many decisions. i want you to understand, epa's role here was not participating in decisions on who was responsible for what, blockages being approved or not over what to do with the treatment facility you identified. we came in to work with the state and local stakeholders to identify what we could do to alleviate problems. >> now that we know the southern ute tribe has spent $11 million responding to this bill, who we will reimburse them? >> that is handled under cercla, basically a memorandum of agreement. i was just checking to see if that has been done with the responsible parties, and that is a routine reimbursement process that we will be able to take care of. those relationships with both the tribes and states are fairly routine because

they act as emergency responders with us. the southern ute have been an incredible and incredibly diligent and being embedded in our command center, working on this. the professionalism has been wonderful, so we will make sure they are properly reimbursed for expenses. the 2nd process is the claims process, what damages have it occurred, and we use the federal claims tort act in order to process those claims. >> how does the federal tort claims act help the navajo? they lost a huge amount of irrigating water which can have long-term devastating effects of drought continues and they do not have the water now or in the future? how can they be made whole? >> two things that are happening here as well. we are talking to the navajo about how they get

reimbursed. we need to work with the president as well as the navajo nation epa to reimbursed for their expenses. the 2nd issue is the claim process. i want to make sure that we are all aware that the reimbursement process is quite different. while costly, it is easy to do. the 3rd issue is, we are developing a long-term monitoring plan, and we need to make sure that allows engagement of the tribes, states, and counties in that effort and have aa stream of funding to support that effort as well. >> my time has expired, but mr. chairman, i have an opportunity to meet with you might i ask, director mccarthy, about what you and i perceive as a different -- >> sure. >> -- with regard to the

chain of events that led to this. >> i will have my staff work with you. >> we now recognize the gentleman from virginia. >> thank you. i would like to thank you for sitting here patiently, capably answering all of these questions. i would also like to thank the representative for raising the issue of the bulwarks and changing the hydrology in the mountain because that seems to be what we missed all along. water was draining and responsibly being treated. when the bulwarks went into a dissent decree everything changed. i am amazed that all these people and all this attention to attack the epa over completely accidental release of 3 million gallons of mine waste water wastewater with 330 million gallons of acid waste flowing into the river every year.

3,000,000 gallons on august 5, and the same watershed gets 3 million gallons every three or four days. at least 161,000 hard rock abandoned mines around the country. u.s. forest service estimates five to 10,000 miles of rivers and streams contaminated with acid mine drainage. it seems toit seems to me, the huge elephant in the room is the water drainage from these mines, not the relatively small spell of only 3 million gallons on augus. the chairman said it was one of the worst bills we have ever had. i am not sure the facts support that claim. in 78 the sunnyside mine, 500 million gallons, 167 times, and that is just that one river. we keep coming back to accountability. i would like to look at process, the process by

which this decision was made. in the testimony before we heard about the epa in the state of colorado meeting with the animus river stakeholders group. on august 4 they began excavation above where water was seeping in. it comes back again. ..

there was pressure buildup at the gold king mine. they made a judgment that turned out to be wrong. whether constitutes due diligence and factors, that's what the department will have to advise us. we will follow up to see if there were mistakes made, if they could have avoided this or if there was other mistakes.

>> thank you. i read a long and detailed testimony to be offered later he points out concerns about the 3 million gallons but also about what's coming in the years to come and the navajo nation will need. is there any reason to think that this is more than the trigger for this attention? i think it has raised visibility of these issues in a way that i'm hoping something good can come out of it so we will be better off in terms of how we manage these sites moving forward. we've been working with the navajo for years. we will continue to do that. we will address concerns that they have identified as best we can.

>> we now know the water may not be at the level it needs to be so that we are not experiencing fluctuations that we see now. >> thank you. your time has expired. we now recognize the gentleman from north carolina. >> i think there is a clear double standard to how the epa polices themselves compared to how the private sector is policed. >> in yesterday's hearing in front of the hearing committee, when asked if they should be held to the same standards as

the private sector, he stated, stated, actually, a higher standard would be quite appropriate. do you still believe today that a higher standard of government is appropriate? >> i do. >> thank you. >> we have a responsibility that is larger than the private sector. >> i would like to submit a wall street journal article written by a former epa employee. he writes, the facility in charleston west virginia spelled roughly 175,000 gallons 75000 gallons into the local waterway. the recent spill was many times larger yet they went offered to them with everything they had. is the department of justice or

an independent investigator going after the epa with everything it has? >> when we get the final report to understand what happened i would expect doj to pay attention and i will pay attention to it as well. >> with the inspector general's be involved involved in that? >> yes and they are doing an independent review. >> the former employee also reference an incident that happened in the clinton administration where contractor was hired and they accidentally struck a line with a backhoe and contaminated some water. the supervisor was off duty and had subcontracted the work. the epa pursued criminal charges against him. he was sentenced to six months in prison because he was ultimately responsible for the safety on the site. do you take personal responsibility? >> the only question i would make is the department of justice is the one that pursued criminal action here. >> someone should go to jail for this incident than?

>> i am not at all aware that there is negligence or we didn't do due diligence and those of the things the department. >> i would beg to differ. we knew there was a problem and and we should of alerted everybody along these lines. >> what actions with the epa take against a private company who is responsible for spill of this magnitude. >> we would be doing the same thing with that company at this stage in looking to independently identify whether or not there was negligent or criminal activity that led to this. that is exactly the same process we are going through today. >> now this report at 1227 on august 5, the collar emphasize how important it was to notify downstream users who would be affected by the contaminated flow headed toward them. the message was given to the epa. why was it that the state of new mexico and the navajo tribe all

found out about this from sources not the epa that cause the incidents in the first place? >> it was part of our contingency plan that we always take advantage so there is appropriate notification. whether or not it was as quick as it could be, i don't know but that was an appropriate way to notify. >> so you were notified and how hard would it be to pick up the phone. >> we have a whole stream. it's whole stream. it's not us individually deciding who to call. there is a contingency plan for notification that's developed with the states with the local communities and that's what we initiate. this is not done on the fly. this is a plan that was developed with everybody's input. >> while obviously it failed. it failed it failed miserably. it was way delayed. i want to move forward a little bit. this lack of trust has now been instilled in the tribes. how can how can you expect the state and tribes to have faith

in your agency to clean up this mess if they can't rely simply on being informed that it's going on? you talk about collaboration but it shows poor respect. i want to ask one more question before you answer because i'm running out of time. why is it so difficult, for tribes they have seats at the table and open lines of communication and getting questions answered because when i look over at the president of the navajo nation, this could have been dramatically averted. i want to know why there is so much reluctance he and those applications. >> there is no reluctance to go to the tribes and get them involved in the extent that they want to. they. they actually were involved in our command center. they they were there and embeda embedded. >> something seriously went wrong in this application.

i hope that you will review that. >> thank you. >> we are now under resourced rules which means we have a second panel that has been sitting for two hours waiting to be heard. we will move this quickly through which means you have five minutes. for your answers, if it comes in five minutes, i'm going to stop you. for the rest of the members, don't wait until there's ten seconds left until you ask a question. give her a fair chance to do this. we will keep the five minute rule so we the five minute rule so we can get the other panel in here. you're up next for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman, actually, i can see something beneficial came out of this tragic incident. course you have responsibility and i congratulate you on the rapid cleanup. it shouldn't have happened in the first place but the benefit that has come is that it's focused us on the mine leaking. i'd asked them to put in a record for the editorial in the tribune.

you are taking responsibility is very important for what happened here. i understand that there may be as many, while there's no federal government data, there may be as many as 500,000 abandoned mines. nobody takes responsibility for them. the the state, the federal government, nobody. is that the case? >> the state and federal government does the best they can but even we don't know where many of these mines are located. >> this was in colorado. >> i know, but in colorado there are three mines listed on something called the national priority list. does this mean that those mines pose a risk as we speak for leakage? >> the reason it's on the national priorities list, which you much might think of a superfund list. >> i don't understand why this isn't covered by the superfund.

>> there has been discussion on whether it should be on the national priorities list. they have written to me and i'll take that letter very seriously. there have been discussion but up until 2005, there was a good opportunity to clean this up and it was going in the right direction. >> i need to know whether this acid mine pollution with half 1 million or so mines poses any danger to drinking water or fish and other wildlife. >> i would have to say, throughout the country there are many instances in which we are looking at sites on the national priorities list which do pose significant hazard. >> including drinking water? we could have some of those leakage into the drinking water the american people? >> that is a continual threat. >> but we don't have any way of knowing that until it's there? >> on the the national priority list, epa is responsible for monitoring those sites. we are are monitoring those. the concern i have. >> can you then alert or make

someone do something about it and who does something about it? >> it's either the responsible party or epa. >> or epa. >> that's correct. but we only have a small fraction of the minds on the national priority list. >> what you do to get on the list? >> it has to be called to our attention and we have to do a site inspection and confer with the governor or the leadership in the tribes. in order to have it on the national priority list we have to make a decision that is very process oriented and public to get them on the site and allow us to then spend federal and state dollars on a more full and rich cleanup. >> i think the ball is in our court on that. thank you very much this is chairman. >> thank you all now turn to mr. meadows. >> thank you mrs. chairman. mr. chairman. i want to clear up something for me. chairman bishop, when he asked why you

didn't notify the official wildlife, your testimony was that you didn't anticipate a discharge so there was no notification. then upon further questioning about an unrelated issue, you set a discharge was eminent. you believed it believed it was going to happen. so which is it? your testimony to mr. bishop or your testimony to mr. fleming fleming because they seem to conflict. >> let me try to be a little clearer. i apologize if i haven't been. been. we were there because concern was raised that there was pressurized water in the mine and that might result in a blowout. that is the reason we were doing the action. the action was not intended to cause the blowout in the actual professional opinion of those in the mind.

>> let me go a little further. anytime you do any type of work there is a plan. who approve approve the plan. >> don't you approve the plan? i'm troubled because i looked at bat video and i'm very familiar with 402 permits. i've been there done that. it didn't seem like you followed your own guidelines that would be applied to the private sector. i didn't see any of those there, so did you intentionally avoid your own guideline? >> they were plans. it was a plan that was developed -- >> did you follow 402 general 402 general guidelines. >> we followed all permits. >> no i didn't ask that. i said 402 guidelines. at two guidelines. it's a specific question. >> we did because -- >> where was all the retention. >> it was all a retention fund. >> so the retention was behind

the truck? i saw saw the video and it started flowing to the truck. where's where's the retention. >> the retention pond was constructed in a way that would have manage the anticipated release. that was our anticipated relief. we were trying to generate that in order to relieve the pressure. because it was a blowout that treatment pond was clearly inundated very quickly. >> but ms. mccarthy, listen. they're talking to someone who normally has multiple retention ponds in case of blowouts. i know that i have had to construct them so you anticipate worst-case scenarios and it doesn't look like you anticipated worst-case scenarios. it looks like you kind of cut some corners to get it done and you were working on it. >> this is one of the issues the internal review raised as to whether or not the plan was adequate. >> what's your opinion on that?

was adequate? >> the internal review clearly pointed out, what they saw was not adequate. >> okay, so let me finish. >> we don't know what's there but we honestly think we have to look at the department of the interior -- >> why do we have to look at that. you keep coming back to that is this independent agency. >> that's right. >> well as part of the administration so i hardly see the doi being independent necessarily the way we think of independent so why not the inspector general? >> the inspector general is looking at this issue. >> why wouldn't they have the main authority? the inspector general for the epa. >> they are going to be looking at this. >> why wouldn't they have the main authority? >> we are going with agencies who have specific expertise. one of the things we did was to make sure we weren't defining the scope. >> so who decided who's going to

inc. inspect to? >> know i left that up to staff to decide. >> but your agency decided who was going to be independent. >> we actually consulted with a number of of agencies. those agencies agreed to do it. >> can you get those documents to the committee in terms of the inquiries that were made in terms of who would be best? if you made multiple inquiries you'd have data and email to back that up. >> i certainly can see what we have available if that's the request. we did try -- we did try to get authorities to actually look at this that would have the expertise to do an independent review. >> if you would get that to the committee, i yield back. >> under five minutes, well done >> thank you mr. chairman and for both of the chairman, think you are having this hearing. hearing. ms. mccarthy, it's probably no secret to you that tens of

million americans despise the epa. many feel this way because of the high-handed and arrogant way the epa operates. it is constantly moving the goalpost of environmental standards and many of these cases the standards are quite stringent. they ignore the high economic cost of further tightening of standards shows a disregard for the difficulty that many americans face in putting food on the table without having to pay higher prices for energy or losing jobs because of the high regulation to businesses. my state of colorado is being forced to sue the epa for clean energy plants. the arrogance of the epa is seen

by the horror horrible disaster in colorado that we are here to investigate today. no one has been punished in the epa is seeking to avoid any hit on its budget or judgments against it resulting from this disaster. it wants other parts of the government to pay any judgments. so this to me, ms. mccarthy is a double standard because had the private sector cause the environmental tragedy in colorado there would be serious fines and possible criminal penalties. this this brings me to my first question in light of the perceived double standard that the epa operates under where the private sector is not allowed to use its own science and come to its own conclusion unquestioned would you support legislation by congress that would require the epa to disclose, to the american

people, online, whatever science whatever science that uses to form its judgments? >> sir i'm not prepared to talk in big picture about what we would support or not support. i am here to tell you that we have taken full responsibility for this issue. we are treating this the same way we would be treating the private sector and why while you are absolutely right that we enforce our statutes that's what brings the benefits people rely on in this country and i believe they will continue to rely on our ability to deliver those. >> a private company would have to absorb a fine assess by the epa from its budget. you are seeking to have. >> not in this consequence. this was actually actually a response action to try to mitigate a danger that was pointed out to us in the challenge with the

private sector would be the same as us. make sure sure that if an accident happened at that site that they get people out and keep them safe. that they reduce this bill quickly and they take account and accountability for all of the damage it caused. >> or private company wouldn't have been fined? if they were acting in good faith? >> only if the actions they were taken were against an order or settlement or someone was found negligent or criminal in the activity. in in those last two issues, what the department of the interior will help form, if we were negligent and didn't do what we should've done, if we didn't do due diligence we will have to be held accountable for that. >> let me ask about the contractor. is the contractor being suspended from further work on mines until the result of the investigation comeback question? >> no sir because the consultant , contractor was working under the direct

supervision of our on-site coordinator. is my understanding that at this point we don't have any reason to believe he wasn't doing the work that was he was tasked to do. >> is the directors epa director's fault? >> i'm not sure where fault lies. that's what the department of the interior is going to identify. the question is, the key decision that was made there was the understanding based on the site conditions, and this was the experts from us and colorado, that there was low or no pressure. that was the key decision. it wasn't the fact that he did the work the way the task order indicated. it was the fact that a determination was made that proved to be incorrect. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you mr. chairman for having this hearing today. i'd like to pick up where he

was. you just set up a private company did what they should've done it would have been no problem. what i would submit to you as if the epa had done what they should have done we would not have had the spill. there ought to be equal consequences for the epa just as there are for private citizens. i cannot believe for one minute that the epa would not aggressively go after another grouper company who was involved in cleaning up a potential environmental hazard, particularly if they did not have the experience and expertise of doing so and they created up problem such as the epa created. you would would go after them and there would be heads rolling so to speak. >> untran. that would be precisely what the epa is guilty of and nothing has happened yet. you say you are treating yourself the same as you do other companies and quite frankly that is just not the case. have you read the summary report

of the internal review of the blowout? >> yes i have. >> you may recall on page two, the last sentence there says the team conducted a limited review of internet resources to determine if there are existing guidelines or procedures for investigating sites with similar characteristics as the site. so obviously they do not have experience cleaning up mines such as this. they had to refer to the internet, the expertise, apparently, is restricted to google. is that correct? >> i will have to look at the exact sentence you are reading but the on scene coordinator has extensive mining and engineering expertise. we worked with the colorado division of reclamation in mining and safety who have considerable expertise as well including knowledge of that area. >> according to that report, the

summary review, the epa relied on internet resources to figure out what to do in this scenario and that is according to what you have submitted. according to the claims act, are are you familiar with the discretionary. >> that is a legal loophole within the law that would allow the epa to get out of having to pay for any damages. my question to you was whether or not the epa plans to utilize that exemption. you are saying you are not familiar with it. >> i'm not an expert in the claims process. i apologize if we need to answer your question in more details. >> my question is that as a legal loophole in the law. will you commit to us today that the epa will not utilize that loophole and you will pay for damages? >> we will work with the doj to compensate as appropriate. >> will you not utilize a legal

loophole to get out of it. >> i can't say i will do something against the law. i'm sorry, i can't do that. >> know this is within the law i just don't want them utilizing a loophole to get out of what they are responsible for. >> i am not trying to get out of any of my responsibilities. >> are you familiar with greensboro, georgia. in my district there was a similar experience six months ago where the epa, likewise with a contractor that a contractor that made a mistake and they struck a water line and there was a spill into the lake. do you recall that? >> i don't recall that. it's another example of the epa having a similar problem. i would like to add this to the

evidence. you stated you were taking full responsibility for this spill. in light of the criminal charges in prison prison sentences that others have experience from much less, for much smaller accidents , ms. mccarthy, in the interest of fairness, the american people who have experienced the wrath of the epa for much smaller scenarios and accidents than this, i think it's it's only appropriate that you would resign as a statement of fairness for other americans have experience for smaller incidents. with that, i yield. >> thank you mr. chairman, i appreciate you mr. chairman chairman for having this hearing and allowing natural resources to be part of the committee. thank you for making the trip

mrs. mccarthy. several things i'm looking at. first of all, when i look at how people have to deal with the government and the regulations is proportionality. we know how that's defined within an accident. when it something happens that's out of their control that they didn't want to have happen and probably wish they could take off somehow but accidents happen and we forgive people for accidents yet we see in unforgiveness attitude coming from your agency with people who haven't done things intentionally. when we talk about proportions, going going back to that west virginia mine spill where was 7500 gallons of water that people face criminal indictments immediately and could go to prison it prison. the company is out of business. in this case here with 3 million gallons being dumped when other activities should've been taken ahead of time, that's 400 times the amount of pollutant that got out.

we are talking about company that is the size of a small backyard pool versus 400 of those types of pool. the proportion for the criminal charges versus what has been brought upon your contractors, do we expect a 400 multiplier for prison time in charge against him or your boys or the contractor? >> the west virginia spill ended up contaminating drinking water supplies for many people. it caused significant concern and it was done by a company that wasn't following the law in their requirements. that is why that was pursued. in this instance, i am not saying that 3 million gallons spill did know damage. clearly will hear that damage happens.

the difference here is that when there is an accident you have to determine whether someone was doing the things they should've been doing and an accident occurred that they couldn't have anticipated or whether there is fault and blame. that's what were were trying to dip determined. the question earlier was posed, if you have a project and anticipation of a possible blowout, and you mentioned it was very possible, they should of been notifying wildlife. :

so how much should we come after you for not following the law and notifying fish and wildlife but as well as not even following what your own documents show, you should have had hydrostatic testing as well as the possibility of a relief pipeline to relieve pressure? >> i do not believe the agency violated the endangered species act, and we can continue to look at that and talk. you're absolutely right. if we did something wrong, you should come after us, and frankly i take full responsibility for that as well. >> my constituents face a

lot of issues from federal agencies coming after them. someone trying tosomeone trying to change their cropland from grazing or wheatfield to an orchard field. someone on their case over soil preparation with large, large fines. does that seem fair, especially when the people involved, if there is a period where they make application and don't here back and then get come back on after that ninety-day period? does that make sense? >> i cannot speak to the particular instance i'm unaware of. >> our folks are taking a hit on it. >> sorry, time is out. mr. palmer. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this mccarthy, thank you for coming today. five months ago the epa put

toxic sediment into a creek in greensboro, georgia. initially the epa denied having anything to do with the project and later admitted it funded the cleanup and development operation the triggered this bill. didbill. did you requested department of interior review for the hospital? >> i am not directly aware of it, sir, so i will have to get back to you. >> the record indicates that you did. it makes me wonder why after an accident like that you did not stop all of these cleanup efforts and particularly with the gold king mine after having is bill in georgia just a few months ago. let me ask you, you have been asked several times if anyone at the epa will lose their job over this incident. has anyone at the environmental restoration llc been fired over this?

>> not that i am aware of. >> am i correct in that you responded earlier that you are continuing to use them as a contractor? >> that is correct. >> also, are you aware that it was reported that the epa collected about 15,000 tons of poisonous waste from two mines in 2005 and dump them down the shaft without notifying the mine owner who happens to be mr. hennis who owns the gold king mine, and the epa did not take responsibility for that or a sister pay for the cleanup. >> i'm not aware of that incident, sir. >> ii think you need to look into that as well. one of the things that really concerns me about this -- and i realize the epa has a job to do. i have brought this your attention before about some

of the heavy-handed tactics the epa engages in. the chairman talkedchairman talked about the fact that the epa has clearly violated federal law, that it does not mr the epa did not realize they violated the law or that the epa did not intend to violate the law or that the epa was just trying to do its job when violating law. that does not matter. it does not matter in the context of how you treated other folks. mr. goss are brought out the case of edward hanna sack, sentenced to six months in prison for discharging oil into a navigable stream. he was convicted due to the fact that he was off duty and not present when the accident occurred. a poultry farmer was convicted. havinghaving grown up on a farm i am fairly familiar with that.

they told her she had to get a national pollution discharge permit over be fined $37,500 per day. true to her native west virginia spirit, she is fighting it. mr. johnson built a stock pond for horses and cattle on his 8-acre property. a stock pond of former army corps of engineers enforcement officer inspected and concluded it provided environmental benefits and at the water flowing out is three times greater than the water flowing into it, yet he has been fined $16 million. this is just a small farmer. then you have the situation with the range of resources corporation of texas being forced to spend $4.2 million defending itself after the

epa issued an emergency order. the epa accused the range of sourcessources of causing or contributing to the contamination of two water wells, and then when it was quickly determined they had nothing to do with it despite incontrovertible evidence, the epa claimed it was not required to prove any alleged connection. you were going to continue on that path and force them to pay until you finally relented and gave it up. we also turned over the personal data of 80,000 farmers to environmental groups. i don't understand why you can come before this committee and sit they're and say you are sorry for what you have done in the context of how you treated private companies. you really ought to be sorry. mr. chairman, i yield. >> thank you. mr. westermann.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. despite efforts to minimize this spill, the facts cannot be ignored that 3 million gallons of the civic to have acidic water was released not because of an accident but mistakes caused by neglect because of the culture of arrogance with the epa assumes they can operate outside the rules and regulations that others must adhere to, and quite simply the epa did not have those irresponsible charge with the professional experience, licensure required to do this job properly to safeguard life, health, property. administrator, we cannot put this water back in the whole, but i hope we can hold everyone accountable who negligently let it out. along with that i hope you'll make procedural changes taking competence

out of the equation to prevent future spills. i have concerns in your ability to safeguard public interest. kayfor, do you believe that the activities conducted at the gold king site would require engineering design work? >> i'm sorry,sorry, sir, i don't know whether i am qualified to answer that question, but i will respond. >> maybe i can help you out. colorado defines the practice of engineering is the performance of others of any professional service or creative work requiring engineering education, training, and experience and special knowledge including consultation, investigation, evaluation, planning, design , and construction to evaluate compliance with plans and specifications in

connection with utilizations of the forces, energies forces, energies and materials, nature, development, functioning of processes, apparatus, structures, buildings, works, oy combination our aggregation thereof employed and then devoted to public enterprise or use. again, do you agree activities conducted at the >> i am well aware there was a work plan that required a significant amount of expertise. what you asked me was the exact action at the site. i am not prepared to answer that portion of the question. >> you are saying you do not have the expertise to determine whether professional services were required, but you did say an earlier testimony the on-site coordinator had significant mine engineering experience. >> that was my understanding. >> and engineering expertise went into preparing this work plan. >> that is correct. >> colorado law goes on to say that it requires that

only aa professional engineer may practice engineering and that all engineering documents issued in connection with engineering work must pay the signature and seal of the colorado licensed professional engineer who is directly responsible for the engineering work. did a professional engineer design or stamp drawings or the plan for the work being conducted at the gold king site which resulted in the blowout? >> i would be happy to follow up. >> i would think if an engineer did that, you would have those documents with you and say comeau we follow the procedures outlined by a confident professional in charge of this. so far all i have heard as you had a project coordinator. who is this person? >> i do not have his individual name. >> do you know the credentials?

>> i don't have his bio in front of me, sir, but the work plan was not developed at the site. it was developed by the state of colorado. >> public input and professional expertise are not the same thing. you should have had a professional design person in charge to stamp plans were drawings or whatever it was. >> ii am suggesting i cannot answer your question at this point, but i am happy to follow up. >> you have 15,326 employees in the epa as of march 2015. in region eight you have 642. across the country you only have 12 seal -- 12 civil engineers on staff. two geologists and one civil engineer in region eight. i think this is unacceptable, and you are at fault for not having the

required design professional in charge of this work. >> see what happens when you have an engineer on the panel? right in time for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. it is nice to see you again. i realize this is a difficult hearing, administrator, but we all want the same thing, we do not want these kind of issues and mistakes going forward. everything in your power to mitigate and i personally appreciate the epa attitude about taking full responsibility for the 3 million gallons of toxic -- i am sure that everyone has repeated this over and over. i really want to focus my question on making sure we are as holistic as possible about identifying just exactly what the harm is, how we identify and address that harm command how we

assess the long-term impacts specifically, and i hope that president russell begaye from the navajo nation will forgive me for this because as he spoke in his testimony about the navajo principal, it is very important, i, i think, not to overlook that the beauty and order and harmony of these very beautiful, pristine areas that aa legal context if we do not deal with actual damage and future damage and make it completely whole then it cannot be available for the kinds of both economic activities and personal activities that we know are critical to this entire area and region. and i know that that will be a complicated process to place a monetary damage from this kind of spill that are more traditional damage

crops, suspended outdoor recreation and tourism. i am looking at making sure we restore the area to its original aspect, and the potential it had prior. cancan you talk to me about how you will identify both the long-term impacts yet unknown and how you will encompass this, we are interested in getting full compensation for all affected states. >> there are two long-term issues that need to be addressed. i know time is constrained. we have a long-term responsibility to deal with the settlement issue which has been one of the major concerns of president russell begaye and the navajo and others because we know that river has not been of high quality for some time. we have to monitor that

closely. we now have a long-term concern about that we share and are developing a plan to do that will get input from everyone. the 2nd long-term issue is what happens in the upper animus. we are not close to resolving the issues related to the ongoing discharge which frankly forced the spill. in terms of looking at this more broadly than a technical challenge, one of the challenges that the navajo and southern ute is we have a trust responsibility with the tribes which makes this more important. >> i will reclaim my time. there is a culture of mistrust, not just for all trust responsibilities, but a specific culture between the epa and our nation's and particularly in this case -- and i hope i do not overstep my authority -- but

particularly in the navajo nation i am hoping you identify specifically monetary aspects and damages related to the long-term impact. while i respect your looking at the continuation of environmental problems which is absolutely a job, i want everyone made whole. i am not feeling as confident about that. i am going to need you to address how individuals process claims, what you will do to make that a non- painful process. the unemployment rate of the navajo nation is upwards of 42 percent. people cannot wait and wait through at bureaucratic process to file and wait for their claims. the appellatethe appellate work that i am sure will be necessary to get fair review

you have a few seconds to assure me that you are going to do that. >> will do the best we can. >> i can still go for seven seconds, if you want. i'm kidding. mr. newhouse. >> thank you for being here. one of the risks of being a freshmana freshman as i am right down here in the line of fire with you. one question in light of the chairmanchairman wanting to get to the other people who have been patient waiting here. certainly this is an unfortunate incident, one that we must do all we can to prevent from happening again. we need to learn from this but also the word accountability has been thrown around a lot this morning. you haveyou have said as much yourself that you will follow this wherever it goes , and i appreciate that. could you tell me how do you define the accountability hear?

what would that look like in the end? >> there will be accountability in two ways. whether or not we had administrative or management failures or criminal concerns that arise out of the independent review. those are two related but separate issues. >> i can say, having run an agency myself in a former life, i believe the ability of the agency and the credibility of the agency, its ability to perform its duties is truly on the line year. it is as much at risk as anything else. i would hope that we can take you at your word that the accountability aspect of this will be followed wherever it goes and that we are satisfied that the people that are in charge are held accountable. >> i know we have both the inspector general who looks at these issues and the oversight committee and i

expect we will be able to walk through the accountability issues when all the facts are on the table. >> can you tell me about protocol? can you tell me what protocols are? >> first and foremost to protect the folks on site to make sure there is no potential for humans, safety issues to arise. the 2nd issue, the challenge is to minimize the spill as much as you can to get that under control. the 3rd is to take a look at the impact downstream so that you can address those and mitigate those as well and obviously is a longer-term challenge of making sure there is

appropriate compensation for the claims act, and in the case of epa where we had partners working with us to reimburse them for their expenses. >> were there any that were not followed as well as it should have been? >> we could have done better on notification. we have already started to do that. what was the precipitating factor among we need to do about it. unfortunately sometimes you learn from one of the worst things command this is one of them. >> i would agree with that. i yield back my time. >> three other members not

part of the committee are here to ask questions. mr. pierce. >> thank you for being here today. we have some difference of opinion on whether or not the epa was pushing for these form 95 to be signed. president russell begaye testimonies has apparently the epa was trying to obtain releases. simply be disavowed in the lab to resubmit the paperwork. >> those can be changed at any time. >> sounds great. >> also, in order to delete down the spill are you going to reimburse the?

>> i don't know what your referring to. sorry. >> i would expecti would expect for you to look into that and get back with our office. >> the water released at the dam? >> yes. >> now you're familiar? >> i did not know what you were referring to. >> are you going to be reimbursing the tribe? >> i do not know whether that is something. >> you will follow up and find out? >> the navajo has not raised that issue. >> also, to chairman bishops point earlier that we needed everyone on the same panel, evidently made the assertion that epa health new mexico shut off the intake for public water system? >> i indicated the notification --

>> no, i didno, i did not ask about the notification. >> that is what i was talking about. >> the sec.'s comment was secretary's comment was that you were not involved at all in the decision. we could prosecute that decision if we have everyone on the same panel together. so the whole idea of accountability, your comment, anyone negligent or criminal activity, administrative oversight will be dealt with? >> that is part of it. >> about how long the following of the outcome of that? how long will the investigation take? >> anticipated completion in october. >> my point to the others who may be distrust you will actually follow through on that, as the name robert peel mean anything to you? >> very much, sir. >> he is thrown in jail for three years for bilking the

taxpayers. has any money gotten back from them? >> we have and continue. >> okay. there were people in the agency who had to sign leave travel salary bonuses. processes were in place. >> no, are any of the supervisors that signoff from coming to work or him going somewhere he did not go traveling first-class, has anyone been held accountable for that? >> there was a process in place. >> no, has anyone been held accountable? again, going back to the situation, that oversight would be negligence.

>> i don't no the exact term, sir, but that is absolutely an administrative responsibility. >> and yet no one has been accountable today. no one has faith that it will result in anyone having any consequence. you were his direct supervisor for four years. nine through 12. three, four, something. >> yes, sir. >> if people have a little difficulty that you will follow through on this issue they look at that issue and say the highest-paid employees simply gets to skate and no one is held accountable. >> i was the person who held them accountable. >> i understand.

he also signed off fraudulent payments to him that he did not deserve. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> ms. miss mccarthy, you recently stated on august 13 that we will be fully accountable for this in a transparent way. >> yes, sir. >> as a follow-up, we sent a letter signed by 29 other members listing specific questions regarding this bill. when can we expect an answer. you have yet to respond. >> i will double check and get you a tentative date. i think that's a lot of frustration.

we will get back to you. >> i have not seen it and don't want to give you a date that i we will then have to explain away. >> if you can get back to us on that, we would appreciate it. in regard to transparency, youtransparency, you said the epa was examining different sites that could suffer a meltdown, as we saw ate gold king mine. you have identified ten different minds. that did not come down until such time there was a report. how is that feeding and with transparency? >> i do not know the context in which you are referring. >> you have identified ten minds that have the potential for us bill. >> no, i issued a memo to put a hiatus on all mining operations, mining recovery -- what is the word i am looking for? cleanups that we were involved in. as a result of that my

cleanups stopped, and we have identified ten. >> are you revealing the locations? >> say it again. >> are you revealing the locations? >> if folks want to have that. >> one of the minds was near crested butte. one of the suspect minds? >> i can go back and check a look. >> do you feel that it's going to be important to reach out and give that notification advance just as we saw to let people know in the districts. >> we got involved because there was understanding to be a blowout problem.

there was no secret that the work was being done in a transparent and publicly accessible way. >> i would like to know how many mining engineers does the epa employee? >> i cannot answer that right now. >> do you know if there are any? >> i know we have a national mining team that works on these issues. >> do you have any engineers? >> i do not know, sir. >> can you get back to us on that? >> yes, sir. >> you cited that you worked with a lot of people with a lot of expertise. the concern that we see is given some of the protocols you put in place when we want to juxtapose this to a private company meeting rigid standards of your organization puts together the standards. when the document dump came out about two weeks ago and

you cited that there was a potential for a blowout at the gold king mine, why was there no effort to determine how much water had actually backed up? if we are talking about having the expertise. >> i would have to go back and identify with both colorado and epa were basing their judgment on, but it was a concern of the entire community. >> i'm just trying to get to the.of urgency. in terms of your position, your job, you are the one setting this up. when we are looking through your documents saying there is a potential for a blowout -- >> that is why we were there >> wouldn't it have been prudent to make sure how much water was behind the wall? >> that is one of the issues, whether we took all the steps that were prudent.

>> can you understand the frustration, the position frustration, the position you put yourself in as being enforcers, experts in the field, and you are saying this is aa mystery and we are having to look back and see what went wrong? this is my district. i have talked to engineers, minors of work in that area. they would not have proceeded the way that the epa did. >> let me save you some time you have zero mining engineers. our committee has more mining engineers than the epa. mr. hardy. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would like to know how many hydrological engineers you have on your team? >> i do not know that answer >> geological engineers? >> i do not know that answer either. >> then how do we have the expertise in hiring a contractor to do this are why does the epa figure that they have the expertise if you don't no?

isn't it your responsibility to no? >> not on every site, but it is my responsibility to manage the agency appropriately. >> did you know the epa requires minds before they open have an environmental and neat the process done and in order to do that have to have geologic and hydrologic engineers, mining engineers to go along with that. is that true? >> i'm not that familiar with it, sir, but those are the issues -- >> and you are the head of the department. don't you feel that is your responsibility? >> again,again, it is my responsibility to manage the agency effectively. >> what is the hiring process of a contractora contractor before they begin work on such a project is this? >> ii can't say i have ever been directly involved in the hiring process,, but i am aware we set criteria for the credibility of contractors and look with those with experience and

background that is appropriate. >> and how would we know what that process is if we don't have the experience on epa's own staff to hire such a contractor? >> i'm not assuming we don't have expertise. >> i would like an answer to the question. through this process, when a mine is open -- and it has gone on for 60, 70, 80 years , you have to provide documentation, environmental process, neat the process. those processes are there. what happens to those records, the information that they have to provide the epa or any other entity with the federal government. >> it has to be properly retained in accordance with the law.

>> whatever appropriate steps we should take should be documented. >> i believe there has been a real violation here. more worried about the environmental side than understanding irresponsibility before it becomes contractors themselves. with that i you back. thank you. >> thank you command i appreciate that. at some point we will have another panel. this mccarthy, i appreciate you being here. this is now three hours into the hearing. i do not want to sound like a teachera teacher berating a student, but had he been

willing to share the panel it would have been an enlightening opportunity for discussion and those other witnesses could have added expertise and answers to the questions. i am sorry. i said he might want to apologize for not being willing to sit on the panel with them. i would like to give you that same opportunity. this panel -- nevermind then. we invite the other panel to come forward. >> mr. chairman, if i may, a point of privilege. i have additional questions i will submit to the committee in writing. my apologies to the witnesses coming up. with that, thank you. >> i totally understand, and we will submit your questions to these witnesses in writing. take a brief pause here as we change panels. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> the faster we can make that change the better it will be. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] doctor larry wolk, executive director and mr. ryan flynn.

i appreciate you being here. since -- don't sit down yet. i am trying to save you extra space. pursuant to the rules of the oversight and government reform committee and only that committee,committee, all witnesses will be sworn in before the testify. would you please raise your right hand. [witnesses being sworn in] once again, anything you have submitted in writing as part of the record and will be there. we will ask each of you to make a quick statement limited to five minutes. we will try and be arbitrary arbitrary with those -- with

the gavel coming down, but we appreciate you being here as part of this discussion. we will start with president russell begaye. five minutes to give oral testimony to the committee. >> good afternoon, chairman. good to see you always and thank you for your support. also ranking members of the committee. my name is russell begaye, president of the navajo nation. i was born and raised along the river in shiprock. years ago we saw hundreds of dead fish floating down the river. as boys we jumped in the river catching the dying fish. i have been asking for years why they were dead. i did not get an answer until august 13 when administrator mccarthy came

to visit our nation. 1.5 million gallons of radium tutus build from the site located in my hometown. we not only swam in that radioactive water, but my brothers eight the contaminated fish. i am asking this committee to not allow history to repeat itself and told the epa accountable for the toxic spill that occurred on august 5. do not let them get away with negligence. our people are suffering. much of the crops of been lost, livestock is pinned up , ranchers are exhausted from hauling water, children are afraid of the water. we are told that cleanup will take decades. today we come to ask for help. the white house is silent. fema, doi, and other federal agencies are being told to not use there own resources

to help us. we have not seen any promises fulfilled. the promises remain empty, like a funder we here over our land but with no rain. what do our people need 1st and foremost as compensation now. the farmers and ranchers cannot wait months for compensation. i no this year's bills will will not be paid, clothing for children will not be bought, and food is scarce. had the epa set up an emergency compensation fund and provided ongoing repayment of losses as submitted, don't be a partya party to this injustice by having our farmers way future claims after they get the 1st compensation checks. secondly, we need an alternative water source for drinking, livestock, and irrigation of farms.

we are asking wells be drilled, reservoir built, and water piped from the navajo them. we want the epa to build the lavatory on the navajo nation so we can continually test our water, soil, plants, and livestock. we are asking president obama to declare the san juan a federal disaster area. this would allow fema, usda, doi, and other agencies to provide resources we need now. they're asking this committee to hold the follow-up hearing because we do not want this to become old news one week from now. the navajo nation will not let any and all negligent parties get away with this disaster. we will stand our ground until our river and riverbeds are safe once again for our children to play in and people to use as

a drinking source. the navajo nation will no longer stand back when these kind of atrocities are done to our people. i want to thank you for your time and attention, and we look to your leadership to write this injustice. thank you. >> thank you for your testimony. mr. mike olguin -- probably the correct title is counsel >> yes. >> your recognized for five minutes. >> thank you. good morning chairman, ranking members. my name is mike olguin. i am an elected member of the southern ute tribal council, which is the governing body of the southern ute indian tribe. thank you for the opportunity to appear to discuss the gold king mine spill and its impacts. before i begin i would like

to thank congressman young and chairman bishop for last week's action. thethe tribe was active in developing and supporting. my testimony at this time, i would like to mention a few key items from my written statement and answer questions that you and committee members may have. the animus river crosses the reservation downstream. since the gold king mine blowout the tribe has been extensively engaged in responding to this bill. we 1st learned of relief when the colorado department of natural resources notified the tribe on the afternoon of this bill. we immediately responded by implementing our emergency management plan, epa command sampling water quality before the spill reached the reservation. in the 1st days after this bill it was largely local jurisdictions responded.

the tribe issued a disaster declaration on saturday, august 8. other jurisdictions followed suit. in the days that followed we attended to the needs of the tribal membership, posted signs closing access to the river on the reservation, delivered bottled water, water, provided water tanks, water for livestock, held informational meetings, and offered temporary housing. additionally, we coordinated epa testing of domestic water wells. forfor the duration of the response tribal staff actively participated with personnel from other affected governments and remains engaged and incident command to this day. as of the friday after this bill the epa still does not have a coordinated effort in durango. local jurisdiction including the tribe works together. the water quality program called the spill hotline and

reported it.it. at that point neither epa nor colorado had notified new mexico. the county and our tribe notified our sister tribe of the spill. we shared information with downstream tribes in the lower colorado basin. for the period they incurred hundred thousand dollars in cost responding to this bill mostly in time. we understand neighboring communities and businesses suffered losses and neighboring governments also incurred costs. they are working to recover incurred cost. the tribe has long had an active water sampling funded by tribal assistance program for clean water act grants. this provided valuable information to all affected parties by the gold king mine spill.

we tested before the plume had the reservation and for two weeks after. during that time we were testing daily for over 25 substances including aluminum, silver, arsenic, lead, and mercury. coincidentally two weeks previous we collected samples to conduct metal analysis on those samples. we shared our data and continue monitoring. like others, we favor a full evaluation of events leading to the spill in the epa performance responding. however, it is important to keep this in perspective. there are estimated to be 23,000 abandoned mines and colorado alone causing water pollution problems.

federal leadership, assistance command cooperation is key to avoiding another blowout and addressing the problem of abandoned mine drainage polluting the river watershed. thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. >> thank you very much. doctor larry wolk, your recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, chairman, members of the committee. i am the executive director and chief medical officer for the colorado department of public health and environment. i appreciate the opportunity to share my testimony on behalf of the department regarding the water quality impact from the recent gold king mine spill. the river basin is a long and storied mining history, and legacy mining has resulted in significant water quality impact. four years drainage has contributed heavy-metal loads into cement creek which eventually flows into the river.

waterwater quality control division has routinely but somewhat infrequently sampled the water quality in cement creek and the animus river. these have consistently shown the quality of the water in cement creek is and has been for years impacted by the mine waste coming from the legacy mines. historically located at 11,300 feet above sea level. on august 5, 2015 in5th 2015 and estimated volume of up to 3 million gallons of mine waste water was unexpectedly released from the gold mine had it into cement creek. almost immediately traveled to silverton to respond to and evaluate the water quality impact from the release. throughout the river basin from upstream to silverton and downriver from durango

to the new mexico border over of period of 11 days to 11 days to determine the extent of the impact of release. initial monitoring indicated levels of copper, lead, manganese, and zinc were higher than previously monitored. on august 11 the levels had returned to pre- release levels. we will continue to monitor the levels of metals. at this time we don't anticipate adverse health effects from exposure to the metals detected in the river water samples from skin contact or incidental or unintentional ingestion. working with parks and wildlife to monitor the effect on aquatic life.

assessments will continue, assessments will continue, but at this point there appears to be no obvious impact. there were no fish kills during the plume event or effects observed on terrestrial animals. park and wildlife placed fingerling wildlife in cages before the plume reached the city. only one died, and the others remained healthy the one fish that died was not due to water quality. this will continue to be monitored. they pose a risk to aquatic life and fish and understand there is concern about the risks to recreational users on the river. sediment is one indicator of the health of the river. there is some level of contamination because of past mining activities.

we do not anticipate adverse health effects from exposure to contaminants detected in the water during typical recreation activities. we understand based upon current information, the department of agriculture believes the river may be used for crop irrigation and livestock watering. we are unsure of the long-term impact, but this bill does not to have significantly impacted the water quality. we are fortunate that did not result in an immediate environmental disaster. however, this does not mean they have not already been impacted from prior damage from the legacy mine. this underscores the issue with thousands of legacy mines affect the quality of rivers and streams. they can have a detrimental impact on aquatic life. a noticeable decline in the number of trout.

cement creek and the animus river are only two that receive historic mine drainage. i close my comments and an open for questions. >> thank you. finally, mr. ryan flynn, your recognized five minutes. >> before ii begin, i want to thank our representative from new mexico who has been here the entire day. i know this is not part of your district, but you are a new mexican, and i appreciate your interest as well as your willingness to stay all day. i am the sec. of environment for the state of new mexico as well as a natural resource trustee for the state of new mexico, and i was on the ground in farmington, new mexico within 18 hours of receiving notice of the spill from the southern ute tribe.

almost immediately after notification art governor appointed an emergency response team, which i had the honor of serving as the leader of for the nine day ordef new mexico as well as other downstream users, including the navajo nation in the state of utah was forced to endure. it has been said that pressure reveals true character, and i am extremely proud of the manner in which the state of new mexico as well as the local communities respond to this event. new mexicans demonstrated compassion, courage, determination, and great throughout this nine day ordeal. having been there and in the community i cannot underscore how frightened people were by the toxic plume that was traveling through the river. it literally goes to the heart of the community and

is the heart of the community in farmington and the navajo nation. without water at home and with this toxic, yellow yellowtoxic, yellow sludge floating through the river in the center of town people literally were confronted by the spill at home and outside. new mexicans responded, as i would have expected. they came together with a well orchestrated himself was plan to move forward and respond to the emergency at hand. in particular, i want to commend the efforts of the local officials from san juan county, new mexico, the city of farmington, and the city of aztec. from top to bottom these officials responded admirably integrating themselves and to our emergency response team,

took initiative, and acted heroically throughout the process at all levels from leaders, ceo, clo of san juan county, the mayors, all the way down the line, the stafm more essential to the effort i also need to complement my staff. i had dozens of employees mobilized in the field were literally supposed to be dropping their children off at college that weekend, and because new mexico needed them they traveled hours from around the state to be there in farmington during this ordeal to help. i had employees who were out in temperatures well into the '90s on most days. i had literally over a dozen employees out there from morning until late at night working in cramped conditions and talk conditions in a makeshift lab and at no point did anyone complain, lose there temper or do anything other

than ask what more i can do. that was a tough response from my employees. i set a high standard for them. push them hard. could not be more humbled by their response as well as that of all the other agencies around the state, the department of agriculture, the new mexico department of game and fish, department of health, department of homeland security all performed admirably. by saturday, the state and local -- rather thanks to the state and local communities swift action we have been able to secure all the water systems and private and domestic wells in the area, preserve and protect our local agricultural resources, establish direct lines of communication, teams of local farmers and ranchers to provide water for livestock, set up watering stations, and deployed teams

of scientists to monitor the water quality and authorized emergency funding. these swift, well orchestrated activities are testament to the local communities and leadership at every level in the state. thank you for having me here today. >> thank you for your testimony. we are now going to turn -- sorry, we will now turn to questions. we will start with congressman chases. >> to those most directly affected, we thank you for your willingness in time to come testify today.

i want to ask you, the epa has closely coordinated and what is your assessment of the close coordination with the epa? >> thank you for the question. the 1st time we had coordination was a conference call were epa told us the cleanup would take decades to complete. i was stunned by the statement. as they said before, at a public hearing saturday evening the next day they said the base of the mountain we had just

returned from the mountain and taken photos of the river, went to the mouth of the mountain, and it was still very much the color of orange juice, very much hello. and i told the epa person that this is what we saw. the person i was answering the question to the public at that public form and durango said, well, i was told different. i was told it was clear enough. if that is coordination, it was completely false. >> what happened when you tried to go visit the site? what happened when you went to go visit the site? >> we decided to go up there on saturday. we made a call to region six

25 to the denver office. they said, well, you can only go to the 1st blockade, and that is it. .. to one another. so as we got up to the mountain, we were given clearance to first blockade and then they said you can only get down to the base, down to the bottom. and you couldn't see very much of what took place. and when we proceeded to drive up, and it was not a really difficult drive up to this area, and they didn't realize that the mouth of the mine was just a little ways further from where we stopped. i thought it was for the up so jumped out of the suv and start

walking up the hill. and when i got up to the top, but that's where the mine was. so we were first told we could only be completed only go up to the blockade which is about at least two miles away.nly youg can't see a thing.as 2 mils it's all pulp lines and soy forth, but it was through the os the region, region nine thats gave a little more clear and to move further up the stream. mre and even at that point i didn't realize that we're supposed to stop there. no one told meh that. that was a stopping point. stick i do want to get this full accounting this is ridiculous the president of the nomination cannot go see what is happening to his people? it is a terrible embarrassment in stands an apology as well.

please explain standard form 95 ted what was happening in dead days after the spill to the people of the navajo nation. >> sunday afternoon i got a call there will come help you they will be on the ground to assist you and i was very thankful epa responded so quickly they said two people to help us to monitor the situation so they flew into during go they took the car down. in the communities didn't know that is taking place and tell one of though local officials said this is what they pass out.

end of navajo attorney-general is immediately caught the of waiver of language. immediately recall of radio station which explains to the people still sign the form because if you do you will not get full compensation for the damages. we had news releases put though word -- the word out there because it's we felt the epa was trying to minimize the damage and that was our experience.

>> thank you to the witnesses who have come today. and the council man. now counsel man you have testified approximately 23,000 abandoned mines in colorado. the advocacy group earthworks' estimates there are more than 500,000 within the united states. the ranking member is not here by his bill -- but his bill the reclamation act of 2015 would establish say hardrock minerals fund as the extraction -- from the extraction feet.

-- fee for reclamation for the repair for these toxic situations. would you support the establishment of this type of dedicated fund paid for the abandoned mines? >> yes. whoever caused these types of spills should be held accountable. >> could you support the establishment of hard rock materials fund along the of lions that is adjusted? >> from the initial on take. >> one thing is if there's

any disagreement among the panel. that by august 11 the monetary levels returned to previous levels and there was no fishkill involved in this release. do you agree with that? >> we do not the dollars before the health of our people or our land epa has told us there are five levels of metals or contaminants we have become a dumping ground of waste

water because animas river is different from san juan. that is slow moving anything that comes down the animas river high altitude gets into the slow-moving water and where it settles. >> i thank you testified but to take steps before it hit with an affected area. >> would is your take? was there is a fishkill? he says there was not. >> based on collaboration in coordination and we do not have any aberration contrary to that. and by august 116 days after

the release and the basis stooge dispute that? >> it there of view gentleman support the increased levels of funding to clean up a process like this into the future? >> for the navajo nation be have the expertise expertise, engineers, scient ists, epa, so to do our own cleanup and do in the way it

should be done. >> to support additional funding for cleanup? >> yes. >> i have some questions for the secretary. i know how important it is for the epa to work together. over some of the things you said before when did you first hear about the spill? >> thursday morning 930. >> actually i heard about it from a staff member. >> it was 24 hours have is

that affect your ability to respond? the epa initially put out reformation that the velocity debt plume was traveling. based on the initial estimates suggesting it would arrive late in the night to on thursday very early hours friday so based on information so to close the irrigation ditches and that proved to be wrong. and as a result of the incorrect information will lost time continued to withdraw in the irrigation ditches when we did have to shut the river down.

>> lenovo anything similar like this would have happened in new mexico but could you compare that to how quickly would have notified adjacent landowners >> immediately. i personally would have called. i can tell you what we did here we contacted the nomination. we immediately contacted san one county and local communities. we didn't have a phone call list. with emergency responses we have a protocol in place. to notify the downstream communities to stop with

other actions. >> how would you have responded with you found out one of your employees didn't tell anybody about it for a day? >> they would be former employees. >> t do feel heard testimony was san after recounting of what you saw on the ground? >>. >> do have a great amount of respect for administrator mccarthy. i think one of the flaws hindsight is 2020 but it is an issue that we continue to face. the administrator is

tenacious and holds herself to a high standard but i don't think the employees who are charged with managing the situation help themselves to that same standard. the lack of involvement from headquarters hinder this effort there is a lot of in-fighting. they chose to handle this as a regional emergency and did not elevate as i mentioned until the day after the contamination plumes already arrived in mexico. so i think the reluctance of headquarters and management to become directly involved play a huge role to hinder our efforts. i don't think there was close collaboration. for example, just today that epa will him enroll a long-term monitoring plan.

and not to develop their own plan in a vacuum to collaborate with the state. >> frequently we have the saving interaction. frequently there are situations with the epa to you think the country will be well served to give responsibilities to protect the nation's resources for local, state natural resource departments rather than of the epa?

that human nature that live on the plant and now to do the best jobs that to be given strong difference with the clean water act i think congress envisioned a cooperative federalist model when they adopted the statutes when some of to deferring the state's federal think that is the case. certainly over the past couple of years and in particular of the waters of the united states role where mexico was among the of coalition of states that did successfully the epa and the north dakota district. we are in the best position to manage and understand the

impact. >> i agree. i will break the rules again. mr. pierce. i have lot of questions for you buy will go to the other members. >> thanks for your courtesy. to get assurances that they were mistakenly people were not sure maybe you understood it better bet take my word to try to hold two signatures they did not like what they were siding -- didn't know what they were signing and then to

stand side-by-side until we get the answer is more effective than writing a letter on behalf of something. said with respect to the water that was released out of the navajo day am coming to understand we will help push that question that is a significant question downstream maya of familiar enough with the agency's you may have led of difficulty and a sixth getting resolution to the. your readership -- leadership in this we have heard testimony today that this bill at the gold king mine does that appear to significantly have changed the water quality at the animas river is that something you agree with that basically this is no big deal? >> absolutely not. i agree the pollution passed with no water column. that was expected nobody

ever stated that it wouldn't be bound plume moved through the river bed the issue that my colleague did acknowledge is what is left after moves through. so you have high levels of dangerous metals such as arsenic and lead the which have now been deposited in the sedimented each every time there is a storm water event or the spring runoff following snowpack, that contamination or that sediment will become agitated to mobilize those contaminants to create a public health issue. also the water quality has rebounded but the sediment deposited the impacts on

wildlife will not be understood for years for cry to agree it has rebounded to background levels that is not the issue. the issue is what is left over in the sediment now all along the river. >> they have found those head the metals industry indebted to the rocks. data sample of the groundwater right there so definite lead the effects are in the groundwater. so i think i share the president's concern and your concern for the residents of mexico. we heard from the administrator all processes were followed for you to be notified from someone

different than the epa. and a question was you were not notified but she said that is the way we do which. is that your experience really? >> no. i did not think so. >> can you describe that process? you heard greg questions to the administrator and she kept trying to give less bureaucratic doublespeak so give us the process you went through. >> once we were defied, we saw the pictures and had conversations and had witnessed what had occurred to withdraw water from the river unilaterally a was done by the states but after

that epa did berate one of the staffers from region six deliberate one of my staffers we didn't do a joint press release to publicize that decision because it felt like it was a lost opportunity to do positive publicity in response to this bill. vibrated the epa regional office for wasting time to get into a public relations issues. >> a good question. you say unfortunately the funding is limited does not provide is what we need to address the issues. '' with the course of action me to remedy the problem? >> i think it depends on the situation. >> it is the situation we're

facing right now with the limited funds what would it be? >> there is a short-term solution to treat the water with more of a law understanding treatment facility solution than remediation at the mine itself. >> thank you to the panel for sitting here for an extended period of time. councilmen we had an opportunity but the southern ute tribe would you describe for us when did the epa reach out to you? i believe you cited earlier you heard from the study of durango. went to the epa rejected a? >> first off let me acknowledge and thank you for your leadership on this. epa, to my knowledge, had not officially contacted the

southern ute tribe -- i'm not talking the ministry, had not made a call to the chairman's office until this monday, september 14. >> september 14. that's an extended period of time. is that showing due respect to a governmental entity out of the epa? >> in my opinion when you look at the government-to-government relationships and trust responsibility, it might be in my opinion awake too long. >> i thought it was pretty impressive after the southern ute tribe being proactive taking the initiative to be able to respond and to be able to meet the needs of the community. is there something the epa can maybe learn from you? .. >> that will be hard to answer. we don't depend on the government to do our work or

protect our interests and we'll always roll up our sleeves and get in the middle of it to address our needs and believe and of course, whatever information we gather we do hire the best and the most qualified and of course, we deal with people who don't produce at the level or quality we expect. so if nothing else in hold esponsie forntable and >> president grant to come i want to watch you for putting word out on 495. epa was trying to get a waiver for the navajo nation. to be able to respond and see real responsibility and accountability out of the epa. dr. wolk, a couple of questions. do you think colorado does a pretty good job in terms of monitoring? we have engineers in colorado, don't