranium processing mill (operated by Rare
Metals at the direction of the Department of Energy) were deposited in
the TCOD. Recently, grinding balls of the type used at the processing
mill was found in the old cell. Further, there were numerous reports of
``marbles'' matching the description of the mill grinding balls being
found in the TCOD.
The Hopi Tribe has conducted initial environmental studies and
investigations at and near the TCOD. Consultants were retained by the
Hopi Tribe, and monitoring wells were installed in the area of the TCOD
to assess potential groundwater impacts in and around the TCOD. The
studies and investigations led to the discovery of constituents above
drinking water regulations in several monitoring wells immediately down
gradient from the TCOD old cell. Among these constituents are total
dissolved solids, arsenic, selenium, uranium, radium 226/228, nitrate,
sulfates and chloride.
Studies have identified saturated waste in the deeper trenched
areas of the old cell of TCOD that are believed to be in direct contact
with the groundwater. The plume of contaminants under and surrounding,
the TCOD is currently adversely impacting the groundwater aquifer,
which is an extremely valuable Hopi Tribe resource.
Several years ago BIA signed an administrative order on consent
with the EPA to conduct a remedial investigation and feasibility study
(RI/FS) at the TCOD under the Superfund Program. The RUFS has been
ongoing for the last several years. Even though the Hopi Tribe
requested an opportunity to be a party to the administrative order, the
United States declined that request but agreed to consult with the
Tribe in the administrative process and before any decisions were made.
While the Tribe remains engaged in the regulatory process with EPA and
BIA in their actions and activities at the TCOD to complete the RI/FS,
the Tribe has become increasingly concerned that the Tribe's
requirements for the cleanup will not be treated as Applicable or
Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) in the remedy selection
process. Hopi Tribe officials have sent letters and meetings have been
held with EPA Region 9 on this issue. Nonetheless, to date EPA has not
provided a commitment that the Tribe's requirements will be treated as
ARARs. See attached correspondence.
EPA has an opportunity to treat the Hopi Tribe as a co-sovereign
with respect to the RI/FS process and remediation of the TCOD. The Hopi
Tribe remains hopeful that EPA will properly treat the Hopi Tribe's
remedial requirements as ARARs and fulfill its trust obligations to the
Hopi Tribe by remediating the contamination caused by the United States
actions at TCOD in accordance with Hopi Tribe requirements and in a
manner acceptable to the Hopi Tribe.
Hopi Arsenic Mitigation Plan (HAMP)
As trustee, the United States has exercised control over the Hopi
Tribe's water supplies that were reserved to the Hopi Tribe pursuant to
the Winters Doctrine when its reservation was established. In
particular, the United States has designed, installed, constructed, and
maintained drinking water systems on the Hopi Reservation, including
those at the villages of Mishongnovi, Sipaulovi, Shungopavi, and the
communities of Polacca and Kearns Canyon. The United States selected
and hired the contractors to construct the wells, listed itself as the
``owner'' of the wells in official paperwork, and designated itself as
the record keeper for those wells.
Effective January 23, 2006, EPA lowered the maximum contaminant
level (MCL) for arsenic in drinking water to 10 micrograms per liter
(idg/L). Id. paragraph 16 (citing 40 C.F.R. 141.6(j)); 40 C.F.R.
141.62(b)(16). Certain of the water supply systems designed and
installed by the United States have consistently contained arsenic at
levels exceeding this level, and range from approximately twice the
limit to almost five times the limit. Arsenic harms the central and
peripheral nervous systems and the heart and blood vessels. It causes
serious skin problems. Prolonged exposure causes bladder, lung and skin
cancer, and may cause kidney and liver cancer. Water with arsenic
levels over the MCL has been found by the United States to be unfit for
human consumption, but, for people living in the affected villages on
the Hopi Reservation, there is no other source of drinking water
currently available.
The Hopi Tribe requested that the United States address the
elevated arsenic levels in the drinking water systems, including filing
an action in the Court of Federal Claims. The Court recognized that the
``central legal question in th[at] case'' was the precise scope of the
federal government's duties as trustee with respect to Indian trusts.''
The Court also recognized that the United States' trust duties are
determined by ``closely examining the statutes that impose them,'' and
that ``the Federal Government's trust duties are ultimately determined
by Congress.'' The Court of Federal Claims found that it did not have
jurisdiction under the Indian Tucker Act to hear the Hopi Tribe's
claim, and the Federal Circuit affirmed.
The Hopi Tribe continues to work with the United States to further
the Hopi Arsenic Mitigation Plan (HAMP). However, this process has been
very slow, and, meanwhile, the drinking water systems at the Hopi Tribe
continue to contained elevated arsenic concentrations. The Hopi Tribe
is requesting that this committee review the handling of this matter by
the United States. While EPA and the Indian Health Services have been
instrumental in the initial funding and planning for the HAMP, the
funding for the pipelines to connect the replacement water wells to the
Hopi Villages has not yet been identified and made available.
In closing, we hope these examples are helpful to the Committee in
its evaluation of how the United States can better fulfill its Trust
obligations to Indian Tribes in the environmental and public health
areas. Specifically, with regard to current and future economic impacts
of regulation of coal fired power plants in Indian Country, we
recommend that Committee review the United States' commitment to off-
setting adverse economic impacts on Tribes, many of which cannot afford
further adverse economic impacts. Thank you for the opportunity to
provide testimony.
Attachments
May 11, 2012
Hon. Ken Salazar,
Secretary,
Department of the Interior,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Lisa Jackson,
Administrator,
Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC.
Dear Secretary Salazar and Administrator Jackson:
We understand that a contaminated groundwater plume emanating from
the Tuba City open dump on the Navajo and Hopi reservations poses an
immediate threat to critical drinking-water supplies used by both
tribes. We are also aware that the Department of the Interior (through
the Bureau of Indian Affairs) and the Environmental Protection Agency
are currently working on a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
(RI/FS) for the site. The plume's migration, however, may be outpacing
your efforts. To stave off irreversible contamination of these
drinking-water supplies, we encourage you, in coordination with the
tribes, to immediately develop and implement a plume containment-and-
control strategy. Such a strategy would go a long way toward preventing
further degradation of critical resources, while BIA and EPA finalize
the RI/FS and identify a long-term solution.
By way of background, it is our understanding that the BIA operated
the Tuba City Open Dump from the 1950s until it stopped receiving waste
in October 1997. We have also been informed that when in operation, it
was an unlined, unpermitted, and unregulated facility. In all, the dump
is approximately 30 acres in size, 28 acres of which are located on the
Hopi Reservation, within view of the Hopi Village of Upper Moenkopi and
the Navajo Nation's Tuba City Chapter.
We have also been informed that monitoring wells located adjacent
to the dump indicate that contaminated. groundwater is migrating from
the site toward drinking-water wells; purportedly placing the plume
within 3,000 feet of drinking-water wells serving the Village of Upper
Moenkopi. Based on the information we received, these contaminants may
include uranium, sulfates, and chloride, with uranium levels
approximately seven times higher than the maximum contaminant levels
allowed by the EPA. In light of the foregoing, we request that your
respective agencies prioritize completion of the RI/FS, and that you
urgently pursue a course of action aimed at containing and controlling
the plume.
Thank you for your time and immediate attention to this important
issue. As always, we ask that this matter be handled in strict
accordance with the existing agency rules, regulations, and ethical
guidelines. Please do not hesitate to contact our offices with
questions, and let us know if we can be of further assistance in this
matter.
Sincerely,
Senator Jon Kyl
Congressman Paul Gosar
Senator John McCain
Congressman Trent Franks
______
United States Environmental Protection Agency
June 19, 2012
Hon. Paul Gosar,
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Gosar:
Thank you for your letter of May 11, 2012 to EPA Administrator Lisa
Jackson regarding the Tuba City Dump (Dump), located on the Navajo
Nation and Hopi Tribe reservations. The Administrator has requested our
Regional Office in San Francisco to respond. Your letter expresses
concerns that groundwater contamination from the Dump is posing an
imminent threat of contaminating the drinking water sources in
Moenkopi, and suggests that EPA strongly consider taking immediate
action to contain groundwater, before completion of the Superfund
remedial investigation and feasibility study (RI/FS) being performed by
the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) with EPA oversight under an
enforceable agreement.
EPA shares your interest in ensuring that the limited drinking
water available for the Navajo Nation and Hopi Tribe in this area
remains safe and that the regulatory process to select appropriate
cleanup actions takes place expeditiously. The remedial investigation
currently being conducted is necessary to fully ascertain any potential
risks from the Dump to the supply wells, and will be performed on a
schedule that will ensure ongoing protection of the water supply. The
feasibility study will evaluate specific detailed alternatives for
cleanup of groundwater, the dump material, or both, to ensure that any
remedy selected is the best alternative. EPA believes that existing
studies and information do not support the need for a groundwater
response action before this work is completed.
The fieldwork to complete the remedial investigation is beginning
this month. The critical information from these field efforts will be
available within the next six months. The Record of Decision is
anticipated by early 2014. EPA is continuing to monitor the water from
the supply wells and surrounding monitoring well network, and will
reconsider taking earlier action should new information indicate it is
necessary to protect drinking water. We are committed to continuing to
work closely with the Navajo Nation and Hopi Tribe throughout the RI/FS
and remedy selection process.
Sincerely,
Jared Blumenfeld,
______
United States Environmental Protection Agency
June 19, 2012
Hon. Trent Franks,
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Franks:
Thank you for your letter of May 11, 2012 to EPA Administrator Lisa
Jackson regarding the Tuba City Dump (Dump), located on the Navajo
Nation and Hopi Tribe reservations. The Administrator has requested our
Regional Office in San Francisco to respond. Your letter expresses
concerns that groundwater contamination from the Dump is posing an
imminent threat of contaminating the drinking water sources in
Moenkopi, and suggests that EPA strongly consider taking immediate
action to contain groundwater, before completion of the Superfund
remedial investigation and feasibility study (RI/FS) being performed by
the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) with EPA oversight under an
enforceable agreement.
EPA shares your interest in ensuring that the limited drinking
water available for the Navajo Nation and Hopi Tribe in this area
remains safe and that the regulatory process to select appropriate
cleanup actions takes place expeditiously. The remedial investigation
currently being conducted is necessary to fully ascertain any potential
risks from the Dump to the supply wells, and will be performed on a
schedule that will ensure ongoing protection of the water supply. The
feasibility study will evaluate specific detailed alternatives for
cleanup of groundwater, the dump material, or both, to ensure that any
remedy selected is the best alternative. EPA believes that existing
studies and information do not support the need for a groundwater
response action before this work is completed.
The fieldwork to complete the remedial investigation is beginning
this month. The critical information from these field efforts will be
available within the next six months. The Record of Decision is
anticipated by early 2014. EPA is continuing to monitor the water from
the supply wells and surrounding monitoring well network, and will
reconsider taking earlier action should new information indicate it is
necessary to protect drinking water. We are committed to continuing to
work closely with the Navajo Nation and Hopi Tribe throughout the RI/FS
and remedy selection process.
Sincerely,
Jared Blumenfeld
______
United States Environmental Protection Agency
June 19, 2012
Hon. John McCain,
United States Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator McCain:
Thank you for your letter of May 11, 2012 to EPA Administrator Lisa
Jackson regarding the Tuba City Dump (Dump), located on the Navajo
Nation and Hopi Tribe reservations. The Administrator has requested our
Regional Office in San Francisco to respond. Your letter expresses
concerns that groundwater contamination from the Dump is posing an
imminent threat of contaminating the drinking water sources in
Moenkopi, and suggests that EPA strongly consider taking immediate
action to contain groundwater, before completion of the Superfund
remedial investigation and feasibility study (RI/FS) being performed by
the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) with EPA oversight under an
enforceable agreement.
EPA shares your interest in ensuring that the limited drinking
water available for the Navajo Nation and Hopi Tribe in this area
remains safe and that the regulatory process to select appropriate
cleanup actions takes place expeditiously. The remedial investigation
currently being conducted is necessary to fully ascertain any potential
risks from the Dump to the supply wells, and will be performed on a
schedule that will ensure ongoing protection of the water supply. The
feasibility study will evaluate' specific detailed alternatives for
cleanup of groundwater, the dump material, or both, to ensure that any
remedy selected is the best alternative. EPA believes that existing
studies and information do not support the need for a groundwater
response action before this work is completed.
The fieldwork to complete the remedial investigation is beginning
this month. The critical information from these field efforts will be
available within the next six months. The Record of Decision is
anticipated by early 2014. EPA is continuing to monitor the water from
the supply wells and surrounding monitoring well network, and will
reconsider taking earlier action should new information indicate it is
necessary to protect drinking water. We are committed to continuing to
work closely with the Navajo Nation and Hopi Tribe throughout the RI/FS
and remedy selection process.
Sincerely,
Jared Blumenfeld
______
United States Environmental Protection Agency
June 19, 2012
Hon. Jon Kyl,
United States Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Kyl:
Thank you for your letter of May 11, 2012 to EPA Administrator Lisa
Jackson regarding the Tuba City Dump (Dump), located on the Navajo
Nation and Hopi Tribe reservations. The Administrator has requested our
Regional Office in San Francisco to respond. Your letter expresses
concerns that groundwater contamination from the Dump is posing an
imminent threat of contaminating the drinking water sources in
Moenkopi, and suggests that EPA strongly consider taking immediate
action to contain groundwater, before completion of the Superfund
remedial investigation and feasibility study (RI/FS) being performed by
the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) with EPA oversight under an
enforceable agreement.
EPA shares your interest in ensuring that the limited drinking
water available for the Navajo Nation and Hopi Tribe in this area
remains safe and that the regulatory process to select appropriate
cleanup actions takes place expeditiously. The remedial investigation
currently being conducted is necessary to fully ascertain any potential
risks from the Dump to the supply wells, and will be performed on a
schedule that will ensure ongoing protection of the water supply. The
feasibility study will evaluate specific detailed alternatives for
cleanup of groundwater, the dump material, or both, to ensure that any
remedy selected is the best alternative. EPA believes that existing
studies and information do not support the need for a groundwater
response action before this work is completed.
The fieldwork to complete the remedial investigation is beginning
this month. The critical information from these field efforts will be
available within the next six months. The Record of Decision is
anticipated by early 2014. EPA is continuing to monitor the water from
the supply wells and surrounding monitoring well network, and will
reconsider taking earlier action should new information indicate it is
necessary to protect drinking water. We are committed to continuing to
work closely with the Navajo Nation and Hopi Tribe throughout the RI/FS
and remedy selection process.
Sincerely,
Jared Blumenfeld.
The Chairman. Thank you so very much, Mr. Chairman for your
compelling testimony. Thank you, sir.
Next I'd like to turn to the Honorable LoRenzo Bates, who
is the speaker of the Navajo Nation council.
Welcome.
STATEMENT OF HON. LORENZO BATES, SPEAKER, NAVAJO NATION COUNCIL
Mr. Bates. Thank you, Chairman Barrasso, Senator McCain.
My name is LoRenzo Bates, and I'm an elected member of the
23rd Navajo Nation council representing six Navajo communities,
including Nenahnezad, Newcomb, San Juan, Tiis Tsoh Sikaad, Tse
Daa Kaan, and Upper Fruitland.
I would first like to begin by thanking you for the
opportunity to submit testimony to the Committee on a matter of
great significance to the Navajo Nation on and behalf of the
communities and the farmers that I represent.
I would also like, with your permission, Chairman, to ask
that the folks that drove hours on their own time to be
recognized from my communities. If you could stand.
The Chairman. Please do.
Welcome. Welcome to the hearing. Thank you for bringing
them with you.
Mr. Bates. And, also, my chairman for health education
committee, Navajo Nation council.
The Chairman. Chairman.
Mr. Bates. These individuals, as well as myself, represent
Navajo people and the families that continue to be impacted by
the spill that occurred on August 5, 2015.
The communities of Nenahnezad, San Juan, Upper Fruitland,
and Tse Daa Kaan all lie directly along the path of the San
Juan River. The other communities that I serve also draw water
indirectly or directly from the river for human and livestock
and agricultural use.
In the communities of San Juan, Nenahnezad, Tse Daa Kaan,
Gadi i ahi, Shiprock, and Upper Fruitland, it is estimated that
there are over 1,600 farmers, and tens of thousands of acres of
farmland that use water from the San Juan River.
These numbers only reflect four impacted communities. The
secondary impacts of these economic losses are only just
beginning.
The Navajo Nation, as a whole, has an unemployment rate
that very often hovers around above 50 percent. We have a per
capita income of around $7,000 annually.
With those statistics in mind, I come before you today on
behalf of the communities for the following four reasons:
first, to urge the U.S. Environment Protection Agency to
fulfill its obligation to compensate the farmers, livestock
owners, and many others who are impacted by the spill in a
timely manner and to the full extent of the damages occurred.
We appreciate the fact that the U.S. EPA has begun
reimbursing the Navajo Nation's governmental agencies; however,
nearly nine months have passed since the spill occurred, and
not one single individual farmer, livestock owner or others
affected by the spill have been compensated for their losses.
I understand that there is a process that there must be in
order to issue financial compensation to the individuals;
however, our people need to be informed of the timeline
associated with that process, and be compensated as quickly and
efficiently as possible.
Second, to demand that the U.S. EPA provides assurances and
tangible evidence to the Navajo people and communities that
their livestock and agricultural products will be safe for sale
and consumption.
There remains great uncertainty and concern over the
viability of sales of crops and livestock in the coming months.
While Navajo farmers are now preparing their fields for
planting season, there remains uncertainty over whether or not
their fields will produce quantity and quality of crops they
are accustomed to prior to the spill.
Thirdly, to request closer and more constant collaboration
between the U.S. EPA and the Navajo Nation EPA in communicating
with one another, sharing data, and conveying that data and
information to the Navajo public on a timely and consistent
basis.
Numerous meetings have been held, and information has been
shared publicly; however, that information is not always
consistent.
And I urge all of the entities involved in monitoring the
Animus River and the San Juan River to coordinate and speak
with one consistent voice when informing the Navajo people.
Lastly, on April 14th, members of the 23rd Navajo Nation
Council passed a resolution urging the President of the United
States and his designees to hold the U.S. EPA accountable for
their negligence resulting in a toxic spill from the Gold King
Mine into the Animus River and causing catastrophic
consequences for the Navajo Nation.
The resolution is attached to this testimony. I myself as a
farmer and livestock owner in the community of Upper Fruitland
have seen the impacts firsthand.
Since the spill, I have met many individuals from the
impacted area, and continue to struggle with financial losses
and look to the Federal government to provide answers and
assistance. The assistance can and should come in the form of
financial compensation through the claims process.
While I have made reference to financial compensation
several times, I also want the Committee and the U.S. EPA to
fully understand that the spill that occurred on August 5,
2015, had a price tag. And no monetary figure can be placed on
the cultural and emotional impact that the spill continues to
have on our Navajo people. Water is life, and indeed that is
true for our people.
In closing, we look forward to working closely with the
U.S. EPA and the Federal government to address the needs of the
Navajo communities and the environment today, and in the long-
term the problems that have defined initial response, cleanup,
and compensation do not need to taint the future response and
cooperation between the Navajo Nation and the U.S. EPA and the
Federal Government.
The Navajo Nation looks forward to working closely with
this Committee and Congress to ensure that future needs and
communications are handled in a timely and proper manner and to
ensure that the Navajo people are compensated.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bates follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Lorenzo Bates, Speaker, Navajo Nation
Council
Ya'at'eeh Chairman Barrasso, Vice-Chairman Tester, and Members of
the U.S. Senate Committee on Indian Affairs. My name is LoRenzo Bates.
I am an elected member of the 23rd Navajo Nation Council, representing
six Navajo communities including Nenahnezad, Newcomb, San Juan, Tiis
Tsoh Sikaad, Tse'Daa'Kaan, and Upper Fruitland. I would like to begin
by thanking you for the opportunity to submit testimony to the
committee on a matter of great significance to the Navajo Nation on
behalf of the communities and the farmers that I represent.
I also want to acknowledge and thank the members of the impacted
communities who are seated in the audience today. At this time, I ask
them to please stand and be recognized by the committee. They drove
many hours, at their own expense, to be here to support the testimony
provided on behalf of the Navajo people, Navajo communities, and the
Great Navajo Nation.
They represent the thousands of Navajo people and Navajo families
that continue to be impacted by the spill that occurred on August 5,
2015. The communities of Nenahnezad, San Juan, Upper Fruitland, and
Tse'Daa'Kaan all lie directly along the path of the San Juan River. The
other communities that I serve all draw water directly or indirectly
from the river for human, livestock, and agricultural use.
In the four communities of Tse'Daa'Kaan, Gadi'i'ahi, Shiprock, and
Upper Fruitland it is estimated that there are over 1,600 farmers and
tens of thousands of acres of farmland that use water from the San Juan
River--these numbers only reflect four impacted communities. The
secondary impacts of these economic losses are only just beginning. The
Navajo Nation as a whole has an unemployment rate that very often
hovers at 50 percent. We have a per capita income around $7,000.
With those statistics in mind, I come before you today on behalf of
these communities for the following four reasons:
1) Firstly, to urge the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
to fulfill its obligation to compensate the farmers, livestock
owners, and many others who are impacted by the spill in a
timely manner and to the fullest extent of damages incurred. We
appreciate the fact that the U.S. EPA has begun reimbursing the
Navajo Nation's governmental agencies. However, nearly nine
months have passed since the spill occurred and not one single
individual farmer, livestock owner, or others affected by the
spill have been compensated for their losses. I understand that
there is a process that must be followed in order to issue
financial compensation to individuals. However, our people need
to be informed of the timeline associated with that process and
be compensated as quickly and efficiently as possible.
2) Secondly, to demand that the U.S. EPA provides assurances
and tangible evidence to the Navajo people and communities that
their livestock and agricultural products will be safe for sale
and consumption. There remains great uncertainty and concern
over the viability of sales of crops and livestock in the
coming months. While Navajo farmers are now preparing their
fields for planting season there remains uncertainty over
whether or not their fields will produce the quantity and
quality of crops that they were accustomed to prior to the
spill. As you recall, restrictions were placed on the use of
irrigation water from the San Juan River following the spill,
which left thousands of acres of farmland without water for
extended periods of time. The extent of damage to the soil and
nutrients remains unknown to this day.
3) Thirdly, to request closer and more consistent
collaboration between the U.S. EPA and the Navajo Nation EPA in
communicating with one another, sharing data, and conveying
that data and information to the Navajo public on a timely and
consistent basis. Numerous meetings have been held and
information has been shared publicly. However, that information
is not always consistent. I urge all of the entities involved
in monitoring the Animas River and the San Juan River to
coordinate and to speak with one consistent voice when
informing the Navajo people.
4) Lastly, on April 14, 2016, members of the Navajo Nation
Council passed a resolution urging the President of the United
States and his designees to hold the U.S. EPA accountable for
their negligence resulting in a toxic spill from the Gold King
Mine into the Animas River and causing catastrophic
consequences for the Navajo Nation. The resolution is attached
to this testimony. I strongly urge Congress to advocate for an
Executive Order that requires all federal agencies to provide
timely and effective communication to tribes in events such as
the Gold King Mine spill.
I myself am a farmer and livestock owner in the community of Upper
Fruitland, and have seen the impacts firsthand. Since the spill I have
met with many individuals from the affected communities and many
continue to struggle with financial losses and look to the Federal
Government to provide answers and assistance. That assistance can and
should come in the form of financial compensation through the claims
process. However, there are also other means to assisting farmers in
the affected regions through other federal agencies such as the U.S.
Department of Agriculture, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, and others.
While I have made reference to financial compensation several
times, I also want the committee and the U.S. EPA to fully understand
that the spill that occurred on August 5, 2015, had a tremendous impact
on Navajo people in a spiritual, traditional, and cultural context.
There is no price tag and no monetary figure that can be placed on the
cultural and emotional impact that the spill continues to have on our
Navajo people. Often times, we hear the phrase ``Water is Life'' and
indeed that is true for our people. Water gives life to us, and all
that surrounds us.
Spiritually and culturally, Navajo beliefs are deeply rooted in the
land, air, and water that lie between the Four Sacred Mountains that
form the aboriginal boundary of our land. These connections are
reinforced spiritually in the ceremonies that sustain our people and
our livelihood. Our ceremonies use traditional seeds and crops that are
grown and gathered on Navajo land. The spill has contaminated or
destroyed many of the essential elements of our religious practice, and
desecrated a river that we have treated with reverence since time
immemorial.
In closing, we look forward to working closely with the U.S. EPA
and the federal government to address the needs of the Navajo
communities and the environment today, and in the long term. The
problems that have defined the initial response, clean up and
compensation do not need to taint the future response and cooperation
between the Navajo Nation, the U.S. EPA, and the Federal Government.
The Navajo Nation looks forward to working closely with this committee
and the Congress to ensure future needs and communications are handled
in a timely and proper manner and to ensure that our Navajo people are
compensated.
Attachment
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. Thank you very much for being with us today,
Speaker Bates. I'm grateful for your testimony.
I would like to next turn to Dr. Clark Lantz, who is a
professor and associate head of the Cellular and Molecular
Medicine at the University of Arizona.
Welcome, Dr. Lantz.
STATEMENT OF R, CLARK LANTZ, Ph.D. PROFESSOR AND
ASSOCIATE HEAD, CELLULAR AND MOLECULAR MEDICINE, UNIVERSITY OF
ARIZONA
Mr. Lantz. Thank you, Chairman Barrasso and--and Senator
McCain. I welcome the opportunity to testify before the
Committee today.
So I'm also the associate director of the University's
Superfund research program and deputy director of the Southwest
Environmental Health Science Center, two of the programs that
the university funded by the National Institute of
Environmental Health Sciences that focus on environmental
issues and their effects on native populations.
The University of Arizona is uniquely situated to play a
major role as an unbiased partner with American Indian
communities to determine the contribution of chemical and other
environmental exposures, particularly those related to metal
mining, to health inequities, and to support efforts to address
these threats.
Other National Institutes of Health funded programs at the
university include the partnership for Native American Cancer
Prevention, and the Center for Indigenous Environmental Health
Research.
In addition, the Lowell Institute for Mineral Resources and
the Center for Environmentally Sustainable Mining aim to engage
communities and be responsive to stakeholders to address
environmental issues related to mining in arid and semi-arid
environments.
The existence of these programs and their established trust
within Native communities were essential to the University of
Arizona response to the Gold King Mine spill.
Within a week after the spill, we had developed an
extensive information sheet that was posted on the U of A's
Superfund website, sent to our extension agents for
distribution to farmers, and sent to Navajo research managers
for use in their presentations about the spill.
In addition, the University of Arizona's Superfund
personnel held community teach-in regarding spill consequences
in Shiprock, Arizona, and three community listening sessions in
Shiprock, Aneth, and Upper Fruitland, Arizona.
Topics covered included the extent of the contamination and
potential for impact to the environment. In particular, water
quality and the significance of the spill to Navajo livelihoods
and cultural beliefs.
Finally, U of A Superfund personnel hosted four members of
the Navajo nation to participate in a panel discussion at the
University to discuss Navajo perspectives on the Gold King Mine
spill.
University of Arizona researchers felt it was also
important to be involved as an independent source in evaluation
of the outcomes of the spill.
To this end, researchers submitted and were awarded a grant
from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences.
This application was strengthened by the involvement and
support of the Navajo Nation. This included letters of support
from President Begaye and Vice President Nez, the division
directors, including Navajo EPA Director Dr. Ben, and approval
by the Navajo Nation Human Subjects Review Board. The
application also had a supporting resolution from the Dine
Medicine Men's association.
This research is a partnership between the Navajo Nation
and the University. Samples are collected by the community, are
guided to the points by farmers for their areas of--areas of
concern.
University of Arizona investigators have been quick to
respond to questions by the community, and have taken careful
steps to seek the Community's input and approvals in research
design. All results will be reported first to the community and
belong to the community.
Now, I think one of the most important metals to monitor
for toxicity--based on the total estimated levels of metals
released from the spill and the relative toxicity of the
metals, in our opinion, lead and arsenic are the most
problematic in terms of health risk.
Lead is known to cause neurological defects. Long-term lead
exposure of adults can result in decreased performance in some
tests that measure functions of the nervous system.
Children are particularly sensitive to lead exposures,
resulting in decreased mental abilities and learning
difficulties.
Exposures to lead is most dangerous for young and unborn
children. Unborn children can be exposed to lead through their
mothers. Harmful effects include premature birth, smaller
babies, decreased mental ability in the infant and learning
difficulties and reduced growth in young children.
Arsenic has been associated with a wide range of chronic
diseases. Arsenic has been classified as a carcinogen. And
long-term exposure to arsenic is associated with cancers of the
skin, bladder, and lungs.
Other adverse health effects include chronic lung disease,
developmental effects, neurotoxicity, diabetes, and
cardiovascular disease. Children, again, appear to be
particularly sensitive, especially to high doses.
Arsenic can be accumulated in some plants and foods,
including rice, lettuce, radishes, broccoli, brussel sprouts,
kale and cabbage.
Again, I want to thank the Committee for giving me the
opportunity to demonstrate how the University has provided, and
will continue to provide, unbiased support for native
communities concerned with their environmental issues.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lantz follows:]
Prepared Statement of R, Clark Lantz, Ph.D. Professor and Associate
Head, Cellular and Molecular Medicine, University of Arizona
Chairman Barrasso, Vice Chairman Tester and members of the
Committee. My name is Dr. Clark Lantz and I want to thank you for the
opportunity to testify. I would like to acknowledge that I was assisted
with preparing this testimony by Drs. Karletta Chief and Raina Maier. I
am the Associate Director of the University of Arizona Superfund
Research Program and Deputy Director of the Southwest Environmental
Health Sciences Center, two of the programs at the University that
focus on environmental issues and their effects on native populations.
The University of Arizona is uniquely situated to play a major role
as an unbiased partner with American Indian communities to determine
the contribution of chemical and other environmental exposures,
particularly those related to metal mining, to health inequities and to
support efforts to address these threats. In Part I of this document we
identify and highlight the goals and accomplishments of key University
of Arizona programs related to native communities and mining. Most of
these programs are funded through the National Institutes of Health
(NIH) by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences
(NIEHS) and the National Cancer Institute (NCI). In Part II we describe
how the existence of these programs and their established trust within
native communities were essential to the University of Arizona response
to the Gold King Mine spill. Part III of the document presents
information on the toxicity of metals associated with the Gold King
Mine spill.
Part I. Key Programs Related to Native Communities and Mining
A. UA Southwest Environmental Health Science Center (SWEHSC) An NIEHS
Core Center of Excellence
The geographic location of the SWEHSC, with its rich Native
American cultural heritage, provides unique opportunities for basic
environmental health sciences research to impact the health of these
populations. The focus of the Center is on supporting research related
to unique exposures seen in arid and semiarid environments and how they
affect indigenous populations. Within the Center the Community Outreach
and Education Core (COEC) provides strong links between the research
conducted within the Center and communities that maybe affected by
exposures.
Under the theme of activities with tribal entities, the COEC
continues to work with the Gila River Indian Community and the Inter
Tribal Council of Arizona to develop new activities. In 2015 the SWEHSC
COEC built additional collaborations with American Indian communities
in close proximity to Tucson, the Tohono O'odham Nation, related to
arsenic in the water, and the Pascua Yaqui Tribe, regarding high levels
asthma among their children.
Major Recent Accomplishments include:
Tribal Forum associated with the Annual Meeting of the P30
Core Centers Meeting and the outcomes associated with that
meeting
Water Summit--Arsenic in the Water of the Tohono O'odham
Nation
Publication of the Indigenous Stewards Environmental
Literary Magazine and the outcomes related to its publication,
a component of the ``American Indian Stories of Health and the
Environment'' administrative supplement funding.
2015 Tribal Forum
The COEC Director continues to participate in the bi-annual Inter
Tribal Council of Arizona (ITCA), Inc. Environmental Managers meetings
and those of the Water Resources working group, the Air Quality working
group and the Solid Waste working group led to the relationships that
brought over 100 tribal representatives to the Forum. The 2015 Tribal
forum was associated with the NIEHS Annual Centers Meeting and was very
successful. The forum was called Tribal Stories of Health and the
Environment: A forum to share how environmental exposures affect the
health of tribal people, and was hosted by the ITCA, the Ak-Chin Indian
Community and the Tohono O'odham Nation. Information, can be found at
https://swehsc.pharmacy.arizona.edu/outreach/tribal-stories-health-
environment-forum.
This event grew from the COEC idea of a small meeting with the
tribal environmental managers to one with tribal environmental
professionals from all the programs. Most of the over 125 people who
attended were tribal people, people who work for tribes and attendees
from NIEHS and from other P30 Core Centers who work with tribes. An
NIEHS article summarizes the forum, ``Tribal forum forges new
connections'' and can be found at http://www.niehs.nih.gov/news/
newsletter/2015/5/spotlight-tribal/.
Arsenic Water Summit
As a result of the forum, Selso Villegas, PhD, the Director of the
Water Resources Department of the Tohono O'odham Nation requested help
with a meeting with community members concerning low dose chronic
exposure to arsenic. The event was held in November, with attendance by
Tohono O'odham (TO) community members, two members of the Tribal
Council and by a number of TO Community College students. The outcome
of the meeting is a request to present to subcommittees of the Council
and to the Council itself. In addition, the COEC director discussed
pilot project funds available from the SWEHSC for an epidemiological
study.
Indigenous Stewards Magazine
In 2013 the COEC received an administrative supplement in
collaboration with the COEC of the University of Washington. This
project has provided new avenues of partnership with the Ha:San High
School, the Tohono O'odham Community College and with Native American
student associations at the University of Arizona. The output of the
supplement is the inaugural issue of a literary magazine Indigenous
Stewards, found at http://swehsc.pharmacy.arizona.edu/content/
indigenous-stewards.
B. Center for Indigenous Environmental Health Research (CIEHR) An NIEHS
and USEPA Center of Excellence on Environmental Health
Disparities
The P50 Center for Indigenous Environmental Health Research (CIEHR)
newly established and funded in late 2015, was initiated to partner
with American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) communities to build
capacity to determine the contribution of chemical and other
environmental exposures to health inequities and support efforts to
address these threats. AI/AN communities suffer from increased
mortality attributable to cancer (stomach, gallbladder, liver and
kidney), respiratory disease, diabetes, and liver disease, among other
conditions. Chemically contaminated traditional foods, water, air, and
household environments, as well as social determinants of health,
contribute to these health disparities and stand out as modifiable
factors for AI/AN communities. Effective and sustainable environmental
health disparities research and mitigation require a community-based
participatory research (CBPR) approach, engaging the strengths of AI/AN
communities and providing data and context to inform policy decisions.
Nascent research on resilience in AI/AN and other peoples identifies
traditional community structure and social relationships, cultural
identity and practices, and experience with past adversity as
protective, offering innovative directions for AI/AN health research
and intervention.
C. The Partnership for Native American Cancer Prevention (NACP) An NCI
Partnership to Advance Cancer Health Equity
The Partnership for Native American Cancer Prevention (NACP) is a
collaborative Minority Institution/Cancer Center Partnership (MI/CCP)
between the University of Arizona Cancer Center, Northern Arizona
University and the NIH National Cancer Institute. The mission is to
alleviate the unequal burden of cancer among Native Americans of the
Southwest through research, training and community outreach programs in
collaboration with the communities they serve.
The Program is designed to facilitate the entry of Native Americans
into biomedical research and healthcare professions while engaging
communities in research and training relevant to their needs. Research
projects include laboratory, field-based and community-based
participatory research. All programs involving communities originate in
those communities and are developed and implemented in partnership with
NACP students and faculty.
The goals of the NACP are:
1) Continue to increase the competitive stance of cancer
research and training at Northern Arizona University by adding
new cancer researchers and by continuing strong faculty
development programs for all junior faculty.
2) Develop programs that facilitate the successful transition
of Native American students into the universities and that
enhance the retention and graduation of Native American
undergraduates in biomedical sciences.
3) Develop sustainable community education programs and
research for cancer prevention that meet the unique needs of
the Hopi Tribe and the Navajo and Tohono O'odham Nations.
D. University of Arizona Superfund Research Program (UASRP) An NIEHS
multi-investigator interdisciplinary research program
The University of Arizona Superfund Research Program (UA SRP)
addresses the current knowledge gap in our understanding of mine waste
systems in relation to human and environmental health, a current and
growing problem. The research goals of the UA SRP are two-fold, first
to develop exposure assessment tools that can be used to evaluate the
risk for communities that neighbor mine waste or smelter sites. A
second goal is to develop and evaluate the effectiveness of new cleanup
technologies for mining waste. Along with these goals, the UA SRP has a
mission to work to mitigate the human impacts of exposure to mining
waste through effective communication of its research and by serving as
a State and national resource for human and environmental health issues
associated with mining.
Within the UASRP the Community Engagement Core (CEC) applies
research outcomes from the UA SRP to empower underrepresented
populations to address health and environmental challenges related to
our mining legacy. This is done through a combination of community-
engaged research and training and capacity building focused on Arizona
Tribal Nations and Hispanic communities.
The purpose of the CEC is to deliver science-based information to
engage affected community stakeholders so they can become active
players in understanding and making informed decisions on health issues
related to mining. In this way, they become active players in
understanding and dealing with the environmental health issues they
face. Active participation allows citizens to help create and drive the
research process, problem solving, solution development, and political
dialogue. The exchange between the UA SRP and communities is multi-
directional so as to influence both the research agenda and the
engagement experiences that are implemented. For instance, community
members not only interact with CEC personnel regarding community
engaged-research, but also, opportunities are made available for them
to discuss current UA SRP research as well as how this research can
respond to local concerns.
Mining Modules
The UA SRP has partnered with Arizona tribal colleges to design and
pilot educational modules on mining processes and on the sociocultural
and environmental impacts of mining to supplement existing science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) curricula, with the
goal of supporting the Native American STEM pipeline to four-year
institutions. The first module, Copper Mining, is available on-line:
http://www.superfund.pharmacy.arizona.edu/learning-modules/tribal-
modules Five additional modules will be made available as they are
completed.
Community Informational Pamphlets
The UA SRP has developed a series of eleven tri-fold information
sheets to date which are designed to provide a basic introduction to
environmental issues for community members neighboring contaminated
sites as well the general public. The materials are available online or
in English and Spanish. Examples include: What are Mine Tailings?, What
is Arsenic?, Lead and Our Health, and What is Hazardous Waste?
E. Lowell Institute for Mineral Resources (IMR) A State and industry
supported Institute
The IMR (www.imr.arizona.edu) is the largest interdisciplinary
center for mineral resources research in the US and one of the largest
in the world. The purpose of the IMR is to create the ``new face of
mining'' by fusing intellectual disciplines, engaging communities,
being responsive to stakeholders, conducting use-inspired research,
being entrepreneurial, having permeable boundaries, and being engaged
globally. The IMR is unique in the world in the success of this
transdisciplinary approach.
The IMR bridges basic and applied research across all areas of
science, technology, health, social science, law, policy, business, and
leadership and works with leaders to adopt new ideas, policies, and
technologies. Key thematic challenges include water, energy, healthy
and safe communities, improving our knowledge of the global mineral
resource inventory, improving environmental stewardship, obtaining
social license to operate, informing law and policy, educating the next
generation, and engaging our communities.
Personnel from the IMR have been active in briefing the staffs for
all Arizona federal representatives and Senators, state legislators,
and local city and county council and supervisors on issues related to
mining.
F. The Center for Environmentally Sustainable Mining (CESM) A State and
industry supported Center
The mission of CESM is to develop educational, specialized
professional training, and research initiatives that address
environmental issues related to mining activities in arid and semi-arid
urban environments. Examples include development of novel technologies
to: minimize water use and suppress dust generation in mining
operations; allow green engineering for environmentally responsible new
mine development; create sustainable mine tailings caps; prevent and
treat acid rock drainage; allow long-term assessment of environmental
impacts; assess short- and long-term health risks from contaminated
water and air in urban environments near mining operations.
A major accomplishment of the CESM is the formation of an Industry-
Academic Cooperative for the reclamation of mine wastes. The purpose of
the Cooperative is to bring mining companies together with academia to
develop improved reclamation technology for mining waste. All members
of the Cooperative agree to share results.
Part II: University of Arizona Response to Gold King Mine Spill
Communicating information
The Gold King Mine spill contaminated waterways running through
Navajo Nation communities. The spill occurred on August 5, 2015 from
the Gold King Mine in Silverton, CO. Acid mine drainage (AMD) from the
mine traveled to Cement creek, a tributary of the Animas River,
eventually adding three million gallons of AMD into the waterways of
the Colorado River Basin. Tribal community members along the impacted
rivers and streams began voicing their concerns about the safety of the
contaminated water for personal use as well as for livestock, wildlife,
and crops. The Friday after the spill, it was suggested that based on
all the questions being received from Navajo Nation Speaker of the
Navajo Council Lorenzo Bates and from Navajo and Yuma farmers, that an
unbiased information sheet should be developed as quickly as possible.
Because of the foundation and trust established by the UA Programs
listed above, UA SRP personnel were contacted to help with this
project. They produced and published an on-line Gold King Mine spill
fact sheet following analysis of data released by the US Environmental
Protection Agency (US EPA) in the week following the spill. http://
www.superfund.pharmacy.arizona.edu/sites/default/files/u43/
gold_king_mine_spill.pdf.
The fact sheet was posted on the UA SRP website and was distributed
by email and through Jeannie Benally (UA extension agent) who
distributed hard copies at the farmers meetings. In addition, Perry
Charley (Research Manager at Dine' College) used it in his
presentations about the spill. The document continues to be updated and
the current version is posted on the UA SRP website at the url provided
above. The fact sheet has also been condensed into a two page brochure
for ease of distribution. (The 2 page information sheets are attached).
In addition to the fact sheet, over the next couple of months, UA
SRP personnel were engaged in diverse translation and outreach efforts.
These included media interviews (see media outlet list below), student
educational opportunities, a community ``teach-in'' regarding spill
consequences held in Shiprock, AZ, and three community ``listening''
sessions held in Shiprock, Aneth, and Upper Fruitland, AZ. Topics
covered included the extent of the contamination and potential for
impact to the environment, in particular water quality; and the
significance of the spill to Navajo livelihoods and cultural beliefs.
Media interview outlets included:
Arizona Week, a newsmagazine produced by Arizona Public
Media
Native America Calling, a live call-in program which can be
heard on over public, community, and tribal radio stations and
the Internet
Arizona Daily Star
Arizona Farm Bureau
Finally on March 29, 2016, UA SRP personnel hosted four members of
the Navajo Nation to participate in a panel to discuss ``Navajo
Perspectives on the Gold King Mine Spill.'' Panel members included:
Chili Yazzie (Shiprock Chapter President), Perry Charley (Dine College
Scientist), Jani Ingram (NAU Chemistry Professor), and Mae-Gilene Begay
(Navajo Community Health Representatives Director). The purpose of this
visit was to promote meaningful interaction between the Navajo
community and the UA community.
Independent Assessment of Spill Outcomes
University of Arizona researchers felt it was important to not only
provide information related to the spill but to also be involved as an
independent source in evaluation of the outcomes of the spill. To this
end researchers submitted a grant to NIEHS entitled: ``ToLitso, The
Water Is Yellow: Investigating Short Term Exposure And Risk Perception
Of Navajo Communities To The Gold King Mine Toxic Spill''. The grant
was funded for two years, beginning March 1, 2016, through a rapid
funding mechanism that can be used for time sensitive research needs
such as the Gold King spill. Realizing the importance of beginning the
studies as quickly as possible, UA SRP and SWEHSC both provided
preliminary funds so that the project could actually begin in late
2015. The application was strengthened by the involvement and support
of the Navajo Nation. This included a letter of support from President
Begay and VP Nez, the Division directors including Navajo EPA Dr. Benn,
and approval by the Navajo Nation Human Subjects Review Board as of Jan
2016. The application also had a supporting resolution from the Dine'
Medicine Men's Association.
The research is a partnership between UA and Navajo Nation. Samples
are collected by the community who are guided to the points by farmers
for their areas of concern. UA investigators have been quick to respond
to the questions by the community and have taken careful steps to seek
the community's input in approvals and research design. All results
will be reported first and belong to the community. Navajo Nation
President Russell Begaye and Vice President Jonathan Nez delivered
samples to the University of Arizona. Vice President Nez spent a day
touring University labs and discussing issues of the spill with
investigators.
''To Litso, The Water Is Yellow'' grant summary
On August 5, 2015, 3 million gallons of acid mine drainage was
accidently released from the Gold King Mine spill, eventually reaching
the San Juan River--the lifeblood of the Navajo Nation. Many Native
American communities have subsistence livelihoods and strong cultural
practices and spiritual beliefs that are deeply connected to the
natural environment. As a result, environmental contamination from
catastrophic mine spills severely impacts indigenous people to the core
of their spiritual and physical livelihoods and there is potential for
unique exposure pathways and greater health risks. Further complicating
the situation is the lack of empirical short and long-term exposure
data following mine spills, necessary for scientists to address these
concerns. Building on established partnerships with the Navajo Nation,
this project aims to measure the short-term exposure to lead and
arsenic and evaluate the risk perceptions of Navajo communities
dependent on the San Juan River in order to understand the potential
long-term health risks from the Gold King Mine spill and develop
mitigation strategies. Exposure and health effects of lead and arsenic
are widely studied and clear guidelines for human biomonitoring levels
are established such that individuals with high risks can be identified
and treated before adverse health effects occur. The first aim is to
determine levels of exposures in three Navajo Chapters downstream of
spill within 9 months of the spill and prior to the growing season. The
second aim is to assess temporal and spatial changes in sediment,
agricultural soil, river and well water in the three Navajo Chapters
within 12 months of the spill. The third aim is to determine the
association between Navajo community members' perception of health
risks and measured health risks from the Gold King Mine spill within
the 9-month period after the spill. This application is time-sensitive
because it is essential to obtain baseline shortterm exposure
measurements prior to spring runoff which is likely to re-mobilize
river sediment and prior to the start of the Navajo growing season.
Additionally, risk perception is most elevated, dynamic, and diverse
shortly after an incident and recall bias should be minimized. The
unpredictable timing of a mine spill of this magnitude increases the
importance of a timely response for the collection of samples to
evaluate potential harm to human health from environmental exposures.
The results of this investigation will be used in the future to develop
a community-based intervention, designed to (a) prevent potentially
harmful exposures based on actual measured risk, and/or (b) communicate
the actual long-term risks from the Gold King mine spill, effectively.
While this specific incident may have been one of the largest acid mine
spills in recent history, the Department of Interior has estimated more
than 500,000 abandoned mines throughout the United States, and the
potential for ongoing acid mine leaks or large-scale spills to impact
many communities and eco-systems is high. Empirical data collected from
this study could also be used to improve risk assessment and
communication in the unfortunate event of future mine spill disasters
affecting other communities.
Part III: Toxicity of Metals Associated With the Gold King Spill
Based on the total estimated levels of metals released from the
spill (see Understanding the Gold King Mine Spill pamphlet) and the
relative toxicity of the metals, in our opinion, the following metals
seem to be the most problematic in terms of health risk. These include
in order of importance lead, arsenic, mercury, cadmium, manganese,
copper and zinc.
Overview of metal toxicity
Lead is known to cause neurological deficits. Long-term lead
exposure of adults can result in decreased performance in some tests
that measure functions of the nervous system. It may also cause
weakness in fingers, wrists, or ankles. Children are particularly
sensitive to lead exposures resulting in decreased mental abilities,
and learning difficulties. Current EPA standards are lead in drinking
water is 0.015 milligrams per liter.
Arsenic has been associated with a wide range of chronic diseases.
Long-term exposure to arsenic may cause cancers of the skin, bladder
and lungs. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has
classified arsenic and arsenic compounds as carcinogenic to humans, and
has also stated that arsenic in drinkingwater is carcinogenic to
humans. Other adverse health effects that may be associated with long-
term ingestion of inorganic arsenic include developmental effects,
neurotoxicity, diabetes and cardiovascular disease. Children appear to
be particularly sensitive, especially at high doses. Exposures during
in utero and postnatal development lead to increased mortality,
decreased lung function and increased incidence of pulmonary infections
in adults. Some of these changes are evident as early as 6 years of age
following chronic in utero and postnatal exposures. Arsenic can be
accumulated in some plants and foods including rice, lettuce, radishes,
broccoli, Brussels sprouts, kale, and cabbage. The current EPA standard
for arsenic in municipal drinking water systems is 0.010 milligrams per
liter.
The nervous system is very sensitive to all forms of mercury.
Methylmercury and metallic mercury vapors are more harmful than other
forms, because more mercury in these forms reaches the brain. Exposure
to high levels of metallic, inorganic, or organic mercury can
permanently damage the brain, kidneys, and developing fetus. Very young
children are more sensitive to mercury than adults. Mercury in the
mother's body passes to the fetus and may accumulate there.
Methylmercury builds up in the tissues of fish. Larger and older fish
tend to have the highest levels of mercury. The EPA has set a limit of
0.002 milligrams per liter in drinking water. The Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) has set a maximum permissible level of 1 milligram
per kilogram of seafood.
Long-term exposure to lower levels of cadmium in air, food, or
water leads to a buildup of cadmium in the kidneys and possible kidney
disease. Other long-term effects are lung damage and fragile bones. The
health effects in children are expected to be similar. Animal studies
indicate that younger animals may be more sensitive. Fish, plants, and
animals take up cadmium from the environment. You can be exposed by
eating foods containing cadmium; low levels are found in all foods
(highest levels are found in shellfish, liver, and kidney meats) or by
drinking contaminated water. No long term adverse effects are expected
with a lifetime exposure to 0.005 milligrams per liter.
Manganese is also known to cause neurological deficits. While most
data on manganese is from inhaled occupational exposures, limited
evidence suggests that high manganese intake from drinking water may be
associated with neurological symptoms similar to those of Parkinson's
disease. In addition, limited evidence also indicates children exposed
to high levels of manganese had significantly lower scores on tests of
intelligence. A life time exposure to 0.3 milligrams per liter is not
expected to cause any adverse effects. The current EPA standard for
manganese in drinking water is 0.05 milligrams per liter. This is a
secondary standard dealing mostly with taste, clarity and other
nontoxic properties.
Copper and zinc are both essential nutrients but high levels may
also cause toxicity. Very high doses of copper can cause damage to your
liver and kidneys, and can even cause death. We do not know if these
effects would occur at the same dose level in children and adults.
Studies in animals suggest that young children may have more severe
effects than adults, but we don't know if this would also be true in
humans. For zinc, harmful effects generally begin at levels 10-15 times
higher than the amount needed for good health. Large doses taken
chronically by mouth can cause anemia and decrease the levels of good
cholesterol. It is not known whether children are more susceptible. EPA
recommended levels of copper and zinc in water should not exceed 1
milligram per liter and 5 milligrams per liter for copper and zinc,
respectively. These also are secondary standards. Please note that
these recommended limits are at least 100 times higher than those for
lead, arsenic mercury and cadmium, demonstrating that they are
relatively less toxic. However, they are mentioned here because of the
high levels of zinc and copper released during the spill.
Summary of toxicity of each metal
Additional information about the toxicity of these metals is given
in the more detailed sections below and can also be found on the Agency
for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) ToxFAQs websites.
Lead
How can lead affect my health?
The effects of lead are the same whether it enters the body through
breathing or swallowing. Lead can affect almost every organ and system
in your body. The main target for lead toxicity is the nervous system,
both in adults and children. Long-term exposure of adults can result in
decreased performance in some tests that measure functions of the
nervous system. It may also cause weakness in fingers, wrists, or
ankles. Lead exposure also causes small increases in blood pressure,
particularly in middle-aged and older people and can cause anemia.
Exposure to high lead levels can severely damage the brain and kidneys
in adults or children and ultimately cause death. In pregnant women,
high-levels of exposure to lead may cause miscarriage. High-level
exposure in men can damage the organs responsible for sperm production.
There is no conclusive proof that lead causes cancer.
How can lead affect children?
Small children can be exposed by eating lead-based paint chips,
chewing on objects painted with lead-based paint or swallowing house
dust or soil that contains lead.
Children are more vulnerable to lead poisoning than adults. A child
who swallows large amounts of lead may develop blood anemia, severe
stomachache, muscle weakness, and brain damage. If a child swallows
smaller amounts of lead, much less severe effects on blood and brain
function may occur. Even at much lower levels of exposure, lead can
affect a child's mental and physical growth.
Exposure to lead is more dangerous for young and unborn children.
Unborn children can be exposed to lead through their mothers. Harmful
effects include premature births, smaller babies, decreased mental
ability in the infant, learning difficulties, and reduced growth in
young children. These effects are more common if the mother or baby was
exposed to high levels of lead. Some of these effects may persist
beyond childhood.
What happens to lead when it enters the environment?
Once lead falls onto soil, it usually sticks to soil particles.
Movement of lead from soil into groundwater will depend on the type of
lead compound and the characteristics of the soil.
Has the Federal Government made recommendations to protect human
health?
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends
that states test children at ages 1 and 2 years. Children should be
tested at ages 3-6 years if they have never been tested for lead, if
they receive services from public assistance programs for the poor such
as Medicaid or the Supplemental Food Program for Women, Infants, and
Children, if they live in a building or frequently visit a house built
before 1950; if they visit a home (house or apartment) built before
1978 that has been recently remodeled; and/or if they have a brother,
sister, or playmate who has had lead poisoning. CDC has updated its
recommendations on children's blood lead levels. Experts now use an
upper reference level value of 97.5 percent of the population
distribution for children's blood lead. In 2012-2015, the value to
identify children with blood lead levels that are much higher than most
children have is 5 micrograms per deciliter. EPA limits lead in
drinking water to 0.015 milligrams per liter.
Arsenic
How can arsenic affect my health?
The first symptoms of long-term exposure to high levels of
inorganic arsenic (e.g. through drinking-water and food) are usually
observed in the skin, and include pigmentation changes, skin lesions
and hard patches on the palms and soles of the feet (hyperkeratosis).
These occur after a minimum exposure of approximately five years and
may be a precursor to skin cancer.
In addition to skin cancer, long-term exposure to arsenic may also
cause cancers of the bladder and lungs. The International Agency for
Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified arsenic and arsenic compounds
as carcinogenic to humans, both through inhalation and through
ingestion. Other adverse health effects that may be associated with
long-term ingestion of inorganic arsenic include developmental effects,
neurotoxicity, diabetes and cardiovascular disease.
How can arsenic affect children?
Children appear to be particularly sensitive, especially at high
doses. Exposures during in utero and postnatal development led to
increased mortality, decreased lung function and increased incidence of
pulmonary infections in adults. Some of these changes are evident as
early as 6 years of age following chronic in utero and postnatal
exposures.
What happens to arsenic when it enters the environment?
Arsenic occurs naturally in soil and minerals and may enter the
air, water, and land from wind-blown dust and may get into water from
runoff and leaching. Arsenic can be accumulated in some plants
including rice, lettuce, radishes, broccoli, Brussels sprouts, kale,
and cabbage.
Has the Federal Government made recommendations to protect human
health?
U.S. EPA standard for arsenic in municipal water systems is 0.010
milligrams per liter.
Mercury
How can mercury affect my health?
The nervous system is very sensitive to all forms of mercury.
Methylmercury and metallic mercury vapors are more harmful than other
forms, because more mercury in these forms reaches the brain. Exposure
to high levels of metallic, inorganic, or organic mercury can
permanently damage the brain, kidneys, and developing fetus. Effects on
brain functioning may result in irritability, shyness, tremors, changes
in vision or hearing, and memory problems. Methylmercury and mercuric
chloride are possible human carcinogen.
How does mercury affect children?
Very young children are more sensitive to mercury than adults.
Mercury in the mother's body passes to the fetus and may accumulate
there. It can also pass to a nursing infant through breast milk.
Mercury's harmful effects that may be passed from the mother to the
fetus include brain damage, mental retardation, incoordination,
blindness, seizures, and inability to speak. Children poisoned by
mercury may develop problems of their nervous and digestive systems,
and kidney damage.
What happens to mercury when it enters the environment?
Inorganic mercury (metallic mercury and inorganic mercury
compounds) enters the air from mining ore deposits, burning coal and
waste, and from manufacturing plants. It enters the water or soil from
natural deposits, disposal of wastes, and volcanic activity.
Methylmercury may be formed in water and soil by small organisms called
bacteria. Methylmercury builds up in the tissues of fish. Larger and
older fish tend to have the highest levels of mercury.
Has the federal government made recommendations to protect human
health?
The EPA has set a limit of 0.002 milligrams per liter of mercury in
drinking water. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has set a
maximum permissible level of 1 milligram per kilogram in seafood.
Cadmium
How can cadmium affect my health?
Long-term exposure to lower levels of cadmium in air, food, or
water leads to a buildup of cadmium in the kidneys and possible kidney
disease. Other long-term effects are lung damage and fragile bones.
Eating food or drinking water with very high levels severely irritates
the stomach, leading to vomiting and diarrhea. Cadmium is classified as
a human carcinogen.
How can cadmium affect children?
The health effects in children are expected to be similar to the
effects seen in adults (kidney, lung, and bone damage depending on the
route of exposure). A few studies in animals indicate that younger
animals absorb more cadmium than adults. Animal studies also indicate
that the young are more susceptible than adults to a loss of bone and
decreased bone strength from exposure to cadmium.
What happens to cadmium when it enters the environment?
Cadmium enters soil, water, and air from mining, industry, and
burning coal and household wastes. Some forms of cadmium dissolve in
water. Fish, plants, and animals take up cadmium from the environment.
Has the Federal Government made recommendations to protect human
health?
The EPA has determined that lifetime exposure to 0.005 milligrams
per liter is not expected to cause any adverse effects. The FDA has
determined that the cadmium concentration in bottled drinking water
should not exceed 0.005 milligrams per liter.
Manganese
How can manganese affect my health?
Manganese is an essential nutrient, and eating a small amount of it
each day is important to stay healthy. Limited evidence suggests that
high manganese intakes from drinking water may be associated with
neurological symptoms similar to those of Parkinson's disease. A study
of older adults in Greece found a high prevalence of neurological
symptoms in those exposed to water manganese levels of 1.8 to 2.3
milligrams per liter, while a study in Germany found no evidence of
increased neurological symptoms in people drinking water with manganese
levels ranging from 0.3 to 2.2 milligrams per liter compared to those
drinking water containing less than 0.05 milligrams per liter.
Manganese in drinking water may be more bioavailable than manganese in
food. However, none of the studies measured dietary manganese, so total
manganese intake in these cases is unknown. Manganese is not classified
as a human carcinogen.
How can manganese affect children?
Recent studies have shown that children exposed to high levels of
manganese through drinking water experience cognitive and behavioral
deficits. For instance, a crosssectional study in 142 10-year old
children, who were exposed to a mean manganese water concentration of
0.8 milligrams per liter, found that children exposed to higher
manganese levels had significantly lower scores on three tests of
intellectual function. Another study associated high levels of
manganese in tap water with hyperactive behavioral disorders in
children. These and other recent reports have raised concern over the
neurobehavioral effects of manganese exposure in children.
In the U.S., the EPA recommends 0.05 milligrams per liter as the
maximum allowable manganese concentration in drinking water. This is a
secondary standard based on color and taste. Life time exposures to 0.3
milligrams per liter is not expected to cause any adverse effects.
Copper
How can copper affect my health?
Everyone must absorb small amounts of copper every day because
copper is essential for good health. High levels of copper can be
harmful. Breathing high levels of copper can cause irritation of your
nose and throat. Ingesting high levels of copper can cause nausea,
vomiting, and diarrhea. Very-high doses of copper can cause damage to
your liver and kidneys, and can even cause death. Copper is not
classified as a human carcinogen.
How can copper affect children?
Exposure to high levels of copper will result in the same type of
effects in children and adults. We do not know if these effects would
occur at the same dose level in children and adults. Studies in animals
suggest that the young children may have more severe effects than
adults, but we don't know if this would also be true in humans. There
is a very small percentage of infants and children who are unusually
sensitive to copper. We do not know if copper can cause birth defects
or other developmental effects in humans. Studies in animals suggest
that high levels of copper may cause a decrease in fetal growth.
What happens to copper when it enters the environment?
Copper is released into the environment by mining, farming, and
manufacturing operations and through waste water releases into rivers
and lakes. Copper is also released from natural sources, like
volcanoes, windblown dusts, decaying vegetation, and forest fires.
Copper released into the environment usually attaches to particles made
of organic matter, clay, soil, or sand. Copper does not break down in
the environment. Copper compounds can break down and release free
copper into the air, water, and foods.
Has the Federal Government made recommendations to protect human
health?
The EPA requires that levels of copper in drinking water be less
than 1 milligram of copper per one liter of drinking water based on
taste and staining.
Zinc
How can zinc affect my health?
Zinc is an essential element in our diet. Too little zinc can cause
problems, but too much zinc is also harmful. Harmful effects generally
begin at levels 10-15 times higher than the amount needed for good
health. Large doses taken by mouth even for a short time can cause
stomach cramps, nausea, and vomiting. Taken longer, it can cause anemia
and decrease the levels of your good cholesterol. We do not know if
high levels of zinc affect reproduction in humans. Rats that were fed
large amounts of zinc became infertile. Putting low levels of zinc
acetate and zinc chloride on the skin of rabbits, guinea pigs, and mice
caused skin irritation. Skin irritation will probably occur in people.
Zinc is not classified as a carcinogen.
How can zinc affect children?
Zinc is essential for proper growth and development of young
children. It is likely that children exposed to very high levels of
zinc will have similar effects as adults. We do not know whether
children are more susceptible to the effects of excessive intake of
zinc than the adults.
We do not know if excess zinc can cause developmental effects in
humans. Animal studies have found decreased weight in the offspring of
animals that ingested very high amounts of zinc.
What happens to zinc when it enters the environment?
Some is released into the environment by natural processes, but
most comes from human activities like mining, steel production, coal
burning, and burning of waste. Depending on the type of soil, some zinc
compounds can move into the groundwater and into lakes, streams, and
rivers. Most of the zinc in soil stays bound to soil particles and does
not dissolve in water. It builds up in fish and other organisms, but it
does not build up in plants.
Has the Federal Government Made Recommendations to Protect Human
health?
The EPA recommends that drinking water should contain no more than
5 milligrams per liter of water because of taste.
Gold King Mine Spill two page information sheet
Gold King Mine Spill Community Sheet
In General:
Short-term the Gold King Mine spill was quickly diluted and
metals settled in the river sediment.
Long-term health and environmental impacts of the Gold King
Mine spill are not well understood.
Currently different agencies and universities are trying to
understand what are the overall impacts.
The Bottom Line Answer
Why was the water yellow after the spill?
When rocks made up of minerals and metals found in deep mine
tunnels come into contact with water and air this combination creates
acid mine drainage. This rock-acid mixture causes the metals in the
rocks to seep out into the water. The Gold King Mine spill turned a
yellow orange color because there was iron present. When acid mine
drainage from the spill came into contact with fresh river water it
made the mixture less acidic and caused the iron to settle out.
How will the spill affect people's health?
Not enough information has been gathered to determine what the
health impacts are or will be for people living near waterways affected
by the Gold King Mine spill. Tribal, federal, state, and local agencies
as well as universities are currently studying the potential short- and
long-term effects by collecting water, soil, and animal samples. At
this point, drinking water sources have been determined to be safe to
drink by federal and state authorities.
How are crops or gardens affected by the spill?
Soon after the Gold King Mine spill, irrigation intakes at the
Animas and San Juan Rivers were turned off. Because this happened
quickly, agencies suggested that crops were not impacted. Many local
farmers lost their crops due to a lack of water during the hottest time
of the year. The possible longterm impacts of the spill on local crops
are not known. It is generally recommended that farmers or gardeners
growing crops call the extension office for specific advice. At this
time, irrigation intakes have been flushed and reopened for use.
Can the spill affect livestock?
In August 2015, the Colorado Department of Agriculture and the Utah
Department of Agriculture and Food lifted warnings on the use of water
from the San Juan River for livestock. However, there have not been
enough studies conducted to say with certainty that livestock was not
impacted soon after the spill. Cattle ranchers in areas where the Gold
King Mine spill occurred should double check with veterinarians or
extension personnel regarding potential impacts.
This is a community summary of the information complied for the
``Understanding the Gold King Mine Spill'' document available at:
http://superfund.pharmacy.arizona.edu/sites/default/files/u43/
gold_king_mine_spill.pdf
What happened at the Gold King Mine on August 5, 2015?
On August 5, 2015, when the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
was investigating the old, abandoned Gold King Mine in Silverton,
Colorado, digging machines loosened a soil plug that caused mine water
under pressure to gush out and eventually travel to Cement Creek, a
tributary of the Animas River. It is estimated that three million
gallons or nine football fields with one foot deep of mine water
spilled out. This mine water contained acid, salts, and toxic metals
such as lead and arsenic. The Gold King Mine spill took place in the
Colorado River Basin.
Who are involved in studying the impacts of the Gold King Mine
spill?
There are various tribal, federal, state, and local agencies as
well as universities studying the impacts of the Gold King Mine spill.
The following is a list of the major groups involved:
Tribal Agencies
Navajo Nation, Navajo, Environmental Protection Agency, Southern
Ute Indian Tribe Water Quality Program
Federal Agencies
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Geological Survey, U.S.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Bureau of Indian
Affairs
State Agencies
AZ Department of Environmental Quality, NM Environmental
Department, CO Fish and Wildlife Conservation Office, CO Department of
Public Health and the Environment
Universities
University of Arizona, Northern Arizona University, Rice
University, University of New Mexico, University of Colorado Boulder,
New Mexico State University, New Mexico Institute of Mining and
Technology
What was done and is being done to control the Gold King Mine spill?
Stopping or pumping the Gold King Mine spill was not possible
because the Animas River is flows fast. The water in the river diluted
the initial acid mine drainage as it flowed downstream. The U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency and other federal, state, and tribal
agencies worked to redirect additional acid mine drainage away from
waterways. This acid mine drainage is being treated in a series of man-
made ponds that both decrease the acidity using lime and remove metals
from the water. Since February 2016, the Bonita Peak Mining District
(where the Gold King Mine is located) is being considered for the
Superfund National Priority List that would apply more federal monies
to monitor and treat contamination.
I would like to talk to someone about the Gold King Mine spill
and.
Drinking Water--Janick Artiola, Soil, Water and Environmental
Science, (520) 621-3516
Human Health--Clark Lantz, Cellular Biology and Anatomy, (520)
626-6716
Crop/Garden--M centsnica Ram!rez-Andreotta, Soil, Water and
Environmental Science, (520) 621-0091
Community Organizing--Janene Yazzie, Sixth World Solutions,
(928) 245-1352
Livestock--Gerald Moore, Navajo Nation Extension Agent, (928)
871-7686
NIEHS Gold King Mine Exposure Project--Karletta Chief, Soil,
Water and Environmental Science (520) 222-9801
As a community member, it is important to ask questions!
Researchers involved in these studies should follow up with you and
your community about the results and what they mean. Information is
important for everyone impacted by environmental contamination. You and
others can use results from these studies to make informed decisions.
The Chairman. Thank you very much to each of you.
Senator McCain. Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman. Yes.
Senator McCain. I would request that Congresswoman
Kirkpatrick could join us here, if she would like, in order to
ask questions. This whole area lies in her area of
responsibility in Congress. And even though we in the Senate
are terrible snobs, we'd be pleased to have her join us.
Please come right here.
The Chairman. You're welcome to join us up here.
Senator McCain. Thank you.
The Chairman. Dr. Lantz, as you know, among the many toxic
compounds in the Gold King Mine wastewater is lead. We just
mentioned that.
According to the Centers for Disease Control, ``No safe
blood lead level in children has been identified.'' Lead
exposure, as you say, can affect nearly every system in the
body.
The CDC goes on to say that lead exposure in children
causes damage to brain and nervous system, slowed growth and
development, learning and behavior problems, hearing and speech
problems.
In your written testimony you said movement of lead from
the soil--this is what I want to get into--movement of lead
from the soil and the groundwater will depend on the type of
lead compound, I think you said, and the characteristics of the
soil.
So can you go into a little more detail as to what steps
the affected communities should take in order to protect their
children from the lead exposure, and what assistance and
information the EPA should be providing to the public?
Mr. Lantz. Yes. So lead in the water systems is probably
going to be the most problematic. And being exposed through
that route may be the one that needs to be monitored.
So certainly what needs to be done is to monitor the lead
levels in drinking water or water that's being used for
cooking, and making sure that those are at sufficiently low
levels so as not to cause adverse health outcomes.
I also think that it's important to make sure that the
children have been tested for their own lead levels, so that we
have an idea of what the exposure is and that we can correct
any types of over-exposures that might occur if those levels
are higher than should be.
The action limit right now, I think, is 5 micrograms per
deciliter for lead in children. But as you mentioned, the CDC
says that there really is no safe level. That there are
declines in intelligence tests, I believe, for even levels
lower than that.
So the best course of action is to monitor what the lead
levels are and to remediate those so that people are not
exposed to those lead compounds.
The Chairman. Thank you, Dr. Lantz. For all our tribal
witnesses, you know, I just want to ask you a question about a
statement earlier this week, April 18th, a Kaiser news article
came out where an administrator, Gina McCarthy, who administers
the EPA said, ``Well, we are called the Environmental
Protection Agency. Our major role is public health.'' She said,
``That is what we do.''
So I'd just like to ask the three of you, in your opinion,
has the EPA adequately protected the public health of the
Navajo Nation and the Hopi Tribe with regard to their response
to the Animus River disaster?
President Begaye.
Mr. Begaye. Thank you for that question. And for us, the
answer is no. The culture of distrust, like I said, still
exists. The amount of contaminates that was mentioned just a
while ago, 330 million gallons a year, we did not get that
information ever, at any time during our lifetime.
And only after this spill are we being told that every
single day, 5.5 million gallons a day spills into the Animus
River. We did not know that. If we knew that, and EPA had those
statistics, they did not share that with us.
How can any Federal agency that has that kind of
information and knowledge, and you have that amount of spill
taking place, not do a thing?
And they have not been out on the river cleaning up that
river. The 330 million gallons a year, they, themselves, now
just testified that's how much goes into the river. That is not
protecting the health of the Navajo Nation people. And we live
with that day in and day out. And they need to do something
about it.
And I appreciate the comment was made by Senator McCain
about the $80 million that's been spent since the spill took
place up in Michigan. Because it's Navajo, only $157,000 has
been spent. That is not protecting the health of my people.
Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Chairman Honanie, would you like to comment to that
statement by the EPA administrator that the major role is
public health and how it comports with what you've seen?
Mr. Honanie. Thank you for that question.
I'd just like to respond in this way: If that has been
their mission all along, then where have they been all these
years?
When I'm talking about the arsenic in our water, when I'm
talking about the open cut mines, and even the pollution coming
from the Navajo generating plant in which the EPA has decided
otherwise, by shutting it down to lessen the pollution, you
know, the environmental health and the public health is still
at stake.
We have not received any remedies openly and progressively
from EPA, especially on the arsenic water. That is the most
pressing matter to us on Hopi. It has been for years.
And all of a sudden the Flint, Michigan episode comes
along, and where is all the focus on? Where is all the
attention going? And what is EPA doing here?
But, you know, if they are there, they've obviously dropped
the bucket on us and left us here. And we're, again, left alone
to deal with it.
If that's the mission of the EPA, I'd like to remind them,
and I'd like to call on you to remind them, that they have a
huge, huge responsibility and obligation to not only the Hopi
people, but as President Begaye has explained and on this
situation, that has to be resolved. We cannot afford to wait
any longer to see and wait and hope that something will be
done.
So it's very, very unnerving to hear them say that that's
what it is, but yet, we have not been at the tables to
constructively reach a resolve on these issues.
Thank you.
The Chairman. Okay. Speaker Bates, anything that you would
like to add as well?
Mr. Bates. Thank you, Chairman.
As you indicated, the intent of the U.S. EPA is to protect.
They not only have a responsibility to the United States, but
that includes the Navajo Nation. So speaking in that context,
as a delegate representing farmers along the river, there has
been the inconsistency of whether or not the water is safe to
drink, use as irrigation for the crops.
And because of that inconsistency of not knowing whether or
not, is one of the reasons we are here is, as indicated, this
is not a short-term. This is a long-term situation that
indirectly or directly impacted, have concerns going forth.
So in answer to your question, Chairman, it is the
inconsistency, the lack of cooperation in terms of informing
the people as to where we are at from one day to the next.
Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Speaker Bates. I was going to ask
Assistant Administrator Stanislaus, there are about 200,000
people who drink from the river system that the EPA has
poisoned last summer.
Among them are Indian farmers, ranchers, families with
children whose health and livelihoods are under threat. These
are the people of the Navajo Nation and the Hopi Tribe whose
leadership has testified here today.
Can you tell them right now, for the record, why does it
take a subpoena from this Committee--something we haven't had
to do since Jack Abramoff, the scandal years and years ago--to
compel the EPA to testify in person about an environmental
disaster it imposed on the communities? All we were told is we
could get a written testimony until we had a bipartisan
subpoena. Can you explain that to us?
Mr. Stanislaus. Well, I agreed to testify before the
subpoena was issued.
The Chairman. We have the letters from the EPA with saying,
``Well, we'll send written testimony.'' And then we threatened
the subpoena.
So let's just say a private company had created an economic
disaster and a poisoning of a river like what we've seen here,
and then refused to come forward to answer questions to the
EPA.
If a private company refused to answer the EPA, would that
be acceptable?
Mr. Stanislaus. No. And to be clear, you know, both I and
Administrator McCarthy have testified--we take our
responsibility to the Congress very seriously. I think I
personally have testified five times regarding this incident.
Administrator McCarthy, probably the equivalent. We take our
responsibility seriously.
You know, I had to testify yesterday in D.C., so there was
some logistical issues that I needed to work through. So it was
kind of a logistical issue. And once those were resolved, I
agreed to participate in this.
The Chairman. You know, the Michigan Attorney General
recently handed down two felony indictments as a result of the
Flint, Michigan water disaster.
Indian Tribes had their own water disaster caused by the
EPA. Do you expect a criminal referral to be made?
Mr. Stanislaus. Well, no. We are moving forward within my
area and EPA's responsibility, learning from the incident.
Again, this was an accidental event resulting from the historic
abandoned mine situation. This particular mine situation was
originally lead by the state of Colorado because of the
significant loading of metals to the Animus River and the
watershed for decades.
The State of Colorado asked our assistance to be there. And
an accident did occur. And we immediately addressed that
accident so that the rivers and waterways could be restored.
We shared that data with all stakeholders. And clearly
there are things we can do better. You know, as I noted
earlier, we could have notified earlier and more affectively.
And we've implemented that system. Doing additional preparation
before these kind of circumstances.
These are tough situations. You know, I have a personal
responsibility to respond to communities who have situations
like this.
There are abandoned mines around the country. There are
abandoned hazardous waste situations that communities look to
us to address. And I take that responsibility seriously.
We want to address those hazards in a cooperative way with
the local communities so we can, in fact, do the cleanup and
enable prosperity and health for those communities.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator McCain?
Senator McCain. Well, thank all the witnesses, and thank
you Mr. Stanislaus. I'm interested to hear you say that you
were ready to testify, because I'd like to make it part of the
record, Mr. Chairman, of the refusal of the EPA. And it
required an actual subpoena--and as the Chairman said, for the
first time in many years to get you here.
I'm gratified to hear of your willingness, but your agency
would not provide you, and did not until we issued a subpoena.
So President Begaye, I hear and was told that there's been
suicides because of the devastation of this spill. Is that
correct or not?
Mr. Begaye. Well, thank you, Senator McCain.
We had several suicides immediately after the spill took
place. And two of them were along the river. And any time
there's a suicide that takes place, multiple factors, I'm sure,
are involved in any taking of a life, where an individual goes
to that extent.
When an environment is created where there is distrust,
where there is anger, where there's damage being done, where a
large amount of people are suffering--where the land is
damaged, water is damaged, an environment is created, I
believe, where people that are having issues with their own
lives that tend to spike. And as a result, like I said, almost
immediately along the river, two of people took their lives.
There were others, other attempts have been made off the bridge
where it crosses the river, but fortunately, those lives were
saved and those lives are still with us today.
Thank you.
Senator McCain. Thank you.
For the record, at the last hearing, Administrator McCarthy
testified that the EPA notified the the Navajo Nation promptly
about the spill.
Just for the record, could you remind the Committee how
long it took the Navajo Nation to be contacted by EPA following
the spill.
Mr. Begaye. It took two days.
Senator McCain. Thank you.
After the disaster, Mr. Stanislaus, the EPA pledged to
conduct a, quote, internal review, as well as fund an
independent technical review performed by the Interior
Department into the cause of the spill.
Did the EPA internal review identify any criminal
negligence related to the spill?
Mr. Stanislaus. No.
Senator McCain. Did the EPA review lead to any criminal
referrals to the Department of Justice?
Mr. Stanislaus. No.
Senator McCain. And it's my understanding that was not in
the scope of the EPA internal investigation as well. Is that
true?
Mr. Stanislaus. That's correct.
Senator McCain. Is there any ongoing investigations into
criminal negligence?
Mr. Stanislaus. There is a broad investigation being
implemented by the Office of Inspector General.
Senator McCain. E-mails from the House Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform and the House Committee on
Natural Resources show that you were included in e-mails that
helped define the, quote, scope of work for the Department of
Interior Independent Technical Review.
I understand that this is a standard procedure. But in an
e-mail dated August 16, 2015, between you and other EPA
employees in developing the scope of work, it was suggested by
EPA staff that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers would have
superior skills for conducting the investigation.
Let me read from the EPA's own recommendation. ``Though the
Department of the Interior's recommended as the lead, the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers has the program and project management
experience, technical experience, and the technology to lead
such a study.''
Do you agree with the statement the Army Corps. has
superior experience than the DOI to lead the study?
Mr. Stanislaus. I would assume those statements are
correct.
Senator McCain. Then who at EPA decided that Interior
should lead the study instead of the Corps. of engineers?
Mr. Stanislaus. So there was an inquiry as to what entity
should lead the investigation. And we looked at the Department
of the Interior--it would be the Bureau of Lands within the
Department of the Interior--for the extensive mining
experience. The Army Corps. of Engineers has, particularly,
engineering experience.
We felt that ultimately the structure was Department of
Interior to lead with the Army Corps serving as peer reviewers
for the findings.
Senator McCain. Well, what I'm leading up to is that the
decision was made that the Department of Interior would take
the lead. And, yet, there was one individual who was included
in this group.
And according to the Daily Caller, dated March 18, 2016,
entitled EPA Advisor Wrote 'Independent' Review of Gold King
Mine Spill, ``An independent investigation was formed to
determine how the Environmental Protection Agency caused the
Gold King Mine spill, but a Daily Caller News Foundation
investigation found the Federal department conducting the
examination may not have been so independent.
``The Department of the Interior released its Technical
Evaluation report in October but the report omitted crucial
details, possibly due to conflict of interest.
``The EPA selected DOI to conduct an independent review of
the blowout, even though it was involved,'' itself was
involved, ``with numerous aspects of the Gold King Mine project
both before and after the spill.
``The Department of the Interior branches involved include
the Bureau of Reclamation, which `received thousands of dollars
from EPA' for projects related to Gold King Mine.''
``The Department of the Interior was involved with numerous
aspects of the word--work going on, ...and the mine engineering
expert tasked with reviewing the department's reports had
serious misgivings about the integrity of the investigation.''
Finally, I will summarize, Dr. Olsen, who was the Army
Corps peer reviewer who was involved in the investigation,
wrote to the Department of Interior, ``I have serious
reservations with the chronology of events internal to the EPA
from the day of the phone call to U.S. Bureau of Reclamation,
and up to the day of the mine failure. The actual cause of
failure is some combination of issues related to EPA internal
communications, administrative authorities and/or a break in
the decision path. I believe that the investigation reports
should describe what happened internal within the EPA that
resulted in the path forward and eventually caused the failure.
The report discusses field observations by EPA and why they
continued digging, but does not describe why a change in EPA
field coordinators caused the urgency to start digging the plug
rather than wait for the Bureau of Reclamation technical output
as described by the EPA leader.''
In other words, there's real question about the
investigation and its result by the individual who was the Army
Corps peer reviewer. But I will say, the review did contain at
least one finding, ``EPA failed to conduct a standard water
pressure test at the time.''
You agree with that?
Mr. Stanislaus. Yes.
Senator McCain. And who was responsible for not conducting
a standard water pressure test at the mine? Which, to our
friends and, for the record, the water pressure test, if it had
been conducted, would have shown that there was in danger of
the catastrophe that just took place, so...
Mr. Stanislaus. Yeah. So both in our internal
investigation, as well as Department of Interior's
investigation, made that conclusion. It also goes on to stay
that if that pressure test would have been administered, they
would have identified a pressurized situation.
However, they go further on to say that given the geology
and geography and the seed conditions, that procedure which was
done on the mine below the Gold King Mine to identify the
pressurized conditions, they--they could not conclude whether
that was possible, nor can they conclude if it was possible, if
it was able to prevent the actual incident from happening in
the first place.
Senator McCain. Well, I don't want to go into too many more
of the details, but it is of interest that the department--the
Corps of Engineer [sic], who was the only one outside of your
bureaucracy in this investigation, had serious concerns.
Chairman Honanie, maybe you can tell us about the impact of
the EPA's regulations on your reservation and its economy.
Mr. Honanie. With respect to the economy, the work and all
the steps that have been taken to address the Navajo generating
station, the final rule that came out was that eventually one
of the three units would be eventually shut down beginning
2019. And the long range effect would be that in 2044, I
believe, is when the entire generating station would be shut
down.
So when that does happen, obviously, a huge impact on Hopi
will be very devastating, because economically the royalties
stemming from the mining, the coal mine, is what provides the
revenue to the Hopi Tribe.
And based on these revenues is what we utilize to provide
the basic services to our people in the communities and to
tribal government programs.
So as a result, what options and other plans that might be
available or could be discussed and be used as a resolve to
help mitigate and answer some of these questions that we have
with regard to the loss of revenue, that has yet to be taken.
That has never been fully discussed between the Tribe and the
Federal government agencies involved.
And that's what we're waiting for. We desperately need to
start talking about that, because for a picture of long-term
picture of closing the entire generating plant in the future is
going to be very devastating to our people.
Senator McCain. Well, it just seems to many of us--and I'm
sure the members of your Tribe--that actions taken by a Federal
bureaucracy, not necessarily by a law passed, but a regulation
that would devastate the economy of your people, that there
should be some factoring of that into the decision-making
process.
I just want to assure the witnesses that we're a long way
from finished with this issue. This is the second thanks to our
chairman and ranking member, Senator Tester, who is the ranking
member; this is a bipartisan issue. We intend to continue until
all questions have been answered, and whatever steps, including
compensation, that need to be taken, we will continue along
this line.
I thank all of the witnesses.
Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator McCain.
Congresswoman Kirkpatrick.
Ms. Kirkpatrick. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to all
the witnesses for testifying today.
Administrator Stanislaus, how many abandoned mines are
along the San Juan River and its tributaries?
Mr. Stanislaus. I don't know the particular number. You
know, it's been estimated in the thousands in that area. Of
that how much is along the Animus, I have to get back to you on
that.
Ms. Kirkpatrick. Do you have that information?
Mr. Stanislaus. We can provide you what we have. I don't
know the exact-
Ms. Kirkpatrick. Okay. I'd like to know-
Mr. Stanislaus. Sure.
Ms. Kirkpatrick. Exactly where they are, how many there
are.
Do you have a plan to remediate those abandoned mines?
Mr. Stanislaus. Yes. So as I mentioned, we proposed for to
use, doing the Superfund process, a subset of 48 mines in
proximity not only to the Gold King Mine, but 48 mines which
are the ones that are most impacting on the Animus River.
So these are 48 mines, which again, collectively discharge
about 5.5 million gallons per day into the Animus River heavy
metal laden water.
Ms. Kirkpatrick. And what's your timeline to address that
and stop that spillage?
Mr. Stanislaus. Sure. So we've recently proposed it, and
we're in the middle of getting public comments on that. And so
based on that, we will be considering that for a final rule in
the fall.
Ms. Kirkpatrick. Well, you heard the concerns expressed
about the spring runoff and the possibility of stirring up the
sediment at the bottom of the tributaries and the rivers. And,
again, bringing contamination to the Navajo Nation.
215 miles of Navajo Nation are along the San Juan River.
What's your plan, first of all, to notify the tribal leaders in
a timely manner if that happens, not waiting until the
pollution gets to the Navajo Nation and the Hopi lands, but
what's your plan for immediately notifying them? What's your
plan to monitor that sediment and that increased possibility of
pollution this spring?
Mr. Stanislaus. Sure. So the plan is actually do have to
provide resources for all the states and Tribes to do it
themselves, and us in partnership with them.
So we've already provided substantial resources, I think,
for the Navajo a little under--let me see--$465,000 for water
monitoring.
In addition, we received a request, in addition to that
water monitoring, to do this--what's called real-time
monitoring. And we're going to commit to do that as well so
that the Navajo, all the Tribes, all the communities would have
data themselves, can use to make determinations.
Ms. Kirkpatrick. Well, you heard President Begaye request a
mobile monitoring unit. Why that not been provided to Navajo
Nation?
Mr. Stanislaus. I don't know whether you know.
Mr. Blumenfeld. Yes.
Mr. Stanislaus. Yes. I'll have Jared Blumenfeld----
Ms. Kirkpatrick. Okay.
Mr. Blumenfeld. So the good news on--on that front is
there's 436----
The Chairman. Would you please identify----
Mr. Blumenfeld. Sure.
The Chairman. Just for the Committee, identify yourself.
Mr. Blumenfeld. Sorry. My name is Jared Blumenfeld, I'm the
Regional Administrator for Region 9 EPA.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Blumenfeld. So, President Begaye, you have $436,000
that is available, and will expire in September, that can be
used right now to build that mobile lab. And we've informed Dr.
Ben and your team of that.
So this is a good news story, which is the money's in place
and the authority to use it on that specific task is also in
place.
Ms. Kirkpatrick. What's your timeline?
Mr. Blumenfeld. The money has been there for the last year.
And so it's making sure that that money gets appropriated by
the Navajo Nation before September.
Ms. Kirkpatrick. Can we expedite that?
Mr. Blumenfeld. We will do anything that we can to expedite
that with them.
Ms. Kirkpatrick. President Begaye, I'd like to know if
you've heard from the EPA about any kind of rapid response
mechanism or strategy if there is another spill to notify you
in real-time when it happens.
Mr. Begaye. There has been comments made, especially during
the hearings, about setting up some sort of a real-time
notification that we would get if a spill occurs. And now we
ourselves, will always be on guard because we know there are 48
mines that could, today, do what Gold King Mine did, in Cement
Creek and also in Mineral Creek, and in Upper Animus Creek that
all flows into the Animus River.
So we will ourselves, stand guard to make sure that if that
occurs, that we will be ready to address it when it does
happen.
And I do appreciate the comment made about the $436,000
that is there. But that is mainly for testing of the waters and
we need a separate funding source. Thank you, Jared, for those
dollars--but we need a separate funding source to purchase the
mobile lab unit that will give us real-time, on-location
testing of our irrigation canals, of the mouth of the rivers
and the tributaries. We need to have that on location.
The $436,000--it is expensive right now because we ship
everything out to the lab--to different places around the
country. And it will consume this $436,000 very quickly just
through the cost of testing the soil. We need a lab and we need
those funds to be separate from the $436,000.
Thank you.
Ms. Kirkpatrick. Chairman Honanie, have you had any
discussions with the EPA about a rapid response to you in case
there's another spill?
Mr. Honanie. We have not actively discussed these type of
areas, simply because we're in an area isolated from any major
rivers sources and so forth.
So when this event took place on Navajo and impacted them,
we realized how they were being impacted. I gathered my staff,
appropriate staff, who work and studied the area, as far as
we're concerned. And we were given the information that we
being in an isolated area, did not really have potential for
direct acts such as the spill. But we just have other forms and
levels of contamination that we're still facing right now, yes.
Ms. Kirkpatrick. Administrator Stanislaus, is the
administration going to support my legislation HR-3602, the
Gold King Mine Spill Recovery Act of 2015, which would provide
compensation to farmers and others who sustained losses related
to the Gold King spill?
Mr. Stanislaus. So we'll certainly take a look at it. I've
been advised we've not looked at it, but we'll certainly be
working with your staff in providing technical assistance, so
okay.
Ms. Kirkpatrick. All right. I thank the Chairman and the
Senator again for the courtesy to be here today. But I want to
assure the EPA and the tribal leaders that my office is going
to stay very involved in this because we're extremely
concerned.
I just want to tell you, I'm a new grandma. And I'm
outraged by the fact that these babies on your tribal land
could be drinking contaminated water, that their formula might
be mixed with contaminated water. It's outrageous. It has to be
stopped. And I want to assure you that my office will be very
involved on this issue.
Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you for joining us today.
Administrator Stanislaus, I want to direct this to you. And
I appreciate Mr. Blumenfeld being here, but I understand he's
going to be leaving soon as the Region 9 administrator. And
you're the senate confirmed member at the EPA.
So I'm just looking at this article again from the Wall
Street Journal article, Friday, April 8th, Toxic Spill Fears
Haunt the Southwest. And it's certainly here in Arizona.
But when we go into this, it talks about residents all
along the San Juan River has said the EPA has not returned to
do more tests. And specifically, officials in New Mexico and
others along the river, including the Navajo Nation, they say
they expect at least $6 million to fund long-term monitoring.
I know the EPA budget is over $8.6 billion. And what I want
to know is if you can--the EPA, for the record, provide these
funds and make these commitments and assure these people today
that it's going to be coming?
Mr. Stanislaus. Sure. I mean, so we've taken a multi-
layered approach to monitoring. So we've done monitoring
ourselves, shared that with states and Tribes. We will continue
to do that.
At the request of states and Tribes for resources, we
recently awarded resources for the Tribes and states to conduct
monitoring themselves.
Subsequent to that, we received a request for this real-
time monitoring system, received that recently, and we're
committed to providing that as well.
The Chairman. Okay. Because the article seems to imply
that, you know, they get the results not real-time, but
delayed.
Mr. Stanislaus. That's right.
The Chairman. So that's the concern that I'm hearing from
people on the ground and the concerns with regards to the
waters of the----
Mr. Stanislaus. Yes. Subsequent to original notification of
resources for developing the water monitoring plan administered
by states and Tribes, we received a subsequent request for this
real-time monitoring system, and we're committed to making that
happen.
The Chairman. Okay. Thank you.
To the tribal members, I just want to thank everyone for
being here to testify today. You know, in last September's
testimony the EPA administrator said that the EPA, ``Hold
ourselves to the same standard we demand from others.''
This Committee also heard testimony stating that Native
American families are hurting because of the lack of action
from the EPA. I think the EPA has been dragging their feet in
responding.
In your opinion, is the EPA really holding themselves to
that same standard that they demand from others?
And if I could just get a brief answer from each of you
just to set the final stage of this hearing.
Mr. Begaye. Well, for us today, the farmers have not been
compensated. They're still waiting. The farming season is about
to start. Their revenue last year was washed out. Those are
monies that they saved to buy seeds to get ready for the
farming season the following year, which is this year. And they
have not received a penny.
And we just need to understand what EPA means when they're
going to hold themselves accountable. We have not seen it yet.
It's almost like we have big thunder out on the Navajo Nation
but no rain.
And that's exactly what it has been, is that they make
promises. We meet with them, we have telephone conferences, we
have meetings, they come to the Nation. But the farmers have
yet to be compensated. And that is not holding yourself
accountable.
Thank you.
The Chairman. We just heard ``big thunder, no rain.'' Could
I hear from you.
Mr. Honanie. Ditto.
The Chairman. Good.
Mr. Honanie. Well, yeah. We've had the arsenic situation
for years. We've had the Tuba City open dump up matter for
years. And I've only grown 20 years older and still no resolve.
So that kind of speaks to that question about timeliness in
responding by the EPA. It has not really been happening at all.
So, you know, I'm only getting older. I'm waiting to see
what happens tomorrow.
The Chairman. Speaker Bates.
Mr. Bates. Thank you, Chairman. In answer to your
questions. As indicated by Honorable Begaye, President Begaye,
and as I indicated in testimony that the farmers that I do
represent, we have yet to be compensated. I have yet to turn in
Form 95 for the simple reason that I planted five acres of
alfalfa.
And during that period that the water was shut off, a
period of 21 days, I lost those five acres. So as soon as I put
that acreage back in to re-plant it, is an example of what the
farmers--the 1,600 farmers have experienced.
And so they're waiting, because the dollars that are needed
come directly out of their own pockets. And there are a number
of farmers that are going to have to do what I'm going to be
doing in the next couple weeks.
So in answer to your question is, no. We want to be
compensated. We recognize the process; however, we don't want
to wait in line for two, three years before we get compensated.
Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you.
I want to thank all of our witnesses. I want to thank all
of our guests for joining us today. We're going to continue to
monitor this crisis. And I expect the full cooperation of the
EPA.
This Committee, the Tribes, the American taxpayers deserve
no less. If there are no more questions for today, members may
also submit written follow-up questions for the record, and the
hearing record will be open for the next two weeks.
I want to thank all of you for your time and your testimony
today. This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:15 p.m., the field hearing was
adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Steve Daines to
Hon. Mathy Stanislaus
Question 1. In November 2009, President Obama issued a Presidential
Memorandum on Executive Order 13175, requiring all federal agencies to
engage in ``regular and meaningful consultation and collaboration with
tribal officials in the development of Federal policies that have
tribal implications,'' and that federal agencies are ``responsible for
strengthening the government-to-government relationship between the
United States and Indian Tribes.'' Yet, at this hearing we have heard
firsthand from tribal leaders that tribes still feel absent of just
that meaningful consultation. Does the EPA plan to improve the process
by which it consults with tribes to fully comply with Executive Order
13175? If so, how? If not, why not?
Answer. The EPA recognizes the importance of appropriate
consultation with tribes, consistent with the federal government's
trust responsibility to federally recognized tribes. In response to
President Obama's November 2009 memorandum on tribal consultation, the
EPA adopted a formal policy on government-to-government consultation
and coordination with federally recognized tribes in 2011. EPA's Tribal
Consultation Policy is available on EPA's website: https://www.epa.gov/
tribal/epa-policy-consultation-and-coordination_indian_tribes. The EPA
issued its Tribal Consultation Policy after extensive nationwide
consultation with tribes. Under EPA's Tribal Consultation Policy, which
implements both EPA's 1984 Indian Policy and Executive Order 13175, the
agency recognizes its obligations to consult with federally recognized
tribes to provide an opportunity for their meaningful input, and to
consider their views prior to taking actions that may affect tribal
interests. Since the issuance of its Tribal Consultation Policy, the
agency has seen marked improvement in the frequency and quality of its
consultation and coordination activities with tribal governments.
Tribal consultation has improved both the efficiency and the
effectiveness of the EPA's program delivery for tribes.
EPA's Tribal Consultation Policy defines consultation as a process
of meaningful communication and coordination between the EPA and tribal
officials prior to the EPA taking actions or implementing decisions
that may affect tribal interests. It calls for the agency to follow up
with tribes to explain how their consultation input was considered in
the agency's final action. The agency continues to evaluate its Tribal
Consultation Policy and has developed a mandatory training course for
all EPA employees, ``Working Effectively with Tribal Governments'',
which includes a special emphasis on consultation.
Question 2. How would EPA have worked differently with the three
impacted tribes in the wake of the Gold King Mine spill to ensure full
consultation? What lessons did EPA learn from this catastrophe?
Answer. While the EPA notified the Navajo Nation Environmental
Protection Agency and the Navajo Nation Department of Justice of the
August 5, 2015, release in an email sent the evening of August 6, 2015,
the agency recognizes that more should have been done in alerting
downstream tribal, state, and local governments. In order to improve
response related notifications and communications between the EPA and
our state, tribal and local partners, the agency issued guidance to EPA
regions, working through the Regional Response Teams, which includes
representatives from the EPA, other federal agencies and states, to
strengthen their Regional Contingency Plans, particularly regarding the
need to alert and coordinate with downstream responders. Following the
release, the EPA invited tribal representatives to participate in Area
and/or Incident Command efforts. The EPA recognizes that substantive,
early coordination and cooperation with tribal, state, and local
governments is an extremely important component of emergency response
action.
Question 3. In the same way tribes are impacted by the Gold King
Mine spill have expressed grave concerns about EPA's lack of
consultation following the spill, other tribes have felt neglected in
other EPA decisionmaking processes. For example, EPA has largely
ignored the Clean Power Plan's significant economic impacts to the Crow
tribe whose economy relies on coal production. What was EPA's process
to evaluate the final rule's economic impact to the Crow tribe and what
did EPA find?
Answer. The EPA recognizes the importance of appropriate
consultation with tribes in developing rules, consistent with the
federal government's trust responsibility to federally recognized
tribes. Under EPA's 2011 Tribal Consultation Policy, which implements
both EPA's 1984 Indian Policy and Executive Order 13175, the agency
recognizes its obligations to consult with federally recognized tribes
to provide an opportunity for their meaningful input, and to consider
their views prior to taking actions that may affect tribal interests.
EPA's 2011 Tribal Consultation Policy also encourages tribal officials
to request consultation at any time on EPA actions or decisions. As
proposals and options are developed, consultation and coordination is
continued, to ensure that the overall range of options and decisions is
shared and deliberated by all concerned parties, including additions or
amendments that may occur later in the process.
The final Clean Power Plan (CPP) was developed after extensive and
vigorous outreach to tribal governments, as described in the preambles
to the proposed carbon pollution emission guidelines for existing
electric generating units (EGUs) and the supplemental proposed carbon
pollution emission guidelines for existing EGUs in Indian Country and
U.S. Territories. After issuing the supplemental proposal, the EPA held
additional consultation with tribes, as described in the preamble for
the final rule. To ensure that tribes had the opportunity to
participate in the action development process, the EPA conducted
outreach and information sharing on the content of the proposal with
tribal environmental professionals through the monthly National Tribal
Air Association (NTAA) calls and held an informational session at the
National Tribal Forum (NTF) in Anacortes, Washington in May 2014. We
also held five webinars open to tribal environmental professionals; 11
listening sessions held at all ten EPA regions and at EPA headquarters
in Washington D.C.; four two-day public hearings for the proposed
guidelines and a public hearing for the supplemental proposal; and
three informational meetings (via teleconference) targeted specifically
to the tribal community.
Specifically, the agency sent out four letters in 2013 and 2014 to
tribal leaders and offered consultation on the rule, prior to proposal
and after the proposal, to ensure tribes had the opportunity to
participate in the process. As further recognition of the importance of
appropriate consultation with tribes in the development of the emission
guidelines, we held face-to-face informational meetings and government-
to-government consultations with tribes.
Prior to issuing the supplemental proposal, the EPA consulted with
tribes on several occasions. The EPA held a consultation with the Ute
Tribe, the Crow Nation, and the Mandan, Hidatsa, Ankara (MHA) Nation on
July 18, 2014. On August 22, 2014, the EPA held a consultation with the
Fort Mojave Tribe. On September 15, 2014, the EPA held a consultation
with the Navajo Nation. The July 18, 2014 meeting included government-
to-government consultation with four representatives of the Crow Indian
Tribe. After issuing the supplemental proposal, the EPA held additional
consultation with tribes. On November 18, 2014, the EPA held
consultations with the following tribes: Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation,
Fort Mojave Tribe, Hopi Tribe, Navajo Nation, and Ak-Chin Indian
Community. The EPA held additional consultations with individual tribes
on December 16, 2014, January 15, 2015, April 28, 2015, and July 14,
2015.
The Crow Nation submitted comments on the proposed Clean Power Plan
on the topic of the CPP's potential effect on their economy. The EPA
carefully considered and evaluated the issues raised. The EPA conducted
an analysis of the cost, benefit and economic impacts of the CPP in the
Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines
Supplemental Proposal and for the final emission guidelines in the
Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Clean Power Plan Final Rule (RIA)
for illustrative implementation scenarios. Though this modeling and
analysis does not focus on individualized, indirect impacts outside the
regulated sector, as described above, the EPA undertook robust
consultation and outreach efforts and considered all input. The EPA
notes that this rule does not regulate coal mines and does not directly
impose specific requirements on EGUs located in states, U.S.
tenitories, or areas of Indian country and does not impose specific
requirements on tribal governments that have affected EGUs located in
their area of Indian country. For areas of Indian country with affected
EGUs, the rule establishes CO2 emission performance goals
that could be addressed through either tribal or federal plans.
Question 4. What assistance has EPA provided to impacted tribes
since the Gold King Mine spill? Has EPA continuously consulted with the
affected tribes since the spill to address remaining needs, primarily
safety hazards due to water contamination?
Answer. EPA Regions 6, 8 and 9 continue to work with state, tribal
and local entities to gather additional documentation where needed to
make final determinations regarding reimbursement for submitted
response costs. As of June 1, 2016, the EPA has provided more than $1.5
million to states, tribes and local governments through removal
cooperative agreements.
In response to dialogue with affected tribes and states, the EPA
also allocated $2 million to help tribes and states monitor water
quality conditions in the Animas and San Juan Rivers. Of the $2
million, the Navajo Nation was allocated $465,000, the Southern Ute
Tribe $130,000 and Ute Mountain Ute Tribe $40,000. The agency has also
conducted follow up monitoring at two sampling sites on the Southern
Ute reservation and one sampling site on the Ute Mountain Ute
reservation.
The EPA also provided additional resources including:
More than 100 EPA staff from multiple regional offices
deployed to Incident Command Posts in Farmington, New Mexico
and Durango, CO as well as to the Navajo Nation Emergency
Operations Center (EOC) in Window Rock, Arizona, as well as
community involvement staff deployed to engage directly with
Navajo communities impacted by the release;
An On-Scene-Coordinator and Coast Guard personnel deployed
to support the operations of the Navajo Nation EOC;
Support to the Navajo Nation, including three native
speakers;
More than one million gallons of livestock and agricultural
water, and nearly 8,500 bales of hay provided to Navajo
communities along the San Juan River in conjunction with the
Bureau of Indian Affairs; and
Community involvement staff who attended meetings at the
invitation of Chapter presidents and local officials, and
shared critical information about emergency water and hay
provisions and response activities with residents, reaching an
estimated 1,100 community members at nine public meetings over
ten days.
Question 5. Mr. Bates' testimony details how EPA has failed to
provide the Navajo Nation the assurances that the tribe's livestock and
agricultural products will be safe for sale and consumption. When will
EPA provide those assurances?
Answer. The San Juan River has historically received pollutants
from a variety of sources, including abandoned mines. During the
response to the Gold King Mine release, metal concentrations exceeded
Navajo Nation's agricultural screening levels for short durations.
Given the short duration of the exceedances, the EPA believes the San
Juan River is safe for agriculture and irrigation. Historical data
indicates the San Juan River surface water has previously exceeded
Navajo Nation's agricultural screening levels. During the Gold King
Mine response, the EPA consistently shared its analysis of the data
with Navajo Nation government officials.
Through the proposed National Priorities List listing for the
Bonita Peak Mining District, the EPA is taking an important step
towards addressing ongoing pollution from abandoned mines in the San
Juan River Basin. The EPA is also providing Clean Water Act funding to
multiple jurisdictions, including $465,000 to Navajo Nation, to conduct
additional monitoring and sampling in the watershed. In addition, the
EPA is providing funding to support elements of a ``preparedness plan''
to inform a real time notification system in the event of any seasonal
high-level flows associated with the many mine sites in the Upper
Animas watershed.
[all]