U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

74-559 PDF 2013

EVAPORATING PROSPERITY: HOW 

FEDERAL ACTIONS ARE DRIVING 

UP WATER AND POWER COSTS, 

THREATENING JOBS AND LEAVING 

ARIZONANS HIGH AND DRY 

OVERSIGHT FIELD HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

Monday, June 4, 2012, in Phoenix, Arizona 

Serial No. 112-115 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov 

or 

Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

DOC HASTINGS, WA, Chairman 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, MA, Ranking Democratic Member 

Don Young, AK 

John J. Duncan, Jr., TN 

Louie Gohmert, TX 

Rob Bishop, UT 

Doug Lamborn, CO 

Robert J. Wittman, VA 

Paul C. Broun, GA 

John Fleming, LA 

Mike Coffman, CO 

Tom McClintock, CA 

Glenn Thompson, PA 

Jeff Denham, CA 

Dan Benishek, MI 

David Rivera, FL 

Jeff Duncan, SC 

Scott R. Tipton, CO 

Paul A. Gosar, AZ 

Rau ́l R. Labrador, ID 

Kristi L. Noem, SD 

Steve Southerland II, FL 

Bill Flores, TX 

Andy Harris, MD 

Jeffrey M. Landry, LA 

Jon Runyan, NJ 

Bill Johnson, OH 

Mark Amodei, NV 

Dale E. Kildee, MI 

Peter A. DeFazio, OR 

Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, AS 

Frank Pallone, Jr., NJ 

Grace F. Napolitano, CA 

Rush D. Holt, NJ 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, AZ 

Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU 

Jim Costa, CA 

Dan Boren, OK 

Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, CNMI 

Martin Heinrich, NM 

Ben Ray Luja ́n, NM 

Betty Sutton, OH 

Niki Tsongas, MA 

Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR 

John Garamendi, CA 

Colleen W. Hanabusa, HI 

Paul Tonko, NY 

Vacancy 

Todd Young, Chief of Staff 

Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel 

Jeffrey Duncan, Democratic Staff Director 

David Watkins, Democratic Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER 

TOM McCLINTOCK, CA, Chairman 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, CA, Ranking Democratic Member 

Louie Gohmert, TX 

Jeff Denham, CA 

Scott R. Tipton, CO 

Paul A. Gosar, AZ 

Rau ́l R. Labrador, ID 

Kristi L. Noem, SD 

Doc Hastings, WA, ex officio 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, AZ 

Jim Costa, CA 

Ben Ray Luja ́n, NM 

John Garamendi, CA 

Edward J. Markey, MA, ex officio 
(III) 

CONTENTS 

Page 

Hearing held on Monday, June 4, 2012 ................................................................. 1 

Statement of Members: 

Gosar, Hon. Paul A., a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Arizona ........................................................................................................... 5 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 7 

McClintock, Hon. Tom, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of California ................................................................................................... 2 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 4 

Schweikert, Hon. David, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Arizona ...................................................................................................... 8 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 9 

Statement of Witnesses: 

Griffin, Hon. Gail, State Senator, Arizona State Senate, Hereford, 

Arizona ........................................................................................................... 16 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 18 

Groseta, P. Andrew, President, Arizona Cattle Growers’ Association, 

Cottonwood, Arizona ..................................................................................... 33 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 35 

Horseherder, Nicole, Dine’, To Nizhoni Ani, Black Mesa, Arizona .............. 27 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 29 

Jones, Tom, Chief Executive Officer, Grand Canyon State Electric 

Cooperative Association, Inc., Tempe, Arizona ........................................... 37 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 38 

Mendoza, Hon. Gregory, Governor, Gila River Indian Community, 

Sacaton, Arizona ........................................................................................... 10 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 11 

Reeve, Hon. Amanda A., State Representative, District 6, Arizona House 

of Representatives, Phoenix, Arizona .......................................................... 19 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 21 

Sullivan, John F., Associate General Manager & Chief Resources 

Executive, Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power 

District, Phoenix, Arizona ............................................................................ 42 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 44 

Von Gausig, Hon. Doug, Mayor, City of Clarkdale, Arizona ......................... 22 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 24 

(1) 

OVERSIGHT FIELD HEARING IN PHOENIX, 

ARIZONA, ON ‘‘EVAPORATING PROSPERITY: 

HOW FEDERAL ACTIONS ARE DRIVING UP 

WATER AND POWER COSTS, THREATENING 

JOBS AND LEAVING ARIZONANS HIGH AND 

DRY.’’ 

Monday, June 4, 2012 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Subcommittee on Water and Power 

Committee on Natural Resources 

Phoenix, Arizona 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10 a.m., House 

Hearing Room 3, Arizona State Capitol, 1700 West Washington 

Street, Phoenix, Arizona, Hon. Tom McClintock [Chairman of the 

Subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives McClintock and Gosar. 

Also present: Representative Schweikert. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. The House Subcommittee on Water and Power 

will come to order. 

Welcome to all of you. I am Congressman Tom McClintock of 

California. I am Chairman of the Water and Power Subcommittee. 

I have come to visit our Colorado River water. That’s a joke. 

No, I actually—— 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Did you notice the dead look? 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Well, it is a little sore on our side of the border 

as well. But actually we were—— 

VOICE. The sound system, please, we can’t hear you. Can you fix 

the sound system? 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. How is that? 

VOICE. Yes. 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. It was actually very funny what you missed. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. But I am not going to repeat it for fear that 

I will get the same reaction. 

Actually, we are here at the request of Arizona Congressmen 

Paul Gosar, David Schweikert, and their Republican colleagues 

from Arizona. We are meeting here today on a hearing entitled 

‘‘Evaporating Prosperity: How Federal Actions Are Driving Up 

Water and Power Costs, Threatening Jobs and Leaving Arizonans 

High and Dry.’’ 

I first ask unanimous consent that Mr. Schweikert be allowed to 

sit on the Subcommittee and participate in the hearing. Without 

objection?. 

Dr. GOSAR. No objection. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. So ordered. 
2 

To begin today’s hearing, I would like to defer to our 

distinguished colleague, Congressman Paul Gosar, for a few introductions. 

Dr. GOSAR. First of all, I would like to thank the Honor Guard 

from Casa Grande from the VFW Post 1677 for their service to our 

country. This is an honor to have them here with us today. 

I would like to take a moment to introduce each of the members: 

First of all, Mr. Bill Zimmer, a Vietnam veteran, served from 

1968 to 1969 and comes to us from the home of the U.S. Army 

TACOM Life Cycle Management Command in Warren, Michigan; 

Mr. Gary Erickson, a Vietnam War Marine Corps veteran who 

served from 1966 to 1967 and hails from the City of Lakes, Minneapolis, Minnesota; Mr. Bill Reed, Vietnam War Army veteran 

who served in 1968 during the Tet Offensive. He comes to us from 

Big Sky Country, Billings, Montana; and last but not least, Mr. 

Bradley Hazel, an Iraqi War Marine Corps veteran who served in 

Iraq from 2003, 2004, and 2005, and is a Purple Heart recipient. 

He is an Arizona guy from Wildcat Country in Tucson. 

Let me welcome all you distinguished guests. 

[An honor proceeding was held.] 

[whereupon, the Pledge of Allegiance was recited.] 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Be seated. Thank you, Mr. Gosar. 

We will now begin with five-minute opening statements beginning with mine. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. TOM McCLINTOCK, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF 

CALIFORNIA 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Today’s hearing, as I said, is convened at the 

request of Congressman Gosar and his Arizona colleagues to hear 

testimony on Federal policies that are causing increasing scarcity 

and skyrocketing prices of water and electricity in the southwestern United States. 

One aspect is a concerted effort from the left to close the Navajo 

Generating Station. Another is the memo by the Secretary of 

Energy that would force consumers to bear staggering rate increases to subsidize the Left’s ideological fascination with wind and 

solar power. Yet another is Federal land management policies of 

benign neglect that are impeding water deliveries and causing uncontrolled overgrowth of our public resulting in catastrophic 

wildfires. 

The radical Left wants to close the coal-fired Navajo Generating 

Station and replace it with wind and solar power. Coal is one of 

the cheapest and most reliable forms of energy available to us 

while solar is the most expensive. Indeed, in more than 170 years 

since the invention of solar panels, we have not yet invented a 

more expensive way of producing electricity. That’s why the Left 

wants to hide its true cost to consumers through their taxes and 

through other people’s electricity bills. 

One of the Democratic witnesses invited today calls wind and 

solar reliable. In fact, at a moment’s notice a passing cloud bank 

or sudden calm can drop generation to zero. Electricity grids collapse unless the amount of power put into the system constantly 

matches the amount drawn from it. So consumers end up paying 
3 

to keep conventional plants at constant standby to replace the lost 

power at a moment’s notice. 

Because of the low output of wind and solar and the distance the 

electricity must often be conveyed, existing AC transmission systems must be replaced with extremely expensive, special high-tension direct current lines to accommodate them. 

A generation ago, the objective of our Federal water and power 

policy could be summed up in a single word, abundance. This policy 

laid a foundation for the prosperity of the southwest and literally 

made Arizona bloom from the desert. 

But beginning in the 1970s, a radical and retrograde ideology 

began to seep into our public policy. It abandoned abundance as 

our objective and replaced it with the rationing of shortages. 

A few months ago, the Administration boasted that it would, 

quote, ‘‘increase available water supply in the western United 

States by 730,000 acre-feet.’’ But they weren’t talking about increasing our water supplies, they were talking about reducing 

human consumption by that amount. 

In today’s testimony, a Democratic witness touts negawatts, electricity we don’t use, as if it added to our capacity. The future they 

are planning is one where families are encouraged, threatened, 

and, if need be, forced to reduce consumption through higher water 

and electricity bills, higher taxes and fines, and intrusive government regulations. 

Ironically, they see nothing wrong with spilling millions of gallons of water from the Glen Canyon Dam and sacrificing enough 

electricity to power a million homes a year to simulate spring 

floods. But they are aghast that a family might actually prefer a 

toilet that works or light bulbs that don’t give them headaches. 

I find the future advocated by the environmental Left to be indescribably dreary and depressing. It is a future of increasingly severe government-induced shortages, higher and higher electricity 

and water prices, massive taxpayer subsidies to politically well connected companies, increasingly severe wildfires, and a permanently 

declining quality of life for our children, who will be required to 

stretch and ration every drop of water and every watt of electricity 

in their dimly lit, sweltering, and parched homes. 

I see a different future for our nation. I see an era of clean, 

cheap, and abundant electricity. I see great new reservoirs to store 

water in wet years to assure abundance in dry ones. I see a future 

in which families can enjoy the prosperity that abundant water and 

electricity provides, and the quality of life that comes from that 

prosperity. I see a nation whose children can look forward to a 

backyard garden, a family swimming pool, affordable air conditioning in the summer and heating in the winter, brightly lit 

homes and cities, and abundant and affordable groceries from 

America’s agricultural cornucopia. 

These are two very different visions of America, and a choice 

must be made, not just by this Subcommittee or this Congress, but 

by the American people, over which vision guides our nation into 

the future. 

And with that, I will yield back my two seconds and recognize 

my colleague from Arizona, Mr. Gosar. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. McClintock follows:] 
4 

Statement of The Honorable Tom McClintock, Chairman, 

Subcommittee on Water and Power 

Today’s hearing is convened at the request of Congressman Paul Gosar and his 

Arizona colleagues to hear testimony on Federal policies that are causing increasing 

scarcity—and skyrocketing prices—of water and electricity in the Southwestern 

United States. 

One aspect is a concerted effort from the Left to close the Navajo Generating Station. Another is the memo by the Secretary of Energy that would force consumers 

to bear staggering rate increases to subsidize the Left’s ideological fascination with 

wind and solar power. Yet another is federal land management policies of benign 

neglect that are impeding water deliveries and causing uncontrolled overgrowth of 

our public lands resulting in catastrophic wild fires. 

The radical left wants to close the coal-fired Navajo Generating Station and replace it with wind and solar power. Coal is one of the cheapest and most reliable 

forms of energy available to us while solar is the most expensive. Indeed, in the 

more than 170 years since the invention of solar panels, we have not yet invented 

a more expensive way of producing electricity. That’s why the Left wants to hide 

the true cost to consumers through their taxes—and other people’s electricity bills. 

One of the Democratic witnesses calls wind and solar ‘‘reliable.’’ In fact, at a moment’s notice a passing cloudbank or a sudden calm can drop generation to zero. 

Electricity grids collapse unless the amount of power put into the system constantly 

matches the amount drawn from it. So consumers end up paying to keep conventional plants at constant stand-by to replace the lost power at a moment’s notice. 

Because of the low output of wind and solar and the distance the electricity must 

often be conveyed, existing AC transmission systems must be replaced with extremely expensive special high-tension direct-current lines to accommodate them. 

A generation ago, the objective of our federal water and power policy could be 

summed up in a single word: abundance. This policy laid a foundation for the prosperity of the Southwest and literally made Arizona bloom from the desert. 

But beginning in the 1970’s, a radical and retrograde ideology began to seep into 

our public policy. It abandoned abundance as our objective and replaced it with the 

rationing of shortages. 

A few months ago, the Administration boasted that it would—quote—‘‘...increase 

available water supply...in the western United States by 730,000 acre feet.’’ But 

they weren’t talking about increasing our water supplies—they were talking about 

reducing human consumption by that amount. In today’s testimony, a Democratic 

witness touts ‘‘negawatts’’—electricity we don’t use—as if it added to our capacity. 

The future they are planning is one where families are encouraged, threatened 

and, if need be, forced to reduce consumption through higher water and electricity 

bills, higher taxes and fines and intrusive government regulations. 

Ironically, they see nothing wrong with spilling millions of gallons of water from 

the Glen Canyon dam (and sacrificing enough electricity to power a million homes 

for a year) to ‘‘simulate’’ spring floods. But they are aghast that a family might actually prefer a toilet that works or light bulbs that don’t give them headaches. 

I find the future advocated by the environmental Left to be indescribably dreary 

and depressing. It is a future of increasingly severe government-induced shortages, 

higher and higher electricity and water prices, massive taxpayer subsidies to politically well-connected companies, increasingly severe wildfires and a permanently declining quality of life for our children—who will be required to stretch and ration 

every drop of water and every watt of electricity in their dimly lit, sweltering, and 

parched homes. 

I see a different future for our nation: I see a new era of clean, cheap and abundant electricity. I see great new reservoirs to store water in wet years to assure 

abundance in dry ones. I see a future in which families can enjoy the prosperity that 

abundant water and electricity provides; and the quality of life that comes from that 

prosperity. I see a nation whose children can look forward to a backyard garden, 

a family swimming pool, affordable air-conditioning in the summer and heating in 

the winter, brightly lit homes and cities and abundant and affordable groceries from 

America’s agricultural cornucopia. 

These are two very different visions of America, and a choice must be made—not 

just by this sub-Committee or this Congress, but by the American people, over 

which vision guides our nation into the future. 
5 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. PAUL A. GOSAR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA 

Dr. GOSAR. Well, first of all, I would like to thank Chairman 

McClintock for making the trip to Arizona and holding today’s 

hearing. I strongly believe House Committees should periodically 

come out to Members’ home states and hear straight from the 

horse’s mouth the struggles our constituents are faced with on a 

day-to-day basis. Today’s testimonies will provide our Committee 

firsthand accounts of the grave impacts that the Federal Government’s actions are having on Arizona’s economic and ecological 

health, and the information collected will prove invaluable in our 

fight to restore common sense to Federal natural resources policy. 

I would also like to thank my colleague Congressman David 

Schweikert for being here. Over the past year and a half, David 

has been a staunch ally as we have tackled the far-reaching resources issues facing our state. Additionally, he has emerged as a 

prominent voice on the House Financial Services Committee, fighting for pro-market solutions to our state and country’s foreclosure 

problems and advocating for policies that will help encourage job 

growth and economic expansion. 

Arizona, like many states across the west, is facing the brunt of 

the Obama Administration’s misguided policies. Nowhere is this 

more true than in the natural resources realm. One does not have 

to look far to see the struggles our constituents are experiencing. 

Last year nearly 1 million acres of Arizona’s forests burned, one 

of the worst fire seasons in the state’s history. This year has not 

been much better. Since last April, over 45,000 acres of forest in 

Arizona have been destroyed by wildfires. The largest one was the 

Sunflower Fire, which burned over 17,000 acres. The second largest, the Gladiator Fire, was 16,240 acres, and it injured eight people, destroyed six homes, and forced the evacuation of three communities. 

Arizonans are tired of being victims of avoidable wildfire conditions. It is clear that the current process under existing Federal 

law of planning, studying, consulting, litigating, appealing, and collaborating are failing us and our forests. These fires kill endangered species, destroy habitats, and pollute our air and waterways 

more than any human activity. Additionally, they cost Federal Government millions of dollars in immediate fire response and many 

millions more in restoration and rehabilitation. 

We must first remove bureaucratic red tape, reform forest health 

policy, and put a stop to endless litigation that stymies important 

forest projects. The Wallow Fire proved that stewardship projects 

and grazing projects are just what we need. 

I have introduced legislation, the Catastrophic Wildfire Prevention Act, which will streamline the review process and allow the 

U.S. Forest Service to utilize the emergency provisions of existing 

regulations so that our forests could be maintained and provide for 

economic opportunities for rural communities. 

I am also encouraged by the recent announcement that the Four 

Forest Restoration Initiative, known as 4-FRI, will move forward. 

I hope litigation will not slow its success. These stewardship 

projects restore the environment, improve public safety, and put 
6 

people back to work. Proactively treating our forests is the only 

way to go forward. 

As I travel throughout my congressional district, I am frequently 

asked about the future of the Navajo Generating Station. Whether 

it is a farmer in Pinal County, a member of the Navajo Nation employed at the plant, or just the everyday citizen concerned about 

our state’s water security, everyone expresses concern about the potential job loss and economic impacts of proposed EPA mandates on 

the Navajo Generating Station. 

For those who do not know, this unique facility provides over 90 

percent of the power for the Central Arizona Project, or CAP, which 

is the largest supplier of renewable water in the state, and supports over 80 percent of Arizona’s population and economic activity. 

Additionally, the sale of the plant’s excess power is critical to the 

Federal Government’s ability to uphold previously enacted and future Native American water settlements. In short, it is a vital and 

irreplaceable piece of our state’s short and long-term water and 

power security whose impact stretches to nearly every citizen of 

our state. 

Last year this Committee held a hearing in Washington specifically on this issue, underscoring the importance of the facility. I 

look forward to hearing more information from some of our witnesses and remain steadfast in my efforts to ensure this vital asset 

does not become a victim of misguided policies or junk science. 

I would be remiss if I didn’t mention one other issue that our 

Committee just recently began delving into that have vast impacts 

throughout your state. 

On March 16th, 2012, the Secretary of Energy issued a memorandum for power marketing administrators. This memo, commonly referred to as the Chu Memorandum, has created a great 

deal of concern among those who rely on Power Marketing Administrations, or PMAs, for affordable and reliable energy. 

The Secretary’s memo directed the PMAs to act in areas involving transmission expansion, renewable energy, energy efficiency 

and cyber security. And they are all laudable goals, goals that on 

the surface I support. In fact, I have strongly advocated for the expansion of transmission on this Committee. However, I believe the 

Secretary’s means of these goals, the Chu Memo, would implement 

a top-down approach that could most certainly impose greater costs 

and risks that outweigh benefits and could force national directives 

that could supersede or conflict with existing PMA statutory authority. 

I have recently led a letter in Congress respectfully urging the 

Secretary to pursue meaningful collaboration with stakeholders, including ratepayers and Congress, prior to moving forward with 

these new initiatives. Currently that letter has been signed by over 

140 U.S. Senators and congressmen, ranging from Chairman 

McClintock to Congressman Jim McDermott of Washington, prominent Democrat in the House. 

Additionally, the House Appropriations approved a policy rider 

introduced by Congressman Denny Rehberg of Montana and supported by Arizona Democrat Congressman and Energy and Water 

Subcommittee Ranking Member Ed Pastor barring the Secretary 

from implementing the Chu directive. It is clear Members from 
7 

both sides of the aisle are concerned about how the Chu Memorandum will be implemented. Hopefully today’s discussions will 

continue the debate and enhance the Committee’s ability to exercise its oversight authority on this important public power issue. 

In conclusion, Arizona has strong and innovative leaders. Working together, we have found a number of solutions that will put 

Arizonans back to work. Arizona can be a national model for economic recovery driven by sustainable resource development. The 

Federal Government just needs to get out of the way. 

And I thank the Chairman for allowing me to speak. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. You are very welcome. And you owe the Committee one minute, 18 seconds, which I will put on your tab. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Gosar follows:] 

Statement of The Honorable Paul A. Gosar, a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Arizona 

First, I would like to thank Chairman McClintock for making the trip to Arizona 

and holding today’s hearing. I strongly believe House committees should periodically 

comes out to its members’ home states and hear straight from the horse’s mouth 

the struggles our constituents are faced with on a day-to-day basis. Today’s testimonies will provide our committee first-hand accounts of the grave impacts the federal government’s actions are having on Arizona’s economic and ecological health, 

and the information collected will prove invaluable in our fight to restore common 

sense to federal natural resources policy. 

I would also like to thank my colleague Congressman David Schweikert for being 

here. Over the past year-and-a-half, David has been a staunch ally as we have tackled the far-reaching resources issues facing our state. Additionally, he has emerged 

as a prominent voice on the House Financial Services Committee, fighting for promarket solutions to our state and country’s foreclosure problems and advocating for 

policies that will help encourage job growth and economic expansion. 

Arizona, like many other states across the west, is facing the brunt of the Obama 

Administration’s misguided policies. Nowhere is this more true than in the natural 

resources realm. 

One does not have to look far to see the struggles our constituents are experiencing. Last year, nearly one million acres of Arizona’s forests burned, one of the 

worst fire seasons in our state’s history. This year has not been any better. Since 

late April, over 45,000 acres of forest in Arizona have been destroyed due to 

wildfires. The largest one was the Sunflower Fire which burned over 17,000 acres. 

The second-largest Gladiator Fire was 16,240 acres and it injured eight people, destroyed six homes, and forced the evacuation of three communities. 

Arizonans are tired of being victims of avoidable wildfire conditions. It is clear 

that the current process, under existing federal law, of planning, studying, consulting, litigating, appealing, and collaborating are failing us and our forests. These 

fires kill endangered species, destroy habitats, and pollute our air and waterways 

more than any human activity. Additionally, they cost the federal government millions of dollars in immediate fire response and many millions more in restoration 

and rehabilitation 

We must remove bureaucratic red tape, reform forest health policy, and put a stop 

to endless litigation that stymies important forest projects. The Wallow Fire proved 

that stewardship projects and grazing works, we just need more of it. I have introduced legislation, the Catastrophic Wildfire Prevent Act, which will streamline the 

review process and allow the U.S. Forest Service to utilize the emergency provisions 

of existing regulations, so that our forests could be maintained and provide economic 

opportunities for rural communities. I am also encouraged by the recent announcement that the Four Forest Restoration Initiative, known as 4–FRI, will move forward. I hope litigation will not slow its success. These stewardship projects restore 

the environment, improve public safety, and put people back to work. Pro-actively 

treating our forests is the only way forward. 

As I travel throughout my Congressional District, I am frequently asked about the 

future of the Navajo Generating Station. Whether it’s a farmer in Pinal County, a 

member of the Navajo Nation employed at the plant, or just the everyday citizen 

concerned about our state’s water security, everyone expresses concern about the potential job loss and economic impacts of proposed EPA mandates on the Navajo Generating Station. For those who do not know, this unique facility provides over 90 
8 

percent of the power for the Central Arizona Project (CAP), which is the largest supplier of renewable water in the state, and supports over 80 percent of Arizona’s population and economic activity. Additionally, the sale of the plant’s excess power is 

critical to the federal government’s ability to uphold previously enacted and future 

Native American water settlements. In short, it is a vital and irreplaceable piece 

of our state’s short and long-term water and power security, whose impacted 

stretches to nearly every citizen of our state. 

Last year, this committee held a hearing in Washington specifically on this issue, 

underscoring the importance of the facility. I look forward to hearing new information from some of our witnesses and remain steadfast in my efforts to ensure this 

vital asset does not become a victim of misguided policies and junk science. 

I would be remiss if I did not briefly mention one other issue that our committee 

just recently began delving into that would have vast impacts throughout our state. 

On March 16, 2012, The Secretary of Energy issued a ‘‘Memorandum for Power 

Marketing Administrators.’’ This memo, commonly referred to as the ‘‘Chu Memorandum’’ has created a great deal of concern among those who rely on Power Marketing Administrations (PMAs) for affordable and reliable energy. 

The Secretary’s memos direct the PMAs to act in areas involving transmission expansion, renewable energy, energy efficiency, and cyber security—all laudable 

goals—goals that, on the surface, I support. In fact, I have strongly advocated for 

the expansion of transmission on this committee. However, I believe the Secretary’s 

means of these goals, ‘‘the Chu Memo,’’ would implement a top-down approach that 

could most certainly impose greater costs and risks that outweigh benefits and could 

force national directives that would supersede or conflict with existing PMA statutory authority. 

I have recently led a letter in Congress respectfully urging the Secretary to pursue meaningful collaboration with stakeholders, including ratepayers and Congress, 

prior to moving forward with these new initiatives. Currently, that letter has been 

signed by over 140 U.S. Senators and Congressman ranging from the Chairman 

McClintock to Congressman Jim McDermott of Washington, a prominent Democrat 

in the House. Additionally, the House Appropriations Committee recently approved 

a policy rider, introduced by Congressman Denny Rehberg of Montana and supported by Arizona Democrat Congressman and Energy and Water Subcommittee 

Ranking Member Ed Pastor, barring the Secretary from implementing the Chu directives. It is clear members from both sides of the aisle are concerned about how 

the Chu Memorandum would be implemented. Hopefully today’s discussions will 

continue the debate and enhance the committee’s ability to exercise its oversight authority on this important public power issue. 

In conclusion, Arizona has strong and innovative leaders. Working together, we 

have found a number of solutions that will put Arizonans back to work. Arizona can 

be a national model for economic recovery driven by sustainable resource development. The federal government just needs to get out of the way. 

Thank you again everyone for being with us here today. It is great to see so many 

constituents in the crowd who have traveled into town from all stretches of rural 

Arizona to take part in today’s hearing. Together, we are going to get our country 

back on track. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. I am very pleased to introduce my colleague 

from Arizona, Mr. Schweikert. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. DAVID SCHWEIKERT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Well, I will make it up by being fairly short. 

And, Mr. Chairman, thank you for being here. And I see many 

friends out there. 

You know, this is sort of coming home. Think of it. 21 years ago 

I was sitting in this chair and part of the conversation we are 

about to have is the same one we were having 21 years ago. But 

at that time, we actually had a partner in the Federal Government. 

And then in 1993, I will tell you, I believe it turned hostile. And 

I remember actually those of us in leadership going back to Washington, D.C. To lay our claim and our story of we are from the 

desert, do you understand how we live, how things work, and basi-
9 

cally looking at blank faces and then were ushered out of the meeting because we were from a small state that had not voted for that 

administration. And I believe that same sort of hostility is still 

woven within the bureaucracy. 

What you are doing here today is incredibly important. And this 

is not theater. This is actually we need to tell our story. In my 16 

months back in D.C., I have learned they really have no understanding how the west works. They have no understanding how 

vast our territories are, the infrastructure that we have struggled 

and bled to build, and how that infrastructure running through the 

top part of the state is vital to what is happening in the southern 

part of the state. We need to tell our story. But it is not only for 

those of us here to tell our story why this is crucial, why these policies, why the bureaucracy can be so devastating to our future. But 

we also, for those of us in these urban areas, let’s face it, a lot of 

our brothers and sisters on the other side of this building here in 

the Grand Imperial State of Maricopa County—OK, that was 

funny—have no understanding of the economic threats that are 

functionally coming through the bureaucracy to the state and to 

our future growth. And to each of you here, it is not only understanding your testimony, understanding your vision of what you 

see happening, we have to tell the story. We have to get this information out, because, if not, I believe the bureaucracies are going 

to do some very, very bad things to the future of the southwest. 

And, Mr. Chairman, with that, I yield back. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Schweikert follows:] 

Statement of The Honorable David Schweikert, a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Arizona 

Well, I’ll make it up by being fairly short. Mr. Chairman, thank you for being 

here. I see many friends out there. This is sort of coming home—think of this— 

twenty-one years ago I was sitting in this chair and part of the conversation we’re 

about to have—is the same one we were having twenty-one years ago. But at that 

time, we actually had a partner in the federal government. And then in 1993, I will 

tell you, I believe it turned hostile. And I remember those of us in leadership going 

back to Washington DC to lay our claim and our story, ‘‘We’re from the desert, do 

you understand how we live, how things work?’’and basically looking at blank faces. 

Then we were ushered out of the meeting because we were from a small state that 

had not voted for that administration and I believe that same sort of hostility is 

still woven within the bureaucracy. What you’re doing here today is incredibly important. This is not theater. We need to tell our story. In my sixteen months here 

in DC I’ve learned they really have no understanding of how the west works. They 

have no understanding how vast our territory is. The infrastructure we have struggled and bled to build. And how that infrastructure running through the top part 

of the state is vital to what’s happening in the southern part of the state. We need 

to tell our story. But it’s not only for those of us here to tell our story—why this 

is crucial, why these policies, why the bureaucracy can be so devastating to our future—but we also for those of us in these urban areas. Let’s face it, a lot of our 

brothers and sisters on the other side of this building here in the ‘‘Grand Imperial 

State of Maricopa County’’—OK that was funny—have no understanding of the economic threats that are functionally coming through the bureaucracy to the state to 

our future growth. And for each of you here, it ‘s not only understanding your testimony, understanding your vision of what you see happening. We have to tell the 

story. We have to get this information out because if not I believe the bureaucracies 

are going to do some very, very bad things to the future of the southwest and Mr. 

Chairman with that, I yield back. 
10 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Before I recognize today’s witnesses, I would 

urge those in attendance to submit their own testimony for the 

record since we are limited in terms of how many witnesses we can 

hear today. You can do so by filling out your thoughts on the paper 

at the table or please see a staff member on how to submit comments electronically. Your input is very important to us. 

We will now hear from our panel of witnesses. Each witness’ 

written testimony will appear in full in the hearing record. I would 

ask each witness to keep his or her oral statement to five minutes 

as outlined in our invitation letter under Committee Rule 4A. 

I also want to explain how our timing lights work. When you 

begin to speak, our clerk will start the timer. A green light will appear. At that time you have all the time in the world, or at least 

four minutes. After four minutes a yellow light will appear. And at 

that time you should start talking very, very fast. And after five 

minutes the red light will come up. Now, the red light means that 

we have all stopped listening, so you might as well stop talking. 

But we welcome any additional testimony you might want to submit for the record. And if there is any consolation, all the Members 

are bound by that same five-minute rule. Apparently somebody figured out a long time ago that five minutes is about the maximum 

attention span of a Member of Congress. 

So with that, I will recognize The Honorable Gregory Mendoza, 

Governor of the Gila River Indian Community from Sacaton, 

Arizona to testify. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. GREGORY MENDOZA, GOVERNOR, 

GILA RIVER INDIAN COMMUNITY, SACATON, ARIZONA 

Governor MENDOZA. Good morning, Chairman McClintock. 

Thank you for the opportunity to address the Subcommittee today. 

I am Gregory Mendoza, the Governor of the Gila River Indian 

Community. We are an Indian Nation of over 20,000 members located south of Phoenix metropolitan area. 

The Community sees the issue before you today from the vantage 

point of the largest customer of Central Arizona Project, or CAP, 

water. Critical to the Community’s economy, the Navajo Generating Station plays an integral role in delivering Colorado River 

water to central and southern Arizona through CAP and meeting 

Federal trust responsibilities under the Community’s 2004 water 

settlement. 

Should the cost of emission controls at NGS make CAP water 

unaffordable, the Community’s water rights would be significantly 

diminished and it would suffer significant economic hardship. As 

we previously testified before this Subcommittee, this result would 

be especially troubling given the clear history of my people and the 

Gila River. 

During the May 24, 2011 hearing, we expressed our concerns 

about the potential consequences for the Community that could 

occur if EPA’s Best Available Retrofit Technology, or BART, determination at NGS requires selective catalytic reduction, or SCR. 

After that hearing, the Community actively engaged with the EPA, 

the Department of the Interior, and the Department of Energy in 

order to express the Community’s concerns in a government-to-government capacity. In addition, the community took the proactive 
11 

steps of hiring an economist to determine the possible economic impacts on the Community under the different BART scenarios at 

NGS. 

Our study confirmed the Community’s worst fears, that EPA’s 

BART determination, without a mitigation plan, would devastate 

the Community’s agricultural economy and undermined our water 

settlement. 

NGS supplies approximately 95 percent of the power to deliver 

the CAP water to the Community. Our study looked at a number 

of BART scenarios and how they would increase the cost of CAP 

water. The study also looked at what BART may do to decrease the 

future revenue generated from the fund created to reduce the Community’s cost of obtaining and using its CAP water allocation. 

All told, if SCR is installed at NGS, without a mitigation plan, 

we estimate that the total monetary loss to the Community 

through 2044 would be over $757 million. If the NGS shuts down, 

our total monetary loss would be over 2 billion. We have provided 

our study to EPA and the Interior. 

More importantly, during the Community consultation sessions 

with DOI and EPA, both acknowledge that NGS is unlike any 

other electrical generating facility in the southwest because of its 

importance to many tribal economies. We believe this acknowledgment by DOI and EPA requires that a BART decision at NGS include a pragmatic plan to mitigate the negative impact BART 

would have on tribal economies. Indeed, in EPA Administrator 

Jackson’s February 16, 2012, letters to Secretary Salazar and Secretary Chu, she expressed a desire to find a creative solution with 

respect to BART at NGS. We applaud such an approach. 

In an effort to be a part of the solution, the Community has provided to EPA, DOI, and DOE a preliminary proposal for the development of a solar facility located on the Gila River Indian Reservation. The revenues from this solar facility would be used to offset 

the impacts caused to all CAP settling tribes due to increases in 

the cost of CAP water caused by BART. 

The Community is open to other viable solutions as well, but we 

believe that any proposed BART will need to include a mitigation 

plan that all stakeholders can support. 

At the end of the day, we ask the United States to keep its word 

and not to take action that would negatively affect the economy 

and cultures of CAP tribes and the United States’ trust responsibility to those and other tribes and rights specifically bargained for 

and granted for Federal legislation. 

Thank you for the opportunity to be heard. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Good. Thank you, Governor Mendoza. 

[The prepared statement of Governor Mendoza follows:] 

Statement of The Honorable Gregory Mendoza, Governor, 

Gila River Indian Community 

My name is Gregory Mendoza and I am Governor of the Gila River Indian Community. The Community is an Indian Nation located south of Phoenix, Arizona, encompassing 372,000 acres and with over 20,000 tribal members. On behalf of the 

Community, I want to thank the Subcommittee for its continued interest in this 

issue that could have a very profound effect on all water users in the State of 

Arizona. In particular, I want to thank the members of the Arizona delegation for 

their support and efforts to have Congress take an active oversight role to ensure 

that the detrimental effects of the proposed environmental measures for the Navajo 
12 

1 Attachment 1, February 16, 2012 letters from EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson to Secretary 

of Interior Kenneth Salazar and Secretary of Energy Dr. Steven Chu. 

Generating Station (NGS) are taken into account by the EPA before it seeks to implement them. 

The Community last testified on this matter on May 24, 2011, at which time we 

informed the Subcommittee that the Community agreed to settle its water rights 

claims based upon the promise that affordable Central Arizona Project (CAP) water 

would be available to the Community on a long term basis. Congressional approval 

of the Arizona Water Settlements Act of 2004 (AWSA) codified that promise and 

made the Community the largest customer of CAP water in the State of Arizona. 

Because of this promise, the EPA’s decision must be consistent with the legal rights 

granted under AWSA, and the United States, including the EPA, must uphold its 

trust obligation to ensure the Community’s access to affordable annual deliveries of 

CAP water. 

In our May 24, 2011, testimony the Community conveyed its concerns about the 

potentially catastrophic consequences for Arizona Indian tribes, especially for the 

Community, that could occur if EPA requires Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) 

as the Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) for NGS. EPA’s BART determination for NGS has the potential—unlike any other Clean Air Act determination that 

we are aware of—to profoundly affect the economy and culture of the Community 

and all other similarly situated Arizona tribes with water rights settlements, the 

United States’ trust responsibility to these tribes, and rights specifically bargained 

for and granted in Federal legislation. 

Since the Subcommittee’s May 24, 2011, hearing the Community has been actively engaged with the EPA, the Department of Interior (DOI) and the Department 

of Energy (DOE) to express the Community’s concerns in a government-to-government capacity, provide data regarding the economic impact of different BART scenarios, and offer possible solutions to mitigate the negative impacts of BART on 

CAP settling tribes. Further, during the later part of 2011 DOI and DOE collaborated in a report conducted by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). 

The NREL report was intended to inform EPA of the impacts of the different BART 

scenarios. As part of this study NREL gathered data from Arizona tribes to determine the impact on tribal economies. 

In an effort to better inform NREL, DOI and EPA the Community engaged Harvey Economics to determine the economic impact the different BART scenarios 

would have on the Community. The Harvey Economics study confirmed the Community’s fears that BART, without a mitigation plan, would devastate the Community’s 

agricultural economy and undermine the carefully balanced water settlement in 

AWSA. 

The NREL and Harvey Economics study confirmed that BART could have a profound negative impact on tribal economies in Arizona. Moreover, during the Community’s consultation sessions with DOI and EPA, both acknowledged that NGS is 

unlike any other electrical generating facility in the Southwest because of its importance to many tribal economies. In our opinion this acknowledgement by DOI and 

EPA requires that any proposal to ensure visibility in our national parks and wilderness areas include a pragmatic plan to mitigate the negative impact BART would 

have on tribal economies. Indeed, in Administrator Lisa Jackson’s February 16, 

2012, letters to Secretary Salazar and Secretary Chu, the EPA expressed a desire 

to find a creative solution with respect to BART at NGS.1

The Community has been encouraged by the engagement and support it has had 

from the DOI in particular, and heartened by the Federal acknowledgement that 

NGS was unique and needed a creative solution. In response to this news the Community began to explore a possible mitigation plan that would allow NGS to stay 

open, meet Clean Air Act standards for haze in the northern Arizona region and 

lessen the impact of BART on CAP settling tribes. This plan was shared with DOI, 

EPA and DOE officials in March and April 2012 and will be discussed below. 

1. BART’s Economic Impact on the Community 

When I took office I also took on a solemn trust to protect the water rights for 

which we had fought so long to obtain. From the beginning of time, the entire life 

and identify of our people, the Akimel O’otham or the ‘‘River People,’’ involved the 

Gila River. We drank from the river, irrigated our farms, fished for food and depended on the River for many spiritual ceremonies. At the beginning of the 1900’s, 

farmers upstream of from our lands diverted nearly all the water from the Gila 

River, depriving the Community of water to support the Community’s agricultural 

economy, and causing dramatic and detrimental changes to our diet, lifestyle, economy, culture and spiritual well-being. 
13 

2 Attachment 2, November 16, 2011 letter from Edward F. Harvey to Linus Everling. 

3 Attachment 3, February 28, 2012 letter from Edward F. Harvey to Linus Everling. 

4 Attachment 4, March 15, 2012 letter from Edward F. Harvey to Linus Everling [hereinafter 

Final Report]. 5Final Report at 27. 

6 Id. 

7 Id. 

The Community began fighting for its water rights in the early 1930’s, and finally 

in 2004 Congress approved the Community’s settlement of its claims to water. This 

settlement was at the time the largest Indian water rights settlement in United 

States history. The Community’s settlement was enacted as law in the AWSA. In 

the settlement approved in the AWSA, the Community agreed to waive its claims 

to additional water from the Gila River in exchange for the promise of long-term 

affordable CAP water. The use of CAP water to fulfill the entitlements of the Community to Gila River water is an essential component its settlement. 

The Community’s settlement allocates 311,800 acre feet of CAP water to the Community each year, making the Community the single largest CAP contractor. The 

Community’s settlement, through the AWSA, also provides funds to subsidize the 

costs of delivering CAP water to the Community, and to construct, operate and 

maintain the facilities necessary to allow the Community to fully utilize our allocated water. The AWSA’s funding mechanism is a fund, entitled the Lower Colorado 

River Basin Development Fund (Development Fund), which pays ‘‘annually the fixed 

operation, maintenance, and replacement charges associated with the delivery of 

[CAP] water held under long-term contracts for use by Arizona Indian tribes.’’ One 

of the sources of revenue for the Development Fund to pay these costs for CAP settling tribes is the sale of surplus power generated from NGS. 

NGS supplies approximately 95% of the power to deliver the CAP water to the 

Community and other CAP customers. Requiring NGS to install and operate SCR 

technology as BART will both significantly increase the cost of CAP water and decrease the future revenue generated for the Development Fund. These two impacts 

will substantially undermine the benefits that the Community specifically bargained 

for and relied upon in agreeing to settle our water claims and claims against the 

United States. 

In an effort to determine how the different BART scenarios would impact the cost 

of CAP water the Community hired Harvey Economics in August 2011 to complete 

an economic impact study. Harvey Economics looked at different BART which included Low Nox Burners (LNB), Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction (SNCR), SCR, 

SCR plus Baghouses, and NGS closure. On November 16, 2011, Harvey Economics 

completed draft findings related to the possible BART scenarios.2 The draft report 

was based on the information about BART technologies available at the time. Harvey Economics updated its report on February 28, 2012.3 On March 15, 2012, Harvey Economics provided another update to its report that included revised assumptions provided by the NGS operator regarding average cost of capital for all NGS 

owners.4 The findings of the final report are summarized as follows. 

a. Increased Cost of CAP Water 

As the largest CAP contractor the Community will be impacted by the increased 

cost of CAP water more than any other entity in the State. LNB have already been 

installed at NGS. This means that the Community is already facing increased CAP 

water costs for environmental mitigation measures at NGS.5 If SCR were installed 

at NGS the increase in direct costs for CAP water for the Community alone would 

increase by $35.4 Million over this same period. If the NGS were shut down the 

Community’s CAP costs would increase by nearly $290 Million.6

Given that the Community’s agricultural enterprises operate on small margins 

large increases in CAP water would jeopardize the viability of the Community’s irrigated agriculture. Loss of Community cropland would result in loss of Community 

member employment, personal income and hundreds of millions of dollars of Federal 

investment into the Community’s irrigation infrastructure. 

b. The Revenue to the Lower Colorado River Basin Development Fund will be Substantially Reduced by the Increased Cost of SCR 

Revenue from the sale of excess NGS power is to be used to supplement the Development Fund. A determination by EPA to impose SCR as the BART would substantially increase the cost of excess NGS power, essentially eating away any potential profit from such sales, thereby eroding over $60 Million of estimated revenues 

that the Community and other CAP settling tribes counted on to enable the Development Fund to subsidize CAP water delivery at least through 2044.7 Not only does 
14 

8 Id. 

9 Id. 

10 Id. 

this impact the Community’s settlement, the loss of the revenue from the sale of 

excess NGS power threatens the continued viability of all current Indian water 

rights settlements in Arizona, and jeopardizes the ability of the United States to settle with other Tribes in on-going water rights settlement negotiations. If the NGS 

was shutdown Harvey Economics estimated that reduce revenues to the Development Fund from the sale of surplus NGS power would be nearly $500 Million.8

c. Total impact to the Community. 

Should the cost of emissions controls at NGS render CAP water unaffordable, the 

Community’s water rights would be significantly diminished and the Community 

would suffer significant economic hardship. For example, if SCR is installed at NGS 

without a mitigation plan Harvey Economics estimates that the total monetary loss 

to the Community through 2044 would be over $757 Million.9 If the NGS shut down 

total monetary loss would be over $2 Billion.10

Such monetary loss would be comparable to the original wrongs done to the Community when non-Indian farmers upstream on the Gila River illegally diverted the 

flows of the River to the point that it stopped running. The uniqueness of NGS dictates that any EPA rulemaking be coupled with a mitigation plan to ensure that 

the economies of Arizona tribes are not undermined. 

2. NREL Study 

Although the NREL study did show substantial increase to CAP water costs it underestimated the impact of the proposed BART implementation scenarios on the Development Fund and made some assumptions that were very different than in the 

Harvey Economic Study. 

The scenarios adopted for the NREL report mostly overlap with the Harvey Economic study. NREL included scenarios of SNCR, SCR, SCR plus Baghouses, and 

NGS closure in various chapters of the report. NREL did not include a LnB alternative, which Harvey Economics did. 

For example, SNCR capital costs and operating cost assumptions in the NREL report are substantially different than in the Harvey Economics study. NREL assumes 

capital costs of about $7 Million, whereas Harvey Economics assumes capital costs 

of about $20 Million. Further, Harvey Economics’ Operation & Maintenance costs 

are also $8.4 Million per year versus $4.3 Million per year, under the NREL report. 

Whereas the NREL report data sources were not apparent; Harvey Economic obtained its SNCR information from the plant operator, SRP. 

Capital and operating cost assumptions for SCR, under the NREL report, are almost exactly the same as those in the Harvey Economic study. Both costs were 

drawn from the Sargent and Lundy study. However, NREL provided a range of 

costs for SCR, including both the National Park Service estimates of capital and operating costs and the figures from the Sargent and Lundy reports. 

The largest discrepancy was the NREL’s estimated impacts on the Development 

Fund. Because the impacts on the Development Fund were estimated improperly, 

the important, negative effects on the Community and the other CAP settling tribes 

from reduced monies into the Development fund were missed. 

This shortcoming is explained by the incorrect assumption in the NREL report related to the relationship between the cost of NGS power generation and the price 

of NGS surplus power. NREL assumes the cost and price which existed at the time 

of their study would continue over the long term. In fact, costs of NGS power have 

recently been high due in part to spiking coal prices (nearly double nationwide since 

2000), and a depressed market price for power due to economic conditions, among 

other factors. 

For example, the NREL impact estimates on the Development Fund assume that 

the current NGS surplus power sales price will stay at current levels. The current 

market ranges between $19 per megawatt-hour (MWH) off-peak to $35MWH onpeak. This is compared with the market price five or so years ago when power was 

selling for $40—$45 for MWH power off-peak, $80 per MWH on-peak. Because the 

NREL study fixed in place the cost and price of NGS surplus power, the negative 

effects of the BART scenarios on the Development fund are not apparent. However, 

projecting even a return to more normal market conditions, much less power price 

escalation over the long term, would reveal the diminished revenues to the Development Fund from the proposed BART scenarios. 

Why is this important to the Community and the other CAP Indian tribes? A primary purpose of the Development Fund is to pay the tribal portion of CAP fixed 
15 

operations, maintenance and replacement costs for CAP water. If the Development 

Fund cannot pay those obligations, then the Community and other CAP settling 

tribes would be obligated to do so, which would result in a tripling of CAP water 

costs at current rates. Such an increase would render CAP water use by the Community and other tribes to be infeasible. 

3. United States Recognition that NGS is Unique 

In its meetings with both DOI and EPA the Community was encouraged that that 

there was a recognition that the NGS facility is unique due to the Bureau of Reclamation’s partial ownership of the facility, and the dual purposes to provide economic development opportunities to the Navajo Nation and Hopi Tribe, and provide 

energy to deliver CAP water to central Arizona for use by tribes and other non-Indian water users. Federal officials also acknowledged that because of NGS’ unique 

nature BART implementation would require a creative thinking so as to minimize 

the negative economic impact on tribes. 

In February Administrator Jackson sent letters to Secretary Chu and Secretary 

Salazar asking for agency collaboration to work toward a clean energy future with 

respect to NGS and CAP tribes The Community applauds this suggestion for two 

reasons. First, it is an acknowledgement that EPA’s BART determination at NGS 

requires a pragmatic approach because of the Federal trust responsibility to tribes. 

Second, the Community believes that over time the source of the Development Fund 

needs to be separated from NGS and NGS as a power source for delivery of CAP 

needs to be minimized because the Federal government has a conflict with respect 

to its trust responsibility to tribes affected by NGS. On one hand, the United States 

needs to support the Navajo Nation in increasing the coal and lease revenue at 

NGS. This benefits the Navajo Nation but increases the price of CAP energy, which 

the United States has an interest in keeping low for CAP settling tribes. 

This inherent conflict can be mitigated if CAP energy and the source of Development Funds are decoupled from NGS over a long period of time. Further, the Community believes that alternative energy sources should be cleaner in order to avoid 

future negative impacts of energy regulation, and that CAP tribes should have more 

direct involvement in the source of subsidies that may be necessary to mitigate the 

impact of BART. 

To our knowledge, the meeting suggested by Administrator Jackson has not yet 

come to pass. The Community urges these agencies to work more actively to provide 

a solution. To assist them in this effort, the Community has provided all three agencies with its own thoughts on how to mitigate the negative impacts of BART. 

4. Community Proposed Solution 

The Community has provided to EPA, DOI and DOE a preliminary proposal for 

the development of a solar facility located on the Gila River Indian Reservation 

(Reservation), the revenues from which would be used to offset the impacts caused 

to CAP settling tribes due to increases in the cost of CAP water that are over and 

above reasonable expectation of baseline increases in the CAP energy costs. The facility would be located on the Community’s Reservation, but the revenues would be 

used to reduce the CAP energy charges for all CAP settling tribes using their CAP 

entitlements under congressionally approved water settlements. 

The proposed facility would be expected to produce at least 20MW of solar power 

a year. The size of the facility would increase if the agreed upon impact and benefits 

from early transition to renewable energy-based subsidies are deemed sufficiently 

large to justify them. 

The Community has identified two locations on Reservation that could serve easily as the site for such a facility. The Community has undertaken, with others, a 

preliminary feasibility analysis of the proposed site, including the cost and engineering work necessary for inter connecting the site to the SRP network. 

All net revenues from the facility would be deposited in a special account dedicated to payment of the CAP Energy Charges actually charged to CAP settling 

tribes during any given year. The account would be held by a suitable entity for purposes of distribution of these net revenues annually. Some of the benefits of such 

a proposal: 

• Support from CAP Settling Tribes for an agreement on BART at an appropriate level. 

• Acceleration of the transition from a coal-based subsidy to a renewable source 

of subsidy. 

• Combining the interests of tribes in the generation of a subsidy with the interests of the intended beneficiaries of that subsidy, avoiding the conflict of 

trust responsibilities that currently exist at NGS. 
16 

The Community provided this proposal in an effort to be part of the solution. We 

are open to other viable solutions as well and believe that any proposed BART will 

need to include a mitigation plan that all stakeholders can support. 

Conclusion 

Once again, the Community appreciates the Subcommittee’s continued oversight 

of this critical issue. The timing of this hearing is critical as the EPA moves toward 

the preliminary BART determination in the coming weeks. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. I now recognize The Honorable Gail Griffin, 

Arizona State Senator from Hereford, Arizona, to testify. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. GAIL GRIFFIN, SENATOR, 

ARIZONA STATE SENATE, HEREFORD, ARIZONA 

Ms. GRIFFIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Honorable Members 

of the Subcommittee on Water and Power. 

First I would like to talk about a situation in the ‘‘Town Too 

Tough to Die,’’ Tombstone, Arizona. 

In May of 2011, the Monument Fire engulfed approximately 

223,000 acres of the Coronado National Forest. 70 homes and home 

structures were destroyed and people’s lives were disrupted forever. Following the fires, our monsoons occurred and further destruction to additional properties occurred. 

Tombstone’s water infrastructure is located in the Coronado National Forest. And they support the adequate safe drinking water 

and fire suppression. Tombstone’s water rights date back 130 years 

and prior to the designation of land by the Forest Service. Huge 

mudslides forced boulders, some the size of Volkswagens, to tumble 

down the mountainsides, crushing Tombstone’s water lines and destroying reservoirs, shutting off Tombstone’s main water source. 

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer declared a state of emergency for 

the town. Tombstone proceeded to take reasonable action to repair 

their century-old Huachuca Mountain water infrastructure. They 

initially, initially were allowed to use mechanized equipment to repair two of Tombstone’s 25 catchments. 

The Forest Service has denied any further use of mechanized 

equipment and motorized vehicles that had been used to maintain 

the water system for decades. The Forest Service has stated that 

Tombstone can only use hand tools and nonmechanized equipment 

to restore their springs and infrastructure. I am told that wheelbarrows are too mechanized. Horses, mules, and shovels are permitted. 

The whole Town of Tombstone is at risk. Should a fire occur, 

Tombstone is gone, destroyed, history. Tombstone does not have 

enough water to fight a major fire. The people in Tombstone deserve better than to have a Federal agency block their rights to restore their water. 

Congress established the Forest Service in 1905 to provide quality water and timber for the nation’s benefit. The Forest Service 

was originally structured to properly manage forests for multiple 

uses and for the benefit of the renewable resources such as water, 

forage, recreation, and production. The Forest Service’s motto is: 

Caring for the land and serving the people. They have done neither 

in this case. 
17 

Unlike the national parks, which were created primarily to preserve natural beauty and unique outdoor recreation, the founders 

of early national forests envisioned them as working forests with 

multiple objectives. Quote, ‘‘no national forest shall be established, 

except to improve and protect the forest within the boundaries or 

for the purpose of securing favorable conditions of water flows and 

to furnish a continuous supply of timber for the use and necessities 

of citizens of the United States,’’ unquote, the Organic Administration Act of 1987. 

The forest service is supposed to accomplish the protection of 

management of our natural resources on National Forest lands. 

The proper management of our lands would produce jobs and a 

healthy environment and we would not be experiencing the catastrophic fires raging through this country. Please do not allow the 

Federal Government to acquire any more land. They have proven 

they can’t take care of what they have now. 

In another matter, the Bureau of Land Management submitted 

a stunning ultimatum to the State of Arizona and the Department 

of Water Resources to stop development in Cochise County near 

the San Pedro National Conservation area. This development in Sierra Vista has been on the drawing board for over six years and 

includes a water treatment plant capable of allowing 4 million gallons of water to be recharged into the aquifer each day. In spite 

of this, BLM claims that the project should not be permitted because its sufficient water supply is not legally available. 

The agency’s letter and the choice of words, legally available, has 

chilling implications for all residents, property owners, and property rights advocates, as well as the entire country, claiming the 

sufficient water for the development is physically available but legally the property is to the Federal Government. This Administration is signaling its determination to control water, not only in the 

San Pedro River, but anywhere near it. 

The additional comments are included in your package. And I see 

the yellow light on. So I would refer you to the maps that I have 

brought. 

And if we could have the one on the right turned around, what 

you see in the red and white map, what is in white is all Arizona 

has in private hands. The Arizona Farm Bureau in 1997 did an 

analysis. And that little yellow map, if it was all consolidated in 

one location, that’s what it would look like. They have determined 

that less than 13 percent of Arizona is in private hands. The one 

on the left, if you flip the whole map over, shows you what the 

Arizona Geological Survey has—yeah, turn the paper completely 

around. Yeah, the board, turn the board around. 

This shows Arizona’s oil and gas potential. And if you take a look 

at the locations of where the Federal Government has frozen our 

natural resources, that tells the story right there. 

We have, we have formed a study Committee this session to 

identify in each county how much land is in private hands, how 

much land is tax exempt, and how much land is in conservation. 

So our tax base is being eroded by Federal regulations. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Griffin follows:] 
18 

Statement of The Honorable Gail Griffin, State Senator, 

District 25, State of Arizona 

Chairman Congressman McClintock and Honorable Members of your Subcommittee on Water and Power: 

Thank you for being here today and your willingness to listen and hopefully take 

action on what you hear at this hearing. 

My name is Gail Griffin and I’m the State Senator for District 25 which incorporates portions of five Arizona counties. I represent two thirds of Arizona border 

communities. I’m here today to talk about issues of great concern to my constituents 

and the State of Arizona. 

First, I would like to talk about the situation of the ‘‘Town to Tough to Die’’, 

Tombstone, Arizona. 

In May 2011 the Monument Fire engulfed approximately 222,954 acres in the 

Coronado National Forest. Seventy homes and structures were totally destroyed and 

people’s lives disrupted forever. Following the fires, our monsoons occurred and further destruction to additional properties occurred. 

Tombstone’s water infrastructure is located in the Coronado National Forest 

which supports both adequate safe drinking water and fire suppression. Tombstone’s 

water rights date back 130 years prior to any designation of land by the Forest 

Service. 

Huge mudslides forced boulders, some the size of Volkswagens, to tumble down 

mountainsides crushing Tombstone’s water lines and destroying reservoirs, shutting 

off Tombstone’s main water source. 

Arizona Governor, Jan Brewer, declared a State of Emergency for the town. 

Tombstone proceeded to take reasonable action to repair their century-old Huachuca 

Mountain water infrastructure. They initially were allowed to use mechanized 

equipment to repair two of Tombstone’s 25 catchments. 

The Forest Service has denied any further use of mechanized equipment and motorized vehicles that had been used to maintain their water systems for decades. 

The Forest Service has stated that Tombstone can only use hand tools and nonmechanized equipment to restore their springs and infrastructure. Wheel barrels 

are too mechanized; horses, mules and shovels are permitted. 

The whole town of Tombstone is at risk. Should a fire occur, Tombstone structures 

could be history. . .gone. Tombstone does not have the water to fight a major fire. 

The people of Tombstone deserve better than to have a federal agency block their 

rights to restore their water! 

Congress established the Forest Service in 1905 to provide quality water and timber for the Nation’s benefit. The Forest Service was originally structured to properly 

manage for multiple uses and for benefit of our renewable resources such as water, 

forage, recreation and production. The Forest Service’s motto is, ‘‘caring for the land 

and serving people.’’ They have done neither in this case. 

The Forest Service is supposed to accomplish the protection and management of 

our natural resources on National Forest lands. The proper management of our 

lands would produce jobs and a healthy environment and we would not be experiencing the catastrophic fires raging through this country. Please do not allow any 

more federal acquisition of land. They have proven they can’t take care of what they 

have. 

In another matter, the Bureau of Land Management submitted a stunning ultimatum to this State of Arizona (Department of Water Resources) to stop a development in Cochise County near the San Pedro National Conservation Area. This development in Sierra Vista has been on the drawing board for over six years and includes a water treatment plant capable of allowing four million gallons of water to 

be recharged into the aquifer each day. In spite of this, the BLM claims that the 

project should not be permitted because, ‘‘a sufficient water supply is not legally 

available.’’ 

The agency letter and its choice of words—legally available—has chilling implications for all residents, property owners and property rights advocates as well as the 

entire country by claiming the sufficient water for the development is physically 

available, but legally the property of the federal government. This administration 

is signaling its determination to control the water not only in the San Pedro River 

but anywhere near it as well. 

This blatant attempt to steal Arizona’s water begins a new chapter in decades of 

struggles over property rights and water rights in Cochise County and the State of 

Arizona. To allow the federal government to usurp a person’s property and water 

rights and thereby taking their freedoms to use their property is unacceptable. Certainly, this is not the kind of government our Founders envisioned when they crafted our Constitution, with property rights as one of its core principles. 
19 

Both of these situations address water issues for our local communities. It’s not 

enough to put in place regulations and restrictions on property and water rights but 

the additional layers of unreasonable regulations on air standards will also cripple 

electricity providers. Costs will skyrocket and people will not be able to afford the 

standard of living they desire. 

In my district that borders Mexico we have to deal with tires burning in landfills 

across the border. Arizona is a desert and we have wind and dust storms that are 

Acts of God and out of our control. The one size fits all policies that are expected 

from the Environmental Protection Agency and other federal agencies/departments 

do not work here. We in Arizona know how to properly manage our lands, our 

water, our air and our lives. State authority and states right are being usurped by 

federal agencies. 

We respectfully ask that you allow us to define our future and allow us to properly manage our lands, water, energy and air. Please look at the maps in your package and here displayed. Arizona has less than 13% of our lands in private property. 

Look at the map where oil and gas potential is. Most of the natural resources are 

buried in federal regulations. 

Thank you for allowing me to testify before you today and thank you for being 

here and listening to our frustrations. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. By the way, Senator, you might find it interesting to note that the District of Columbia, with all of its government buildings, its sprawling mall, monuments, and parks, the 

Federal Government owns 25 percent of the land area of Washington, D.C. Thank you for the testimony. 

The Chair is now pleased to welcome Representative Amanda 

Reeve from Arizona’s District 6 here in Phoenix to testify. I won’t 

welcome you since you are already here. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. AMANDA A. REEVE, DISTRICT 6 

REPRESENTATIVE, ARIZONA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

PHOENIX, ARIZONA 

Ms. REEVE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the 

Arizona congressional delegation who requested this field hearing. 

I want to thank you for this opportunity to appear before you today 

to discuss with you the concerns regarding the impact the Federal 

actions are having on the State of Arizona. 

I understand the purpose of this hearing is to provide you with 

a firsthand account as to how the actions taken by the Federal 

Government threaten Arizona’s water security and affordable 

power supply. It is my experience that our greatest threat to these 

areas of interest is actually tied to our state’s air quality. Having 

spent the past two years working with Arizona Department of Air 

Quality, ADEQ, on significant air quality issues, I have become 

very familiar with the challenges imposed by the regulations pertaining to regional haze, particulate matter, and the Clean Air Act 

in general, and the very significant impact that they have on our 

water security and power supply. 

In the May 12, 2012, letter addressed to Chairmen Hastings and 

McClintock from several Arizona congressional delegates, a considerable amount of focus was put on the Navajo Generating Station 

near Page, Arizona, because it is in jeopardy of shutting down due 

to the potential implementation of certain Federal regulations. The 

Regional Haze Rule is at the heart of the situation. And NGS is 

not the only power plant at risk. In fact, Cholla power plant near 

Joseph City, Arizona and the Four Corners power plant located 

near Farmington, New Mexico are also uncertain of their future as 
20 

a result of the Regional Haze Rule. All three of these plants are 

uncertain about their future due to the Environmental Protection 

Agency’s, EPA’s, Regional Haze Rule and what constitutes Best 

Availability Retrofit Technology, or BART. 

ADEQ is challenging EPA on regional haze jurisdiction and emission control technologies. Under Section 169A and B of the Clean 

Air Act, certain states have until 2064, Arizona being one of them, 

to attain natural visibility conditions to Class I Federal areas 

through means and procedures established in a State Implementation Plan, or SIP, as crafted by the state. Arizona submitted its regional haze SIP in December 2003 and continued to amend and update it until January 2009. 

Having not received approval or disapproval, but having received 

some comment, Arizona, in February 2011, submitted a new regional haze SIP, which EPA has yet to rule on. Meanwhile, several 

environmental organizations filed a lawsuit against EPA for not 

acting more expeditiously in addressing regional haze. In an effort 

to reach an agreement with the environmental groups, EPA began 

having settlement meetings with them but did not invite the potentially impacted states to join the negotiations. 

In December 2011, Arizona filed a request to intervene in the 

lawsuit. And while we were successful with that request, it still did 

not secure us a seat at the negotiation table. On March 30th, 2012, 

EPA entered into a consent decree for final approval by the court. 

Arizona filed a memorandum in opposition to entry of consent decree on April 10th, 2012, citing that the imposition of a regional 

haze FIP, Federally implemented plan, on the state, as stipulated 

in the consent decree, is not authorized in accordance with Section 

110(c)(1) of the Clean Air Act. 

In order for EPA to promulgate a FIP, it first has to find that 

Arizona failed to submit a regional haze SIP, or that Arizona’s SIP 

failed to satisfy the minimum criteria for a complete regional haze 

SIP under Section 110(k)(1) of the Clean Air Act, or it had to disapprove of Arizona’s regional haze SIP, none of which occurred. 

If EPA is allowed to promulgate a FIP without just cause, then 

they are effectively undermining our state primacy as established 

in the Clean Air Act. Furthermore, EPA, and not the state, will dictate what BART will be imposed on facilities, such as the three 

aforementioned power plants, to control emissions contributing to 

regional haze. 

ADEQ and EPA fundamentally disagree on what constitutes as 

BART. According to ADEQ, low NOx burners and over fire air technologies, both of which NGS recently had installed, are adequate 

emission controls. While EPA has not made an official decision regarding BART, we do believe that it will require facilities to retrofit 

with the selective catalytic reduction, SCR, technologies, which is 

far more costly than those technologies of which ADEQ approves. 

ADEQ states that studies of the SCR technologies do not provide 

sufficient evidence that it is superior or more effective in reducing 

emissions and improving visibility. 

It is clear that EPA has the potential of causing irreparable 

harm to Arizona’s water security, power supply, and economy 

should it actually impose a regional haze FIP. Furthermore, their 
21 

actions in this particular situation are undeniable encroachment 

upon our state primacy as guaranteed under the Clean Air Act. 

Again, I thank you for this opportunity to discuss these important issues with you. And with that, I am available for questions. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Great. Thank you very much, Representative. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Reeve follows:] 

Statement of The Honorable Amanda Reeve, State Representative, 

Arizona House of Representatives 

Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, and members of the Arizona Congressional Delegation whom requested this field hearing, I want to thank you for 

this opportunity to appear before you today and discuss with you the concerns regarding the impact that federal actions are having on the State of Arizona. 

I am Amanda Reeve, State Representative, currently of Legislative District 6; and 

I am the Chair of the Arizona House Environment Committee, and a member of the 

House Energy & Natural Resources Committee. 

I understand the purpose of this hearing is to provide you with first-hand accounts as to how the actions taken by the federal government threaten Arizona’s 

water security and affordable power supply. It is my experience that our greatest 

threat to these two areas of interest is actually tied to our State’s air quality. Having spent the past two years working with the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (‘‘ADEQ’’) on significant air quality issues, I have become very familiar with the challenges imposed by the regulations pertaining to regional haze, particulate matter, and the Clean Air Act (‘‘CAA’’); and the very significant impact they 

have on our water security and power supply. 

In the May 12, 2012 letter addressed to Chairmen Hastings and McClintock from 

several Arizona Congressional Delegates, a considerable amount of focus was put on 

the Navajo Generating Station (‘‘NGS’’) near Page, Arizona, because it is in jeopardy 

of shutting down due to potential implementation of certain federal regulations. The 

Regional Haze Rule is at the heart of this situation, and NGS is not the only power 

plant at risk. In fact, Cholla Power Plant near Joseph City, Arizona; and the Four 

Corners Power Plant located near Farmington, New Mexico are also uncertain of 

their future as a result of the Regional Haze Rule. 

NGS was constructed in the early 1970s and includes three coal-fired units with 

a total net output of 2,250 megawatts. It is operated by the Salt River Project 

(‘‘SRP’’) on behalf of six owners. The plant provides power to millions of homes and 

businesses in the Southwest. It provides over 90 percent of the power for Central 

Arizona Project (‘‘CAP’’), which is the largest supplier of renewable water in the 

state and supports over 80 percent of Arizona’s population and economic activity. 

NGS employs over 500 people, and the Kayenta Mine, which supplies coal to NGS, 

has over 400 employees. So, the economic benefit to Northern Arizona, alone, is very 

significant. The state, as a whole, experiences substantial broader economic benefits. 

For example, according to a recent study, Arizona State University estimated that 

the NGS and the Kayenta Mine will account for over $20 billion in Gross State 

Product over the next 30 years, and contribute to over 3,000 jobs statewide each 

year. 

The Cholla Power Plant, commissioned in 1962, includes four coal-fired units with 

a total net output of 995 megawatts. Arizona Public Service (‘‘APS’’) owns three of 

the units, while the fourth and largest unit is owned by PacificCorp (‘‘PAC’’). Approximately 400 people are employed at the plant; and McKinley Mine, which supplies the coal to Cholla, employs over 300 people. Cholla provides power to Arizona, 

Nevada, California, New Mexico and the Pacific Northwest. 

The Four Corners Power Plant, commissioned in 1963, includes five coal-fired 

units that generate a total net output of 2,040 megawatts. This plant is also mostly 

operated by APS, employs over 580 people, of which nearly 80 percent are Native 

American, and provides power to about 300,000 households in New Mexico, Arizona, 

California, and Texas. Navajo Mine, which supplies the low-sulfur coal to this plant, 

employs over 900 people, of which about 65 percent are Native American. 

All three of these plants are uncertain about their future due to the Environmental Protection Agency’s (‘‘EPA’’) Regional Haze Rule and what constitutes Best 

Available Retrofit Technology (‘‘BART’’). The situation is more complicated for NGS, 

because the plant’s lease and right-of-way agreements are set to expire in 2019. If 

the additional emissions controls are required before the lease and right-of-way 

agreements are extended, owners would need to decide whether to gamble on making large capital investments without the certainty of knowing if the lease and 

agreements are extended thereby allowing the plant to maintain operations. 
22 

The Regional Haze Rule is a secondary standard meant to improve visibility in 

Class I areas. It is not a health based primary standard intended to reduce emissions for public health. Equally true, it is not intended to force the implementation 

of the most stringent available controls measures. In the late 1990s, NGS installed 

wet limestone scrubbers in a landmark settlement with environmental interests at 

a total cost of $420 million and voluntarily installed low-NOx burners and separated 

over fire air technology (LNB/SOFA) on the three units that reduces nitrogen oxide 

emissions by 40 percent. That installation was completed last year at a cost of $45 

million. 

The reason that these three power plants are uncertain of their future is because 

ADEQ is challenging EPA on regional haze jurisdiction and emission control technologies. Under Sections 169A & B of the CAA, certain states have until 2064 to 

attain natural visibility conditions to Class I Federal areas through means and procedures established in a State Implementation Plan (‘‘SIP’’) as crafted by the State. 

Arizona submitted its Regional Haze SIP in December 2003 and continued to amend 

and update it until January 2009. EPA did not give approval, nor provide feedback 

on the SIP until January 2009 when it made the determination that parts of the 

plan were incomplete. In February 2011, Arizona submitted a new Regional Haze 

SIP, which EPA has yet to rule on. Meanwhile, several environmental organizations 

filed a lawsuit against EPA for not acting more expeditiously in addressing regional 

haze. In an effort to reach an agreement with the environmental groups, EPA began 

having settlement meetings with them, but did not invite the potentially impacted 

State to join the negotiations. 

In December 2011, Arizona filed a request to intervene in the lawsuit; and while 

we were successful with that request, it still did not secure us a seat in the negotiations. On March 30, 2012, EPA entered into a consent decree for final approval by 

the court. Arizona filed a Memorandum In Opposition to Entry of Consent Decree 

on April 10, 2012, citing that the imposition of a Regional Haze FIP on the State, 

as stipulated in the Consent Decree, is not authorized in accordance with Section 

110(c)(1) of the CAA. 

In order for EPA to promulgate a FIP, it first has to find that Arizona failed to 

submit a Regional Haze SIP, or that Arizona’s SIP failed to satisfy the minimum 

criteria for a complete Regional Haze SIP under Section 110(k)(1) of the CAA, or 

it had to disapprove of Arizona’s Regional Haze SIP, none of which occurred. If EPA 

is allowed to promulgate a FIP without just cause, then they are affectively undermining our State primacy as established in the CAA. Furthermore, EPA, and not 

the State, will dictate what BART will be imposed on facilities, such as the three 

aforementioned power plants, to control emissions contributing to regional haze. 

ADEQ and EPA fundamentally disagree on what constitutes as BART. According 

to ADEQ, ‘‘Low-NOx burners’’ and ‘‘over fire air’’ technologies, both of which NGS 

recently had installed, are adequate emission controls. However, EPA is requiring 

that facilities retrofit with selective catalytic reduction (‘‘SCR’’) technologies, which 

is far more costly than those technologies of which ADEQ approves. ADEQ states 

that studies of the SCR technologies do not provide sufficient evidence that it is superior or more effective in reducing emissions and improving visibility. 

It is clear that EPA has the potential of causing irreparable harm to Arizona’s 

water security, power supply, and economy should it actually impose a Regional 

Haze FIP. Furthermore, their actions in this particular situation are an undeniable 

encroachment upon our State primacy as guaranteed under the Clean Air Act. 

Again, I thank you for this opportunity to discuss these important issues with 

you; and with that, I am available for questions. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. I now recognize The Honorable Doug Von 

Gausig, Mayor of Clarkdale, to testify. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. DOUG VON GAUSIG, 

MAYOR, CITY OF CLARKDALE, ARIZONA 

Mr. VON GAUSIG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to 

the members of the Committee for allowing me to testify today. I 

am Doug Von Gausig. I am the Mayor of Clarkdale, Arizona, which 

is up in the Verde Valley about 100 miles north of where we are 

right now. And I am also the president of the Arizona League of 

Cities and Towns; although, I am representing my town specifically. 
23 

As the Mayor of Clarkdale and as a current president of the 

Arizona League of Cities and Towns, I strongly advocate increasing 

the amount of renewable energy that is produced and consumed by 

our state’s cities and towns. 

Because we know the value of renewable energy, in my Town of 

Clarkdale, we have several initiatives underway that are designed 

to create the kind of environment that will be attractive to developers of renewable energy projects. We are also investigating the 

creation of a renewable energy park which would bring renewable 

energy developers to Clarkdale. And we are currently exploring the 

implementation of community solar projects, solar farms some call 

them, that will bring the benefits of solar energy to a wider, more 

inclusive portion of our population. 

I am aware, however, that these efforts by me and my town are 

not enough to spur the kind of renewable energy projects that could 

truly become game changers for my town as well as for northern 

Arizona. What we need now is a reliable, 21st century transmission 

grid designed to carry renewable energy, and all electrons, throughout the west. We currently do not have that transmission system 

in Arizona or the southwest, and I believe that much of what the 

Department of Energy has proposed in its memorandum covering 

power management agencies like WAPA would help renovate our 

transmission system and get it in shape to build more renewables 

in the west, create a secure electrical system that can withstand 

unexpected events, and bring greater prosperity to towns like 

Clarkdale. 

It is noteworthy that many of the reforms that have been proposed by the Department of Energy in its memorandum are things 

that Arizona’s regulated utilities like Arizona Public Service Company have been implementing for years, and doing so without 

much difficulty. In fact, energy efficiency and transmission upgrades for renewable energy are both encouraged by the Arizona 

Corporation Commission. I ask myself why, if the private sector 

can get this done under the supervision of state public utility commissions, why can’t the Federal power utilities, under the guidance 

of Congress and DOE, do the same thing. 

I believe that the failure to modernize the grid will also stand 

in the way of Arizona’s efforts to become the solar energy capital 

of the world, an objective that has been stated many times by Republican and Democratic leaders alike in our state, including most 

notably Arizona’s Republican Governor, Jan Brewer. The cost of 

doing nothing will ultimately harm ratepayers by preventing our 

utilities from balancing their energy portfolios with diverse sources 

of energy, including renewables. It is also notable that in large, 

that large rate increases have not resulted from the efforts of companies like APS to modernize the grid, build renewables, and implement energy efficiency practices. Arizona Public Service has 

been able to do all of these things while keeping rates competitive. 

From a job creation standpoint, a healthy, reliable transmission 

system that is capable of interconnecting new energy projects while 

maintaining quality electrical service is of importance to mayors 

and other local elected officials. Arizona this year ranked third in 

the Nation for job creation from solar energy and was third in the 

Nation for the total amount of solar rooftops installed. We can 
24 

climb even higher in those rankings, but only if we have the modern transmission system that allows us to do so. 

Ratepayers will be the beneficiary of the DOE’s efforts to encourage PMAs to improve energy efficiency. Energy efficiency is something that we have promoted and implemented in Arizona for almost a decade now, primarily because we know that conserved 

energy is the cheapest form of energy. In 2010 the Arizona Corporation Commission, comprised of a majority of Republicans, 

passed the nation’s most ambitious energy efficiency resource 

standard. This 22 percent EERS standard will save Arizona ratepayers an estimated $9 billion over the course of the next few decades because we will not need to build a single new base-load capacity plant until 2030 as a result of improving our cost effective 

energy efficiency. 

Finally, virtually every public opinion poll that has been taken 

in Arizona in the last five years shows overwhelmingly that 

Arizonans want more renewable energy, not less. Republicans and 

Democrats alike are in favor of solar energy, and solar has become 

increasingly popular all across the state, even in the most conservative corners. In fact, the community that is growing the fastest in 

terms of installed solar rooftops is Sun City, hardly a liberal 

stronghold. 

The point is this is not a political issue but it is about Arizona’s 

long-term ability to meet the growing energy demand in the most 

practical, efficient, and economical way. I urge you to support the 

DOE’s efforts to modernize the PMAs, including WAPA. 

Thank you much, very much once again for allowing me to testify. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Von Gausig follows:] 

Statement of The Honorable Doug Von Gausig, Mayor, Clarkdale, Arizona 

I am pleased to offer this testimony to the House of Representatives’ Natural Resources Committee’s Subcommittee on Water and Power. 

As the Mayor of Clarkdale, Arizona and as the current President of the Arizona 

League of Cities and Towns, I am a strong advocate of increasing the amount of 

renewable energy that is produced in and consumed by our state’s cities and towns. 

Utility-scale renewable energy projects benefit not only each and every resident of 

my town, because they are a clean and reliable source of energy, and will ultimately 

become a stabilizing and lowering force on utility rates by diversifying the fuels that 

are used by utilities to create energy. We also know in Clarkdale that renewable 

energy projects can be a boon to economic development, by bringing much needed 

new tax revenues into our city, and potentially, new jobs. 

Because we know the value of renewable energy, in Clarkdale we have several 

initiatives underway that are designed to create the kind of environment that will 

be attractive to the developers of renewable energy projects. We have investigated 

the possibility of creating a ‘‘renewable energy park’’ or zone in Clarkdale, which 

would bring renewable energy developers to Clarkdale, and we have looked at the 

possibility of doing community solar projects in my town, in which buildings could 

be aggregated, solarized and net metered, making solar even more affordable for the 

town and its taxpayers. This kind of aggregate metering development can lower the 

cost of solar installations by more than one-third and make the benefits of solar energy available in neighborhoods where it was previously impractical.. The residents 

of Clarkdale have time and time again told their elected leaders that they expect 

these kinds on initiatives on renewable energy, they support them, and they want 

to see more of them. 

I am aware, however, that the efforts taken by me and my town are not enough 

to spur the kind of renewable energy projects that could truly be game changers for 

Clarkdale, as well as for northern Arizona. What we need the most is a reliable, 

21st century transmission grid that is designed to carry renewable energy, and 
25 

frankly, all electrons, throughout the West. We currently do not have that transmission system in Arizona or in the Southwest, and I believe that much of what 

the Department of Energy has proposed in its memorandum covering the Power 

Management Agencies, or PMA’s would help get our transmission system in the 

shape needed to build out renewables in the West and bring greater prosperity to 

towns like Clarkdale. 

More specifically, the memorandum, written by Secretary Chu on March 12, lays 

out several initiatives that would modernize Power Marketing Administrations 

(PMA’s) like the Western Area Power Authority, which owns and operates several 

transmission lines that run through my county. According to that memo, the DOE 

has taken the modest step of asking the PMA’s to consider modernizing their rate 

designs to promote energy efficiency; actually move forward with implementing several programs that would spur new transmission that Congress itself gave the 

PMA’s years ago; improve coordination with other grid operators; and provide 

WAPA greater ability to govern its own expenditures, making it easier for the agency to conduct critical repairs and upgrades to its system. While the details of how 

the PMAs are to move forward are unclear and stakeholder participation as part 

of that plan is essential, I believe these measures are efficient reasonable, and similar to the kinds of reforms and governance improvements that cities and towns 

across America have had to make to remain competitive and solvent. I also understand that the leaders of both WAPA and the Bonneville Power Authority have stated they can comply with the DOE’s requests and that they intend to do so. 

While much of the transmission system in the West is operated by investor-owned 

utilities, a very significant portion of the transmission system in my state is operated by the Western Area Power Authority. WAPA is particularly important in rural 

portions of Arizona, where it often serves as the backbone infrastructure for other 

utilities, and runs through areas that are ideal for new renewable energy projects. 

It is my understanding that WAPA transmission lines have not been modernized in 

many years, and certainly are not vigorous or plentiful enough to allow for renewable energy developers to get their projects online, and get those electrons moving 

throughout the Southwest. 

As the mayor of a town in Arizona, I regularly interact with members of the 

Arizona Corporation Commission, the body of government that oversees Arizona 

utilities, and I often interact with the utilities themselves. I do find it noteworthy 

that many of the reforms that have been proposed by the Department of Energy in 

its memorandum are things that regulated utilities in Arizona like the Arizona Public Service Company (‘‘APS’’) have been implementing for years, and without much 

difficulty. In fact, energy efficiency, transmission upgrades for renewable energy, to 

name just two, are regularly approved and encouraged by the Arizona Corporation 

Commission for the utilities they regulate. And this is not unique to Arizona. Investor-owned utilities across the West have been investing in the future by investing 

in energy efficiency and new transmission for more than a decade. You have to ask 

yourself the question: if the private sector can get it done, under the supervision 

of state Public Utility Commissions, why can’t these federal power utilities, under 

the guidance of Congress and the DOE? I was encouraged to see the DOE finally 

take steps to reform the Power Marketing Administrations, and pretty disheartened 

when I learned that some members of this Congressional Committee are fighting 

them on actions the rest of the electricity sector have already undertaken and the 

market has dictated. 

I know some on this Committee believe that the Department of Energy’s plans 

will somehow cause rate increases for customers. There is no doubt that building 

new infrastructure will cost money. But I would ask you to consider the much higher cost of NOT building new transmission and NOT repairing and replacing a transmission system that badly needs it. The costs of not modernizing WAPA and the 

other PMA’s includes the risk of future power outages, and even blackouts that 

could affect not just the town of Clarkdale, but the entire Western grid, and our 

economies. The cost of not modernizing the grid also prevents new energy projects 

from coming online, which will harm the ability of towns like mine to carry through 

on our plans to build a more sustainable energy environment while bringing in new 

jobs. Failure to modernize the grid will stand in the way of Arizona’s efforts to become the solar energy capitol of the world, an objective that has been stated many 

times by Republican and Democratic leaders alike, including most notably Arizona’s 

Republican Governor Jan Brewer. The cost of not modernizing, will, I believe, also 

ultimately harm ratepayers by preventing our utilities from balancing their energy 

portfolios with multiple sources of energy, including renewables. 

Moreover, large rate increases have not resulted from the efforts like Arizona 

Public Service Company to modernize its grid, build renewables, and implement energy efficiency. APS has been able to do all of these things while keeping its rates 
26 

competitive. In fact, as I discuss below, the energy efficiency efforts by APS and 

other electric utilities in Arizona will save our state’s ratepayers billions of dollars 

over the next two decades. If WAPA fails to change its rate structures to allow that 

kind of energy efficiency, it stands to reason that this too will be a cost of not modernizing WAPA’s system. 

From a policy standpoint, allowing the Western Area Power Authority to fall further and further behind other utilities would represent a hurdle to our state’s ability 

to meet its objectives under our Renewable Energy Standard. As you may know, like 

36 other states, Arizona has set out a plan for our utilities to produce or procure 

a certain percentage of our overall energy supplies from renewable sources, like 

solar and wind. In Arizona, under the RES established by the Arizona Corporation 

Commission, we must meet 15 percent by 2025 renewables, and having a reliable 

transmission grid will be critical to meeting the objectives under Renewable Portfolio Standards, not just here but all across the West. 

From a job creation standpoint, a healthy, reliable transmission system that is capable of interconnecting new distributed energy projects while maintaining quality 

electrical service is of importance to mayors and other local elected officials. Indeed, 

it is not lost on us that Arizona’s Renewable Energy Standard—and the solar 

projects it has spawned so far—is credited with helping to bring companies like 

Solon, Suntech, First Solar, Rio Glass, and many others, to our state. Arizona this 

year was third highest in the nation for job creation related to solar energy, and 

was third in the nation for the total amount of solar installed. We can climb even 

higher in those rankings, but only if we have the transmission system that allows 

us to do it. I believe that the DOE memorandum will lead to a transmission system 

that will support renewable and other energy projects, which I know will foster jobs. 

And I am not the only Mayor in Arizona looking to energy for job creation. Spurring 

renewable energy is a frequent subject of conversation among my fellow Mayors, 

and it is going to play a significant role in the upcoming annual meeting of the 

League of Arizona Cities and Towns. 

The DOE efforts to update the PMA’s by asking them to engage in more energy 

efficiency, and altering their rate structures in such a way that the PMA’s can accomplish this, strikes me as a real benefit to ratepayers. Energy efficiency is something that we have been doing in Arizona for almost a decade now, primarily because we know that it is the cheapest form of energy. It is estimated that energy 

efficiency programs which produce the ‘‘negawatt’’—or energy we don’t consume to 

begin with—cost between 1 and 3 cents per kilowatt—far less than most forms of 

electricity, from coal, to nuclear to natural gas. In 2010, the Arizona Corporation 

Commission—comprised of a majority of Republicans—passed the nation’s most ambitious Energy Efficiency Resource Standard, requiring our regulated utilities to 

conserve 22 percent of their retail sales by 2020 through energy efficiency programs. 

This 22 percent EERS Standard is estimated to save Arizona ratepayers $9 billion 

over the course of the next several decades, because we are not going to have to 

build a single new base load power plant here until the year 2030 as a result of 

doing more cost-effective energy efficiency. 

Finally, let me touch for a moment on what clean energy means to my community 

and my state from the standpoint of our future and the kind of people we want to 

be and place we want to live in. Every public opinion poll that has been taken here 

in the past five years shows that overwhelmingly Arizonans want us to implement 

more renewable energy, not less. One poll taken in Arizona showed that almost as 

many Republicans as Democrats are in favor of solar energy, and solar has become 

incredibly popular all across the state. The people of Clarkdale are putting solar on 

their rooftops, and are supportive of our plans to do community solar. And renewables are popular even in the most conservative corners of the state: I am told that 

the fastest growing part of Arizona right now for the installation of rooftop solar 

systems is Sun City—hardly a liberal bastion. 

These polls don’t ask about transmission, but my guess is that if folks knew how 

important this federal utility called WAPA is to our ability to build out our renewable energy economy, the majority of Arizonans would be in favor of the Department 

of Energy’s plans. They certainly wouldn’t think that we should stand in the way 

of efforts to make common sense investments in our nation’s electrical infrastructure. 

As a mayor, I have the responsibility of ensuring that the roads, bridges, tunnels, 

and other critical infrastructure in my town are not only adequate to serve my 

town’s current residents, but also are up to the task of serving future generations. 

In Clarkdale, we are focused on making sure that our infrastructure is sustainable 

in a manner that allows future generations to enjoy the beauty of the Verde Valley 

in the same way we do today, by promoting renewable energy, energy efficiency, and 

water conservation. At the state level, we have always been willing in Arizona to 
27 

take the tough decisions and make the difficult investments in to make this the productive, innovative state it is. I believe Congress has a duty to similarly protect and 

expand the electrical infrastructure of the nation; Congress certainly shouldn’t take 

our focus off the future by telling the Western Area Power Authority that it is appropriate for them to have a sub-par transmission system. 

I urge you to support the DOE’s efforts to modernize the Power Marketing Administrations, including WAPA. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. I now recognize Ms. Nicole Horseherder, Dine 

of To Nizhoni Ani, from Kykotsmovi, Arizona, to testify. 

Ms. Horseherder, go ahead. 

STATEMENT OF NICOLE HORSEHERDER, 

DINE, TO NIZHONI ANI, KYKOTSMOVI, ARIZONA 

Ms. HORSEHERDER. Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to speak before you 

today. My name is Nicole Horseherder. I am Dine Navajo from 

Dzilijiin, Black Mesa, Arizona. I am here as a member of To 

Nizhoni Ani and, recently, Moms Clean Air Force. 

And I am here as your constituent, Congressman Gosar. It is unfortunate that I am the only one here to express dissent before the 

Committee. I hope that others have the opportunity to submit testimony for the record. 

Since 1971 when NGS came on line and coal from Black Mesa 

was used, and there has been tremendous growth and prosperity 

for Phoenix and Tucson, there has been no real prosperity to the 

Navajo community surrounding the mine in NGS. While you hear 

that 80 percent of the jobs at NGS are Natives’, this accounts for 

less than half a percent of the total jobs on the reservation. 

Prosperity for some has come to, has come at a cost to the Nation. The poverty rate continues to be high. 30 percent of Navajos 

continue to live without electricity and/or running water. Over 353 

million gallons of pristine Navajo water from the N-aquifer was 

gone in 40 years. And water costs, and water costs of bringing— 

and the cost of bringing water to Black Mesa residents have increased as the water levels decline. In addition, NGS has enjoyed 

over 31,000 acre-feet of Navajo water per year free of charge for the 

last 40 years. 

Prosperity has also come at the cost of health. According to the 

EPA, asthma disproportionately affects children in families with 

lower incomes and minorities. Between 1972 and 1974 and 1996 

and ’98 Navajo area age adjusted death rates for cancer have increased from 43.7 to 87.5 deaths per 100,000 according to IHS. 

To Nizhoni Ani has engaged community members across the 

northwest and central region of the Navajo Nation, in the area of 

NGS, in a survey to assess the number of family members with 

asthma and respiratory problems. 141 surveys were returned from 

13 communities. Results show that 60 percent of families surveyed 

had at least one person who suffers from respiratory problems 

while 42 percent reported more than one family member with respiratory issues. Of those who have respiratory problems, half are 

under the age of 20. I myself have two children that suffer from 

asthma. 

Future prosperity for all calls for a transition. Beyond the tangible benefits, a transition away from the unfulfilling history of 
28 

coal and toward clean energy aligns more closely with Dine fundamental laws and values. 

The Federal Government as our trustee and as majority owner 

of NGS must be part of meeting this goal. The transition cannot 

be done over night. But the continuation of NGS should be contingent on the commitment to renewable energy. 

Four out of five voters believe that coal should be replaced by 

other energy sources. A significant 79 percent of the electorate 

agrees with the statement that we should start replacing coal with 

other energy sources like wind and solar power. Three quarters, 75 

percent, of APS customers and 84 percent of SRP customers express agreement with the idea of starting to transition from coal 

to cleaner sources of energy. And I will submit that for the record, 

the study that shows that. 

To Nizhoni Ani, with other grassroots groups, are deploying the 

development of solar energy generation facilities on brown fields on 

Black Mesa. At least 6,000 acres of mined lands are available at 

this time. This alone is enough for more than a thousand 

megawatts of power. 

A total of 68,000 acres of land is still held in lease by Peabody 

Western. While some mining has been complete for more than 15 

years, reclamation has not been completed by Peabody and none of 

the lands have been transferred back to the Nation. 

To Nizhoni also believes the decision EPA should require the 

BART, the Best Available Retrofit Technology, that require a minimum SCR for both the Four Corners power plant and the Navajo 

Generating Station, a decision that would reduce the health impacts from the pollutants for Navajos living in the region. 

Finally, water is scarce in the desert southwest. And large volumes of water is used to serve Kayenta Mine in NGS. 

The true cost associated with these environmental and public 

health impacts have never been internalized by the operators of the 

coal complex. It is disappointing to see that, as part of the water 

rights settlement legislation introduced in Congress recently, S 

2109, and its companion bill, language is included to ensure that 

NGS and Peabody continue their operation for another 50 years instead of a meaningful transition. 

The Navajo Nation’s prosperity has already evaporated with the 

Federal Government’s and Arizona’s problems. It is time for a renewable energy investment on the Navajo Nation. If the Dine are 

to see their existence into the future, they must develop clean 

energy economies instead of continuing to advance steadily declining coal based economies. 

Please turn your efforts away from diminishing the powers of 

EPA, which sets the rules that gives us clean air and safe power 

industry that protect all, especially our children and elders. Representative Gosar, now is the time for full compliance and a transition that must begin today. Let’s get Arizona on the right path to 

true prosperity where the costs are shared by all who benefit. 

Thank you. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Thank you, Ms. Horseherder. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Horseherder follows:] 
29 

Statement of Nicole Horseherder, To Nizhoni Ani, Black Mesa, Arizona 

Summary: 

For over fifty years, the Navajo Nation has been largely dependent on a coalbased industrial economy. While revenues from development of coal resources account for a substantial portion of tribal budgets, coal development has had a substantial, and some would say irreparable, impact on tribal health, culture, land, air, 

and water. Further, the impacts are not limited to tribal lands as the effects of hazardous air and green-house gas emissions, toxic water borne pollution, massive depredation of aquifers used for drinking water, and contamination of soil, air and 

water from toxic coal combustion waste (CCW) disposal has dispersed into adjacent 

non-indigenous communities. 

Situated in the Four Corners region of New Mexico and Arizona, the Dine homelands encompass an existing, sprawling coal-industrial complex. The Navajo Mine 

operated by BHP Billiton serves the Four Corners Power Plant (FCPP) in Fruitland, 

New Mexico; Kayenta and Black Mesa mines operated by Peabody Energy serves 

Navajo Generating Station (NGS) in Page, Arizona. The construction and operation 

of these facilities have been central in the economies of the Navajo Nation. Energy 

is exported from these facilities to Southern California, Texas, Southern Arizona, 

and Nevada. 

The Power Plants at NGS and FCPP will not sustain the Dine in perpetuity. Once 

the fossil fuel supplied by the tribes is extracted, the powerful utility companies will 

be looking for other locations to continue their operations. The Dine will have no 

leverage to level the playing field and no plan in place to sustain tribal governance 

as it currently exists. 

After decades of exploitation by mining and energy companies, a combination of 

factors make now the ideal time for the Navajo Nations to transition to a more sustainable clean-energy economy. 

Best Available Retrofit Technology: 

Under the federal Clean Air Act (CAA), the Four Corners and Navajo power 

plants are subject to requirements for Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) in 

order to comply with federal regional haze requirements. The proposed BART determination for the FCPP, which was issued by EPA Region 9 in October 2010, will 

likely require the installation of Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) at all five 

units. Estimated cost for the FCPP to install SCR is $717 million for all five units. 

The owners of the rapidly aging FCPP and NGS are faced with significant decisions about whether to commit financing to pollution-control technology upgrades 

for the facilities, or retire them and replace their output with modern, clean energy 

sources. EPA has determined it is necessary for the owners of the FCPP to upgrade 

pollution controls to reduce haze in the region. The ruling proposal calls for the likely installation of selective catalytic reduction controls (SCR), which could cost hundreds of millions of dollars. 

Rather than incur such costly upgrades for plants that will eventually be phased 

out anyway, the Navajo and Hopi would benefit instead from a move toward newer, 

cleaner and more sustainable energy sources of which economic equity should be included. 

With significant investment to bring these plants into compliance with required 

regulatory protections, it is entirely possible that the owners will determine that the 

FCPP and NGS have exhausted their economically useful lives and that continuing 

to operate them would be unprofitable. Utilities around the country are having the 

same internal debates, and several major owners of FCPP and NGS have already 

made a decision to abandon their stakes in the projects. 

According the EPA website, asthma disproportionately affects children, families 

with lower incomes, and minorities. ‘‘While asthma was a rare diagnosis in many 

HIS areas before 1975, asthma prevalence and hospitalizations increased dramatically among AI/AN populations during the 1980s.’’ (IHS 2006). Between 1972–74 

and 1996–98, Navajo Area age-adjusted death rates for cancer have increased from 

43.7 to 87.5 deaths per 100,000 populations (IHS 2006). 

In addition, TNA has engaged community members across the northwest and central region of the Navajo Nation (in the area of NGS) in a survey that is meant to 

assess the need for a more comprehensive health study primarily focused on respiratory and heart disease and may include cancer. 141 surveys were returned by 

adult community members from 13 communities in the Northwest region of the 

Navajo Nation (Kaibeto, Chilchinbito, Pinon, Navajo Mt. Coppermine, Lechee, 

Dennehotso, Kitsillie/Black Mesa, Tonalea, Tuba City, Bittersprings, CedarRidge, 

and Shonto). The survey was conducted from March to May, 2011. The survey asks 

community members to assess the number of family members with asthma and res-
30 

piratory problems and to identify the number of members with respiratory problems 

over the age of 25 years and under the age of 25 years. It also asks community 

members to identify distance to nearest hospital facilities and what other kinds of 

ways they address these problems besides modern methods. 

Survey Results: 

Coal Mining a Legacy of Non-Compliance: 

Part of the transition strategy is to compel meaningful and timely reclamation, 

closure, and clean-up of the tens-of-thousands of acres of mine lands used for coalfired power plants. Actual clean-up and reclamation of mined lands (which could 

take decades) not only creates jobs and a transitional revenue stream, but in some 

instances may present important renewable energy site and location opportunities 

on mined-lands (i.e. brown fields). 

Peabody’s Kayenta Mining Operation covers approximately 44,000 acres and has 

produced approximately 8.5 million tons of coal per year. Peabody’s 44,073 acre 

Kayenta Mine mining operation continues to supply coal exclusively to the Navajo 

Generation station and has done so since 1973. NGS became operational in 1971 

and was based in part on a resolution from Navajo Nation which waived claims of 

50,000 acre feet of Navajo water in the upper Colorado River basin for 50 years or 

the life of Navajo Generating Station. 

Tens of millions of tons of coal combustion waste (CCW), the toxic by-product of 

burning coal in power plants, has been disposed of in insufficiently regulated landfills and dumped back into the mines or on-site on the Navajo Nation. This CCW 

contains toxic pollutants such as mercury, cadmium, barium, and arsenic, which 

cause cancer and various other serious health effects. These contaminants can leach 

into groundwater from the landfills and mines where they are dumped, and can migrate to drinking water sources, posing significant public health concerns. 

Peabody’s 18,000 acre Black Mesa mining operation supplied coal to the Mohave 

Generating Station from 1970 to December 2005. The Black Mesa mine became nonoperational in 2005 after closure of Mohave in 2005 due to the Station’s inability 

to comply with the Clean Air Act. 

In addition to the coal mining at the Black Mesa Mine, Peabody has also pumped 

an average of 4000–6000 acre-feet per year. That is more than 1.3 billion gallons 

of potable water annually from the Navajo Aquifer (N–Aquifer) between 1969 to 

2005 a span of 35 years. This water was used to transport pulverized coal in a pipeline (Black Mesa Pipeline) 273 miles to the Laughlin, NV, and the location of the 

Mohave Generating Station. 

The N-aquifer is the primary source of water for municipal users and tribal members within the 5,400 square mile Black Mesa area. All of the Hopi and many of 

the Navajo who live in the region take their water, which they use for drinking, subsistence farming and for religious purposes, from the same source. Since Peabody 

began using N-aquifer water for its coal slurry operations, water levels have decreased by more than 100 feet in some wells and discharge has slackened by more 

than 50 percent in majority of monitored springs. There are reports that washes 

along the mesa’s southern cliffs are losing outflow. There are also signs that the aquifer is being contaminated in places by low-quality water from overlying basins, 

which leaks down in response to the stress caused by pumping. Peabody’s ongoing 

groundwater pumping, which is not covered by a reclamation bond, undercuts the 

sustainability of North America’s oldest cultures, and continues to have a significant 

impact on tribal communities throughout the region. 
31 

In 2010, an independent scientist at the University of Arizona completed a study 

investigating both Peabody’s mine and the tribal communities’ impact on the N-aquifer. This study demonstrated the following mine-related impacts and OSM’s (coincidental) discretionary decisions and actions: 

1. In 1989, OSM set a damage-threshold for spring discharge at a 10% reduction to discharge caused by the mine. 

As of 2009, Moenkopi Spring (sixty miles southwest of the mine) had 

declined by more than 26%. OSM maintains, however, that the decline 

is caused by tribal pumping or recent drought conditions. 

The University of Arizona study demonstrated that the declining rate 

of discharge from Moenkopi Spring expresses a strong, statistically significant relationship with the rate of Peabody’s increasing withdrawals. 

Further, the spring has no statistically significant relationship with either local municipal withdrawals or local rates of precipitation. 

In 2008, OSM concluded that ‘‘there have been and will be no impacts 

to these springs attributable to mining’’ (OSM–CHIA 2008: 86). Subsequently, OSM removed the oversight of Moenkopi Spring from its regulatory review. 

2. In 1989, OSM determined that water level decline at the community of 

Kayenta (20 miles north of the mine) would be caused almost entirely by 

Kayenta’s groundwater pumping. 

As of 2009, the water level at Kayenta had dropped more than 106 feet; 

the aquifer’s structural stability is currently at risk of compaction at 

Kayenta. 

The University of Arizona study demonstrated a statistically significant 

relationship between Kayenta’s declining water level and Peabody’s increasing withdrawals. Further, there is no statistically significant relationship between this decline and Kayenta’s withdrawals. In fact, the 

rate of Kayenta’s withdrawals expresses a slightly decreasing trend 

since 1984 although the water level has continued to fall. 

In 2008, OSM concluded that the mine had not adversely affected the 

N-aquifer and completely removed structural stability from its regulatory purview. 

3. In 2008, OSM implemented Peabody’s $3 million groundwater model for regulatory purposes. 

According to the model report, ‘‘a regional scale model cannot currently 

be developed for the basin that will accurately predict the impacts of 

pumping on individual springs’’ (HSIGeoTrans & WEHE 1999: 5–23). 

Similarly, the model cannot accurately simulate groundwater discharge 

to streams. 

Nonetheless, in 2008, OSM determined that, rather than using actual 

groundwater monitoring data, it will use the simulation results from 

Peabody’s groundwater model for its annual evaluation of the mine’s impact on springs and streams. 

Water is scarce in the desert Southwest, and large volumes of water derived from 

local watersheds serve the needs of the mines and cool the coal plants, drawing 

down aquifers, degrading river water quality and depleting one of the region’s most 

valuable and scarce resources. Fallout from smokestack pollution and the vast quantities of CCW that have been dumped into mines over the past 45–50 years have 

degraded the quality of the remaining water supplies. Health advisories have been 

issued for most streams, rivers and lakes in the Four Corners, warning the public 

against neurological and cardiovascular damage from consuming local fish due to 

mercury contamination (in part due to mercury emissions from FCPP and NGS). 

The true costs associated with these environmental and public health impacts have 

never been internalized by the operators of the coal complex. 

The following table illustrates only one example of the gap in water prices among 

Dine living on the Reservation and those living off the reservation. Dine in Pinon, 

Az. (central Navajo Reservation) pay at least 20 times more per gallon than do residents in Glendale, Az (Phoenix area). 
32 

Transition the Navajo Nation for the sustainability of all Nations: 

The Navajo Nation is the size of Scotland. It is blessed with an abundance of resources that could provide the foundation necessary for a transition to renewable 

energy development. The Navajo Nation encompasses regions with ample wind, 

solar, and geothermal resources, along with vast expanses of land, including large 

reclaimed coal-mining tracts that are ideal for locating renewable energy facilities. 

The region’s solar potential is some of the best in the world and certain portions 

of reservation lands have wind resource ratings capable of supporting utility-scale 

projects. Additionally, as a result of all three power plants’ extensive interconnections to the electric grid there is a network of power lines whose capacity would be 

freed up for an expansion of renewable energy by phasing out the three coal-burning 

plants. 

Utility-scale development of either wind or solar energy resources alone has potential to offset job and revenue losses from the phase-out of the existing coal 

plants. An analysis by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), for example, determined that constructing a wind energy project in Navajo County could generate up 

to 140 construction and operations jobs and more than $14 million in economic activity. 

If the Dine are to see their existence into the future they must develop clean energy economies instead continuing to advance a steadily declining coal-based economy. 

Beyond the tangible benefits, a transition away from the unfulfilling history of 

coal and toward clean energy aligns more closely to Dine fundamental laws and values. Building a new clean energy economy, one in which the viability of the Navajo 

Nation is included must be based on the following: • Acknowledging the real value associated with land, water, air and other natural resources on Dine lands. • Acknowledging the significant adverse environmental and health impacts of 

a coal based economy and the reliance on the FCPP and NGS and related 

mine operations. 

• Acknowledging that benefits from the sale of Dine raw resources is directly 

disproportionate to the profits of the sale or the recipient of cheap electricity. 

• Creating legislation that would provide the Navajo Nation the financial, political and regulatory means to pursue real solutions in transitioning from fossil 

fuel electricity 

• Developing privately-owned and tribal-owned clean energy generation resources on Dine lands, such as wind and solar; and, 

• Subsidizing clean energy facilities rather than fossil fuel facilities; 

The biggest question Dine face along with the rest of the world is, what happens 

after all the fossil fuel is gone. We have no choice but to embrace the renewable 

technology available and move forward with it. 

Position of To Nizhoni Ani: 

1. It is the position of To Nizhoni Ani that a decision by EPA that would require the Maximum Available Control Technology otherwise known as 

MACT that requires at minimum SCR for the FCPP and NGS would be the 

most beneficial in terms of the issues of the regional haze and visibility. 

More importantly, a MACT decision would also reduce the health impacts 

from the pollutants for Navajos living in the region. 

2. In lieu of declining coal resources, the Navajo Nation must work towards incorporating into recent expired leases, a plan to transition these areas into 

a solar generation facility and to target brownfields instead of undeveloped 

lands. The purpose of this plan is 1) to ensure continued revenues and jobs 

for the Navajo Nation and 2) to eliminate health impacts to the people. 

3. The Navajo Nation must begin incorporating a plan for continued revenues 

and jobs in place of the declining coal mined at Kayenta and the Navajo 
33 

Mine. Currently the development of a Solar Energy Generation Facility on 

brown fields, is being explored by grassroots groups, Black Mesa Water Coalition and To Nizhoni Ani. At least 6,000 aces of mined lands is available 

at this time. This alone is enough for more than 1000 MW of power. A total 

of 68,000 acres of land is held in lease by Peabody Western Coal Company. 

While some mining on hundreds of acres of lease land has been complete for 

more than 15 years, reclamation has not been completed by Peabody and 

none of the lands have been transferred back to the Navajo Nation, to be 

given back to the local residents for use. 

Currently the Black Mesa Water Coalition and To Nizhoni Ani has completed a Solar Potential Study, conducted dozens of community meetings 

to residents in the mine lease area as well as residents in communities 

throughout Black Mesa. The purpose of these community meetings is to 

educate for the purpose of mobilizing the community. 

4. Installation of Solar facilities on the CAP canals to provide additional power 

to power the pumps that push the water to Phoenix and Tucson or other 

power users. This would help eliminate the evaporation of 75,000 acre feet 

of water annually. 

5. Make CAP self-sufficient. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. I just, to keep of the record straight, both you 

and Mayor Van Gausig were invited at the request of the minority 

Democrats on this Committee. I am sorry our democratic colleagues 

aren’t here to welcome you, but we certainly thank you for your 

testimony. 

Ms. HORSEHERDER. Thank you. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Our next witness is Mr. Andy Groseta, president of the Arizona Cattle Growers’ Association from Cottonwood. 

STATEMENT OF P. ANDREW GROSETA, PRESIDENT, ARIZONA 

CATTLE GROWERS’ ASSOCIATION, COTTONWOOD, ARIZONA 

Mr. GROSETA. Good morning. My name is Andy Groseta. I am 

here testifying on behalf of the Arizona Cattle Growers’ Association. 

I would like to thank you for giving me the opportunity to testify 

in front of your Subcommittee today. It is my pleasure to enlighten 

the Committee on the failures of the Federal land management and 

how this has impacted our residents and economy in Arizona. But, 

more importantly, it is drying up our watersheds in the entire 

state. 

I am the current president of ACGA, a professional organization 

that represents over 100,000 ranchers from throughout Arizona. I 

am a third generation rancher, and our family has been ranching 

in the Verde Valley since 1922. We operate on Forest Service lands, 

state private lands. And we take our jobs seriously as being good 

stewards of the land. We collaborate with state and Federal agencies to maintain working landscapes that are vital to Arizona’s 

economy and its citizens. 

Arizona’s agricultural industry is a $10.3 billion industry, contributing to communities in every county in this state. This base 

industry relies on the stability of sunlight, soil, and water to 

produce the safest and most affordable food supply in the world. 

In 1955 ranchers, water users, Salt River Project officials, and 

employees of the United States Forest Service all met to discuss 

the conditions of Arizona’s watershed and its future. 50 plus years 

ago these folks recognized the importance of water and how the 

management of land would impact agriculture, industry, and a 
34 

growing city. From this meeting and local collaboration, the Beaver 

Creek Watershed Evaluation Program began. The emphasis was to 

determine how much water yield could be increased by managing 

and controlling vegetation on the landscape. At the same time, the 

project would analyze livestock foraging, wildlife, soil types, and 

recreational values. The project encompassed tens of thousands of 

acres with real on-the-ground work. And it went far beyond the 

computer models that we rely on today. 

This type of work contributed to real data over time and revealed 

the benefits of basic landscape stewardship to our watersheds. The 

project continues on today but is not well known and does not focus 

much on the actual on-the-ground work of managing vegetation because of over regulation on Federal lands and a process that can 

easily last 10 plus years. 

Now, today, 50 years later, I have the pleasure of coming before 

you again to talk about the same issue that our predecessors had 

the foresight to begin evaluating and initiating solutions. However, 

after 50 years of analyzing and collecting data, it is Federal regulations and mountains of bureaucratic processes that have kept us 

from implementing any type or practical solutions that would benefit all the citizens of Arizona. 

These former leaders understood that there were major ecosystem functions that our forest lands provided for: The water 

cycle, the mineral cycle, energy flow, and biological succession. 

They also understand that management, or the lack thereof, can 

have a profound effect on the very important functions. 

Recently, over the past 20 years, we have witnessed a diminished 

land, health, and productivity, most especially the diminishment of 

water yields from a now unhealthy water cycle. The current lack 

of action and on-the-ground management has diminished the water 

on our forest lands, which is the water that these lands yield to 

several million people here who live in the Valley of the Sun. 

Part of the reason our forests are yielding less water is the U.S. 

Forest is caught up in a process predicament, a framework of statutory and regulatory and administrative procedures that has rendered the agency ineffective in addressing the rapidly declining 

forest health. The Forest Service spends the majority of its time 

managing lawsuits today and job promotions. It has no real time 

to dedicate to actual landscape management. We are literally 

studying our forests to death caused by catastrophic wildfires that 

threaten our communities, destroy our local economies, destroy 

wildlife habitat, and drastically change an ecosystem for a lifetime. 

It was not long ago that many springs and creeks along the 

Mogollon Rim produced twice as much water as they do today. And 

these rural communities were abuzz, were abuzz from the sounds 

of chainsaws and the bells of cows. We had healthy working landscapes that provided jobs and safe places for our citizens to work 

and recreate. 

At one time Apache County in northeastern Arizona was one of 

the richest counties in the nation. Federal regulations such as the 

National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act 

has become a tool that radical environmental groups have used to 

close our forests down to all mankind. Commercial logging no 

longer exists in Arizona and has not for more than a decade. Now 
35 

Apache County is one of the poorest counties of the Nation as Federal regulations have driven families and entire industries out of 

business. 

The cattle industry is struggling to hold on as we continue to lose 

valuable and productive grasslands to overgrown forests. And with 

this, it takes a lot of money to repair and restore the damage that 

these catastrophic wildfires do on our Federal lands. 

I would just like to say in closing that the Arizona Cattle Growers’ Association requests that Congress takes immediate action— 

time is of the essence—to do something to correct the Federal land 

management practices, to create a balanced model that recognizes 

communities, economies, industry, recreation, habitat and wildlife. 

It is possible and it can be done. But the bottom line is our forest 

desperately needs on-the-ground management. And that’s where 

we need man and management to return to the land. 

Thank you for giving me this opportunity. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Thank you, Mr. Groseta. I would let you go on 

except I can’t put that on Mr. Gosar’s tab; it is already full, so— 

but I do thank you for your testimony. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Groseta follows:] 

Statement of P. Andrew Groseta, President, 

Arizona Cattle Growers’ Association 

My name is Andy Groseta and I am testifying on behalf of the Arizona Cattle 

Growers’ Association. I would like to thank the Honorable Tom McClintock, the 

Honorable Paul Gosar and the Honorable Trent Franks for the opportunity to testify 

in front of the Water and Power Subcommittee today. It is my pleasure to enlighten 

the committee on the failures of federal land management and how that has impacted our residence and economy, but more importantly it is drying up our watershed. I am the current President of the Arizona Cattle Growers’ Association, a professional organization dedicated to Arizona’s Cattle Industry and representing over 

one thousand ranchers across Arizona. I am a 3rd generation rancher and our family has been ranching in the Verde Valley along the Verde River since 1922. We operate on forest service, state and private lands and take our jobs as stewards of the 

land very seriously—in respect for those who have enjoyed them before us and to 

ensure that continues for future generations. We collaborate with state and federal 

agencies to maintain the working landscapes that are vital to Arizona’s economy 

and its citizens. Arizona’s agricultural industry is a 10.3 billion dollar economic engine, contributing to communities in every county in the state. This base industry 

relies on the stability of sunlight, soil and water to produce the safest, most affordable and reliable food and fiber supply in the world. 

In 1955 ranchers, water users, Salt River Project Officials and employees of the 

United States Forest Service all met to discuss the conditions of Arizona’s watershed and the future. Fifty plus years ago these folks recognized the importance of 

water and how the management of lands would impact agriculture, industry and the 

people of a growing city. From this meeting and local collaboration the Beaver Creek 

Watershed Evaluation Program began. The emphasis was to determine how much 

water yield could be increased by managing and controlling vegetation on the landscape. At the same time the project would analyze livestock foraging, wildlife, soil 

types and recreational values. The project encompassed tens of thousands of acres 

with real on-the-ground work; it went beyond the computer models we rely on today. 

This type of work contributed real data over time and revealed the benefits of basic 

landscape stewardship to our watershed. The project continues on today but is not 

well known and does not focus much on actual on-the-ground work of managing 

vegetation because of over regulation on federal lands and a process that can easily 

last ten plus years. Now fifty years later I have the pleasure of coming before you 

today to talk about the same issue that our predecessor had the insight to begin 

evaluating and initiating solutions. However, after Fifty years of analyzing and collecting data it is federal regulation and mountains of bureaucratic process that has 

kept us from implementing any type of practical solution that would benefit all the 

citizens of Arizona. 
36 

These former leaders understood that there were major ecosystem functions that 

our Forest lands provided for: the water cycle, mineral cycle, energy flow and biological succession. They also understood that management—or the lack thereof—can 

have a profound effect on these very important functions. Recently—over the past 

two decades—we have witnessed a diminished land health and productivity—most 

especially the diminishment of water yields from a now unhealthy water cycle. The 

current lack of action and on the ground management has diminished the water our 

forest lands yield to the several million people who live in the ‘‘Valley of the Sun.’’ 

Part of the reason our forests are yielding less water is that the U.S. Forest Service is caught in a process predicament, a frame work of statutory, regulatory and 

administrative procedure that has rendered the agency ineffective in addressing the 

rapidly declining forest health. This is absolute fact; the United States Forest Service recognizes this issue in a report they issued in 2002. The Forest Service spends 

a majority of its time managing lawsuits and job promotions and has no real time 

to dedicate to the actual landscapes and ecosystems that support wildlife, communities and industry. We are literally studying our forest to death, a death caused 

by catastrophic wildfires that threatens communities, destroys economies, wildlife 

habitat and drastically changes an ecosystem for a lifetime. 

It was not long ago that many of the springs and creeks along the ‘‘Mogollon Rim’’ 

produced twice as much water as they do today and the rural communities nestled 

in the middle of the Ponderosa Pines were a buzz from the sounds of chainsaws and 

the bellow of cows. We had healthy working landscapes that provided jobs and safe 

places for citizens to recreate all year round. At one time Apache County was one 

of the richest counties in the nation. Federal regulation such as the National Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act has become a tool for radical 

environmental groups used to close our forest to all mankind. Commercial scale logging no longer exists in Arizona and has not for more than a decade. Apache County 

has become one of the poorest counties in the nation as federal regulation has driven families and entire industries out of business. You no longer see semi-trucks full 

of logs moving down the highways, forest equipment businesses, or the local family 

owned chainsaw repair shops. You would be hard pressed to even find a chainsaw 

in those northern communities anymore. The cattle industry is struggling to hold 

on as we continue to lose grasslands to over grown forests and infrastructure to 

massive wildfires that take more and more resources to repair. 

The overgrown forest, that is growing as we speak, with no tools to properly manage timber and forage is slowly cutting the water supply of the sixth largest city 

in the nation, Phoenix. For decades we have allowed our forest to become dense 

with trees sucking up water before it hits the river and the arid climate is unable 

to support such a forest in periods of drought. We have left an unnatural forest at 

the hands of Mother Nature and now we are faced with massive wildfires charring 

forests to bare ground. The Wallow fire is a perfect example an after fire crew 

mopped up the hot spots and left, the summer rains came causing massive soil erosion and flash floods. Mismanagement of federal lands has caused massive wildfire 

that changed the landscape for a lifetime and has now polluted our watershed killing a whole generation of fish, frogs and owls. 

Just recently the U.S. Forest Service patted itself on the back for issuing the largest stewardship contract in history working with a collaborative group called Four 

Forest Restoration Initiative (4FRI). While we all hope this will become a reality 

quickly the contract that was issued has not run the gauntlet of the National Environmental Policy Act. At the same time, so called partners in the program have 

issued statements alluding to potential lawsuits. Once again process predicament 

will raise its ugly head while our forest health continues to deteriorate. 

It is long past due that we take immediate action to correct federal land management to create a balanced model that recognizes communities, economies, industry, 

recreation, habitat and wildlife. It is possible and can be done but we have to be 

sure that it is driven by local residents that live and work with the consequences 

of decisions made from DC. The bottom line is our forest desperately needs on the 

ground management and for that we need man to return to our forest with 

chainsaws and cows. It is imperative that we actively manage the renewable resources that we have been provided before we allow Mother Nature to do it for us. 

I want to thank you for taking the time to come to Arizona today and allowing 

me to testify before the committee. I would be happy to entertain any questions. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. And our next witness is Mr. Tom Jones, who 

is the chief executive officer for the Grand Canyon State Electric 

Cooperative Association from Tempe, Arizona, to testify. 
37 

STATEMENT OF TOM JONES, GRAND CANYON STATE 

ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION, TEMPE, ARIZONA 

Mr. JONES. Chairman McClintock, Representative Gosar, Mr. 

Schweikert, thank you for holding this hearing and thank you for 

allowing me an opportunity to testify. My name is Tom Jones. I am 

CEO of Grand Canyon State Electrical Cooperative Association, a 

regional service organization representing the interests of cooperative electric utilities and their consumers. 

In Arizona 10 electric cooperatives serve more than 220,000 consumers in 10 of Arizona’s 15 counties and employing nearly 900 

people. Electric cooperatives in Arizona average just 12 customers 

per mile of electrical distribution line, by far the lowest density in 

the industry. Electric cooperatives were some of the first purchasers of Federal hydropower, and today more than 600 electric 

cooperatives in 34 states are PMA customers. In Arizona six distribution customers, a generation cooperative, and a transmission 

cooperative serving more than 220 homes, farms, ranches, and 

businesses are PMA customers in the desert southwestern region 

of the Western Area Power Administration. 

Secretary Chu’s memo directs the administrators of PMAs to 

begin a process to fundamentally change the way they do business, 

which will increase electricity rates for millions of rural Americans 

and may not provide meaningful benefits. 

The long-standing partnership between the PMAs and their customers in providing access to power produced at Federal dams is 

guided by a statutory requirement that electricity is sold at the 

lowest possible cost to consumers. 

The Energy Department acknowledges that changes proposed in 

its memo will likely be costly. Since incomes of electric cooperative 

customers in Arizona lag 21 percent below the national average 

and 17 percent behind the state average, electric cooperatives work 

daily to keep rates affordable for their consumer-members at all 

times. 

In the memo, Secretary Chu states PMAs will become involved 

in a wide range of businesses, including test bids for cyber security, 

advancing electric car deployment, and energy efficiency. These are 

valid policy goals and, in fact, are ones that many electric cooperatives are pursuing. However, asking current consumers and taxpayers to foot the bill for these pursuits is stepping well outside the 

PMAs’ statutory mission. This mission created for the PMAs would 

be bad public policy. 

The Secretary’s memo strikes for some of us as a solution looking 

for a problem, and a potentially costly solution for PMA customers, 

too. The Federal power program pays its own way. Indeed the 

PMAs have consistently operated under the principle of beneficiary 

pays. To hear the Secretary’s proposal described as a modest step 

strikes me as a game change for the PMAs to one where costs don’t 

matter as long as they are covered by OPM, other people’s money. 

It is relevant to note that the PMAs control just 6 percent of all 

transmission in the U.S. And barely 10 percent in the Western 

Electricity Coordinating Council area where we are located. 

The Secretary’s efforts to spur innovation in the transmission 

field using such a small percentage of the grid is misplaced at best. 
38 

In fact, the better agency to do this would be the Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission. 

Arizona electric co-ops support increasing energy efficiency, demand response, and renewable generation. Arizona has one of the 

strongest energy efficiency standards in the nation. However, the 

Secretary’s direction to the PMAs to participate in an energy balanced market presumably as a tool to help with the integration of 

renewable variable energy resources is not necessary at this time. 

An EIM may be a beneficial term but it is just one option among 

many to help efficiently integrate these resources. 

It is interesting to note that the California ISO consumers pay 

a rate that is 26 percent higher for electricity than those of us in 

Arizona. 

We disagree with assertions in the Secretary’s memo and that 

have been made here today by some earlier witnesses that the 

WAPA transmission system is outdated and incapable of integrating renewable energy resources. I would refer you to the attachment in my written testimony that discusses several of the 

mechanisms in use today by owner-operators. 

Congress should exercise its oversight of any proposals that alter 

the statutory mission of the PMAs. By working together, Congress, 

the Administration, and the Federal power customers can address 

the multiple goals of the Federal hydropower resource. 

Let me conclude by thanking Congressman Gosar and the other 

two Congressmen on the stage for signing the letter to Congress, 

to Secretary Chu expressing concerns about his memo. More than 

150 signers in a bipartisan effort, including 18 Members of the 

Natural Resources Committee, and eight Members of the Water 

and Power Subcommittee, signed on to that letter. 

I also want to very briefly mention our concerns about coal combustion residuals. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. I think we will probably have to ask you to 

defer that to—— 

Mr. JONES. Thank you very much. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK.—the question and answer period. Thank you, 

Mr. Jones. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Jones follows:] 

Statement of Tom Jones, Chief Executive Officer, 

Grand Canyon State Electric Cooperative Association, Inc. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for holding this 

hearing and for providing me the opportunity to testify. My testimony will mainly 

focus on the March 16, 2012 memorandum (Memo) from Secretary of Energy Steven 

Chu to the administrators of the four Power Marketing Administrations (PMAs) and 

on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed federal regulations 

governing the disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals (CCRs) under the Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act. 

The Grand Canyon State Electric Cooperative Association (GCSECA) is a regional 

service organization representing the interests of cooperative electric utilities and 

their consumers. Electric cooperatives are not-for-profit, private businesses governed 

by their consumers who are members of their cooperative. There are more than 900 

electric cooperatives which serve more than 42 million consumers in 47 states. In 

Arizona, 10 electric cooperatives serve more than 220,000 consumers in 10 of 

Arizona’s 15 counties and employ nearly 900 people. Electric cooperatives in Arizona 

average just 12 customers per mile of electrical distribution line, by far the lowest 

density in the industry. These low population densities, the challenge of traversing 

vast, remote stretches of often rugged topography, and the increasing uncertainty 
39 

in the electric marketplace pose a daily challenge to our mission: to provide a stable, 

reliable supply of affordable power to our members, your constituents. 

Power Marketing Administrations 

Electric cooperatives were some of the first purchasers of federal hydropower, and 

today more than 600 rural electric cooperatives in 34 states are PMA power customers. In Arizona, six distribution cooperatives, a generation cooperative and a 

transmission cooperative serving more than 220,000 homes, farms, ranches and 

businesses are PMA customers in the Desert Southwest Region of the Western Area 

Power Administration (WAPA). 

Secretary Chu’s Memo directs the administrators of the PMAs to begin a process 

to fundamentally change the way they do business which will increase electricity 

rates for millions of rural Americans and may not provide meaningful benefits. 

The Memo’s general policy guideline to ‘‘modernize’’ PMA operations will needlessly undermine their historic partnership with not-for-profit electric cooperatives 

and others in providing affordable and reliable electricity that benefits consumers 

and taxpayers. This longstanding partnership in providing access to power produced 

at federal dams is guided by a statutory requirement that electricity is sold at ‘‘the 

lowest possible cost to consumers.’’ 

The Energy Department acknowledges that changes in its Memo will likely be 

costly. Rising electric bills hurt American families and businesses. Since incomes of 

electric co-op customers in Arizona lag 21 percent below the national average and 

17 percent behind the state average, electric cooperatives work to keep rates affordable for their consumer-members at all times. Each time input costs increase for an 

electric co-op, their consumer-members electric bills must also increase to make up 

the difference. If changes are made that increase the costs of PMA-marketed electricity, customers’ cost-based rates will also increase. 

While the Memo suggests that increased costs will be ‘‘phased in’’ to minimize disruption, phasing in expenses does not address the issue of increasing costs to consumers with no associated benefits. The Energy Department sought no input from 

PMA customers before initiating this effort and many important questions remain 

to be answered. 

In addition to providing consumers across the country with reliable, affordable 

electricity, the PMA-customer partnership is also a good deal to taxpayers. The federal power program pays its own way. It provides a mechanism through which dam 

operation costs are covered by federal power customers, including: 

Æ Capital investment costs, including renewals and replacements, with interest; 

Æ Power-related annual operating and dam maintenance costs; 

Æ Transmission and marketing of federal power; 

Æ Financial support of some non-power related authorized project purposes. 

In the Memo, Secretary Chu states PMAs will become involved in a wide range 

of businesses including test beds for cyber security, advancing electric car deployment, and energy efficiency. These are valid policy goals, and in fact they are ones 

that many electric cooperatives are pursuing. However, asking current consumers 

and taxpayers to foot the bill for these pursuits is stepping well outside the PMAs’ 

mission. It would be bad public policy to use the PMAs as technology laboratories, 

forgetting their primary mission of marketing federal power. 

It is relevant to note that the PMAs control just six (6) percent of all transmission. The Secretary’s effort to spur innovation in the transmission field, using 

such a small percentage of the transmission sector, is misplaced at best. The agency 

with direct jurisdiction over the majority of transmission facilities in the United 

States, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, is better equipped to give policy 

leadership in this context. 

The Energy Department proposal also overlooks the widely-recognized leadership 

of electric cooperatives across the country in smart grid technology efforts. Electric 

co-ops are also actively incorporating demand response and reducing load through 

energy efficiency programs. Electric co-ops are both developing renewable energy 

projects and purchasing renewable energy that totals more than 4,000 MW of wind, 

solar, geothermal, biomass and clean renewable hydropower capacity. 

Arizona electric co-ops support increasing energy efficiency, demand response and 

renewable generation. Arizona has one of the strongest energy efficiency standards 

in the nation. 

The Secretary’s direction to the PMA’s to participate in an Energy Imbalance 

Market (EIM), presumably as a tool to help with the integration of renewable/variable energy resources, is not necessary at this time. An EIM may be a beneficial 

tool but it is just one option among many to help efficiently integrate these resources. To impose an EIM on WAPA while a number of parties are still studying 

the costs and benefits is premature. The costs associated with implementing an EIM 
40 

are significant. We are very concerned about the impact of those costs on the rates 

of PMA customers. 

Transmission owners and operators in the west are currently implementing a 

number of tools to effectively incorporate variable generation and increase coordination and cooperation among industry players, including the PMAs. We believe that 

further development of these mechanisms, while continuing to study the complexities and costs associated with an EIM, is a better approach than hastily creating 

an EIM without sufficient analysis of need or assessment of benefits. Such an approach will also aid the PMAs in continuing to provide federal hydropower and 

transmission service at the lowest possible rates. 

Here is a brief description of the mechanisms in use today in the west. A more 

detailed description of these initiatives is included as an attachment. 

Æ Intra-hour transmission scheduling—Currently generation is scheduled hourly. However, variable energy resources do not have level production throughout an entire hour. Intra-hour scheduling beginning with thirty-minute 

schedules has been implemented as a tool to help address this problem. 

Æ Dynamic Scheduling System (DSS)—The output of variable energy resources 

varies throughout the hour. Schedules must be tracked in real time to know 

what has actually been purchased. DSS utilizes advanced communications to 

facilitate intra-hour schedules and dynamic schedules. 

Æ Area Control Error (ACE) Diversity Interchange and Reliability Based Controls (RBC)—Variable generation can increase frequency within an electrical 

system. ACE and RBC allow operators to balance multiple generating units 

over a broader electrical area to maintain reliable system frequency. 

Æ Intra-hour transaction scheduling platform—Allows for buyers and sellers to 

consummate bilateral trades of variable generation from renewable resources 

within the operating hour. 

Æ Implementation of lower cost local energy efficiency and demand response 

programs. 

We believe that further development of these mechanisms, while continuing to 

study the complexities and costs associated with an EIM, is a better approach than 

hastily creating an EIM without sufficient analysis of need or assessment of benefits. Such an approach will also aid the PMAs in continuing to provide federal hydropower and transmission service at the lowest possible rates. 

Any changes to the PMAs’ strategic planning processes should be carefully considered, and new capital expenditures should be specifically discussed with the customers who will pay those expenses. There should be a full and open public process 

with opportunities for PMA customers to provide input before any changes in existing policy and direction are undertaken. Congress should exercise its oversight of 

any proposals that alter the statutory mission of the PMAs. The Energy Department 

should remember three simple principles in its management of the PMAs: affordability; fairness; and upholding the PMAs’ core mission. 

Congress and the Administration could make a significant impact in our nation’s 

energy security by working with PMA customers to improve federal hydropower resources. These efforts should include: 

Æ Using existing authorities to prudently integrate newly developed resources 

into federal transmission systems, while improving reliability; 

Æ Improving access to federal lands to speed construction of transmission and 

distribution lines; 

Æ Recognizing the importance of clean, renewable, affordable hydropower as an 

important part of our nation’s energy policy; 

Æ Making a greater federal commitment to our hydropower resources. The 

President’s budget request and congressional appropriations must prioritize 

the safety and efficiency of federal dams and power-related resources as a priority. 

The federal power program pays its own way. Unlike most other federal programs, appropriations for the federal power program are repaid to the U.S. Treasury 

by federal power customers. Some years ago, Congress recognized this fact and decided to change the scoring for the PMAs purchased power and wheeling and direct 

program expenses. Indeed, the Congressional Budget Committees, the Congressional 

Budget Office, and the Office of Management and Budget all agreed to change the 

scoring for the PMAs because they recover their expenses in the year in which they 

are incurred. 

From a budget scoring perspective, the PMAs are considered neutral and not a 

draw on the Treasury which means the Secretary’s proposals in the Memo would 

hide the true expense of these new initiatives by rolling them into the PMAs budget. 

If the Secretary was to propose these initiatives as stand-alone measures, they 
41 

would have scoring impacts which would have to be paid for through spending reductions in other programs. 

Historically, deficit reduction measures have curtailed appropriations for the federal power program, despite the fact that all of the costs of the federal power program are repaid. These curtailments threaten the reliability and efficiency of federal 

hydropower assets. However, the federal power customers, in partnership with the 

PMAs and generating agencies, have contributed funds to reduce this threat. Continued federal appropriations must remain the primary support for sustaining the 

federal power program, but should not preclude alternative funding methods to complement these appropriations. 

By working together, Congress, the Administration, and the federal power customers can address the multiple goals of the federal hydropower resource and the 

PMAs, and maximize the benefit of the system for all. 

Let me conclude this portion of my testimony regarding the PMAs by joining Mr. 

Sullivan in thanking the members of the Committee for their support regarding this 

issue, especially Congressmen Gosar and Matheson for their leadership in the 

House on the forthcoming Congressional letter to Secretary Chu. This has truly 

been a bi-partisan effort. 

Coal Combustion Residuals 

Another issue which threatens to profoundly impact electric bills of our memberowners is the regulation of Coal Combustion Residuals (CCRs). CCRs are materials 

produced when coal is burned to generate electricity. These materials are used beneficially in a variety of applications including sustainable construction practices. For 

example, CCRs are used to enhance the strength and durability of concrete. The volume of CCRs being recycled and put to beneficial use amounts to about 43 percent 

of all CCRs produced nationally. 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has proposed federal regulations governing the disposal of CCRs under the Resource Conservation and Recovery 

Act (RCRA). Whether to regulate CCRs as hazardous has been researched for nearly 

three decades and the overwhelming conclusion is that CCRs do not warrant hazardous regulatory treatment. EPA itself, in two prior reports to Congress and two 

related regulatory determinations, confirmed that regulating CCRs under RCRA 

Subtitle C is not necessary to protect public health and the environment. 

Adding to the regulatory uncertainty is a lawsuit filed against EPA on April 5, 

2012 by a coalition of environmental groups advocating for hazardous regulation of 

CCRs. The lawsuit is designed to force a hard legal deadline for release of the rule 

which could limit EPA’s ability to fully and carefully select the proper regulatory 

path forward for CCRs. 

In order to resolve the regulatory uncertainty associated with this issue, electric 

co-ops actively support the Coal Residuals Reuse and Management Act (H.R. 2273/ 

S. 1751). The legislation would establish a federal regulatory program to ensure the 

safe management of CCRs as a non-hazardous material. H.R. 2273 was passed by 

the U.S. House of Representatives on October 14, 2011 on a strong bipartisan vote. 

S. 1751, was introduced with bipartisan backing in the U.S. Senate on October 20, 

2011 but has since stalled in the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee. 

Prospects for this legislation improved when the House recently voted to include 

its CCR bill (H.R. 2273) as an amendment to the Surface Transportation bill. 

H.R. 2273 would have the states administer a performance-based Subtitle D regulatory program for CCR patterned after the criteria for municipal solid waste landfills. In circumstances where a state does not implement a CCR permit program, 

or where EPA finds a particular state program to be deficient under a defined set 

of criteria, EPA would administer and enforce the non-hazardous waste permit program using the same defined set of criteria. The bill does not authorize EPA to establish new federal regulations for CCR. 

Arizona’s electric co-ops agree that regulating CCRs under the RCRA hazardous 

waste rules is not warranted and we oppose the hazardous regulatory option set 

forth in EPA’s proposed rule. In addition to reducing the rate of beneficial use, hazardous regulatory treatment of CCRs will create significant compliance costs at coalbased generation facilities. These costs could be sufficiently high to render some 

units uneconomic with plant closure the only viable option. 

Arizona Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. (AEPCO) is the owner/operator of Apache 

Generating Station. Approximately 90 percent of the 180,000 tons of CCRs produced 

annually at Apache Station are sold for beneficial use. The unsold portion is stored 

at the plant site in a lined facility that became operational in 1995 with a projected 

life expectancy of 20 years. Due to the high demand for beneficial reuse of CCRs, 

AEPCO has been able to extend the life expectancy of the waste disposal facility. 
42 

The waste disposal facility was designed and constructed in accordance with strict 

regulatory standards under the direction of a registered professional civil engineering firm. Safety inspections and monitoring of the waste disposal facilities are performed by AEPCO internally under the supervision of a registered professional engineer on a weekly, monthly and quarterly basis. 

If EPA were to classify CCRs as hazardous waste, AEPCO would be forced to close 

its existing waste disposal facility at a cost of approximately $14.5 million. Then, 

at an estimated initial capital cost of $20 million (these costs are without complete 

detailed engineering), AEPCO would have to shift from wet management of CCRs 

to dry management. 

Under Subtitle C, AEPCO would be forced to ship its CCRs to an approved offsite landfill for final disposal. Because of AEPCO’s remote location in southeast 

Arizona, the costs of trucking and disposal of such material would be a significant 

increase of approximately $18.1 million in AEPCO’s annual operational cost. This 

figure does not include the cost that will result from the shortage of off-site disposal 

facilities that is likely to occur from a dramatic increase in need by AEPCO and 

many other electric generators. 

The CCRs disposal facility also provides the benefit of wastewater compliance for 

the facility. In order to replace this benefit, which will no longer exist if the waste 

disposal facility was to be closed under Subtitle C, AEPCO would need to construct 

a new evaporation surface area to support plant operations. Preliminary estimates 

indicate the new evaporation surface area will need to be approximately 200 acres 

for a total estimated capital cost of $20 million. 

All of these costs would flow to customers who would see dramatic increases in 

their electric bills. 

I want to conclude by thanking the Chairman and Committee Members for holding this hearing and for the opportunity to address the significant impacts these 

proposals could have on the electric cooperative members in Arizona. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. On a personal note, I want to thank you for 

recognizing the damage that these policies have already done to 

consumers in California and to thank all of you Arizonans for welcoming the steady stream of refugees from that economy. 

And with that, our final witness is Mr. John Sullivan, a familiar 

personage to the Subcommittee—we are pleased to welcome him 

back; he is the associate general manager and chief resources executive for the Salt River Project of Phoenix, Arizona—to testify. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN SULLIVAN, ASSOCIATE GENERAL 

MANAGER AND CHIEF RESOURCES EXECUTIVE, SALT RIVER 

PROJECT, PHOENIX, ARIZONA 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Chairman McClintock, members of the Subcommittee, Congressman Schweikert, thank you for the opportunity to testify at today’s hearing. I would also like to thank Representative Gosar for his continued interest and involvement on 

many issues of importance to water and power users in the State 

of Arizona. 

My written testimony includes our views on a number of issues 

being discussed at the hearing today. However, I will focus the majority of my comments this morning on the activities and issues associated with the Navajo Generating Station, or NGS. 

I appreciate the comments provided this morning by Governor 

Mendoza and Representative Reeve on NGS. 

The Committee heard last May from Dick Silverman, former general manager of SRP, regarding the history of NGS and the importance generally to the southwest. As you have heard, the issues facing NGS are complex. In order to keep NGS operating we must 

complete the lease extension rights-of-way renewals, negotiation of 

key agreements, and compliance with numerous Federal laws. 
43 

To address these challenges SRP has been working with Native 

American Tribes, CAWCD, other effective stakeholders to develop 

a resolution that will ensure the continued operation of this critical 

generating asset. We appreciate our relationship with these stakeholders and their continued engagement. 

A major outstanding factor is how EPA will move forward with 

its determination on what constitutes Best Available Retrofit Technology, or BART, for NGS. We remain hopeful that EPA will determine that BART for NGS is the emission controls the participants 

voluntarily installed at the plant over the past three years, but the 

timing of a decision is also important and we need EPA to make 

its preliminary determination this summer. 

Clearly the closure of NGS would have far-reaching adverse economic impacts to the State of Arizona as a whole and, more particularly, to Arizona’s Indian Tribes. In fact, Arizona State University’s Seidman Institute recently conducted a study that found NGS 

and the mine that serves it will contribute over $20 billion to 

Arizona’s economy between 2011 and 2044 and contribute over 

3,000 jobs each year throughout the state. 

I would like to reiterate the importance of a prompt decision by 

EPA to allow NGS participants to make appropriate plans moving 

forward. 

We are pleased the Committee also is looking at forest health. 

To SRP, unhealthy forests present a threat to our watershed and 

numerous electric and communications assets that cross these 

lands. The recent announcement of a landscape forest thinning contract in Arizona is a positive step. We hope that this is a first step 

in ongoing forest management. We remain committed to working 

with all the stakeholders and Federal agencies to ensure progress 

continues. 

SRP is also affected by several recent actions and ongoing processes impacting power generation at the Glen Canyon Dam. As detailed in my written testimony, major changes to Glen Canyon operations have complex and far reaching impacts. And the cost is 

largely borne by power customers. 

SRP believes that a balanced approach needs to be taken when 

looking at these issues and remains committed to working with the 

Federal agencies and with Congress. 

Last, I want to briefly address the policy changes that Secretary 

Chu of the Department of Energy is proposing for Power Marketing 

Administrations, beginning with WAPA. Like the cooperative association represented by Mr. Jones, SRP would be directly impacted 

by the policy changes that Secretary Chu is pursuing, and I agree 

with his comments. 

I would just add that a primary concern to SRP is the proposal 

to create an energy imbalance market, or EIM, in the west. We are 

concerned that this would have a high cost and limited benefits 

while the industry is developing implementing a number of lower 

cost initiatives to help with the integration of variable generation. 

We think a better approach is to continue the implementation and 

improvement of these tools while continuing to study the potential 

of an EIM. 
44 

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I want to 

thank you for this opportunity to come before you again and would 

be happy to answer any questions at the appropriate time. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Great. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Sullivan follows:] 

Statement of John F. Sullivan, Associate General Manager & Chief 

Resources Executive, Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and 

Power District 

Chairman McClintock and Members of the Subcommittee on Water and Power, 

thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony today. I also would like to thank 

Representative Gosar for his interest and involvement with the Committee on many 

issues important to water and power users in Arizona. 

My name is John F. Sullivan. I am the Associate General Manager and Chief Resources Executive of the Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power 

District (Salt River Project), a political subdivision of the State of Arizona that provides retail electric service to more than 950,000 residential, commercial, industrial, 

agricultural and mining customers in Arizona. Salt River Project operates or participates in a broad portfolio of generating resources, including nuclear, coal, natural 

gas, hydroelectric and renewable facilities. Salt River Project also operates a water 

delivery system providing the primary water supply for an area of approximately 

250,000 acres that includes major portions of the Arizona cities of Phoenix, Glendale, Mesa, Tempe, Chandler, Gilbert, Peoria, Scottsdale, and Tolleson. Salt River 

Project appreciates the Committee’s steadfast interest in issues important to 

Arizona and the Southwest, including the issues being addressed today. 

My comments today will address at least briefly a number of the issues identified 

by the Committee for today’s field hearing because SRP is impacted by many of 

them. Of most immediate concern to SRP due to significant timing constraints, however, is the continued operation of the Navajo Generating Station (NGS), so I will 

begin by addressing that subject. 

Navajo Generating Station 

Salt River Project is the operating agent and one of six participants in NGS, a 

2,250 MW generating station located on the Navajo Nation just outside of Page, 

Arizona. As the Committee is aware, Salt River Project and the other participants 

are addressing and responding to numerous issues and challenges relating to the 

continued operation of NGS. Last summer, Mr. Richard Silverman, then General 

Manager of Salt River Project, testified before this Committee. Mr. Silverman’s testimony is attached for the Committee’s reference. Although I will not repeat his testimony to this Committee today, I want to reiterate several key points that remain 

of significant to SRP, and to summarize new information that we recently developed 

regarding the economic benefit of NGS. 

NGS provides critical baseload energy to meet each of its utility owners’ customer 

needs year round, and plays a key role in Central Arizona Water Conservation District’s (CAWCD) delivery of water to Native American communities, farmers, and 

cities in Arizona. NGS cannot be simply or easily replaced. Yet, the participants currently are faced with a set of complex issues that threaten the long-term viability 

of the plant. Those issues include the need for lease extension and rights-of-way renewals, and the negotiation of key agreements, including for coal. To address these 

challenges, Salt River Project has been working closely with Native American 

Tribes, water and power users, and other affected stakeholders to develop a resolution that will ensure the continued operation of this critical generating asset. We 

greatly appreciate our relationship with these stakeholders and their continued engagement in issues affecting NGS. 

Unfortunately, while Salt River Project has been working diligently to secure the 

necessary agreements to keep NGS in operation, the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) has been working to develop a regulation that could put the future 

of NGS in jeopardy. This regulation, called the Best Available Retrofit Technology 

(BART) rule, could require costly additional emission control technologies for the 

purpose of improving visibility in nearby national parks. 

Emissions from NGS currently are controlled by hot-side electrostatic 

precipitators (ESPs), wet limestone scrubbers, and Low-NOx Burners and Separated 

Overfire Air (LNB/SOFA). The ESPs and scrubbers reduce particulate matter by 

99% and the scrubbers reduce sulfur dioxide emissions by more than 95%. LNB/ 

SOFA, which were voluntarily installed by the NGS owners at a cost of $45 million, 

have reduced nitrogen oxide emissions by approximately 40%. 
45 

The total cost of the additional controls under consideration by EPA as part of 

the BART rule is estimated to be between $550 million and $1.1 billion. However, 

SRP’s modeling results suggest that the visibility improvement that would be 

achieved from installing such controls would be imperceptible to the human eye. As 

a result, SRP believes that LNB/SOFA is BART for NGS. 

In addition to EPA’s BART rule, several other Federal actions also could put the 

future viability of NGS at substantial risk: 

• The initial term of the plant site lease expires in 2019. The extension of the 

lease and related agreements will trigger a review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Endangered Species Act (ESA). NEPA 

could require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). 

The development of an EIS could take several years to complete and the outcome of that process is uncertain. 

• Recently issued regulations and potential future rules that are yet to be developed or finalized also could impact the future economic viability of NGS. 

These include the recently issued Mercury and Air Toxic Standards (MATS), 

as well as potential future regulations on coal ash, ozone, and greenhouse 

gases. 

Although the NGS participants are committed to securing all of the agreements 

and completing the reviews necessary to ensure the continued operation of NGS, it 

would be difficult for the participants to justify an investment of potentially more 

than $1 billion for emission controls given the uncertainties that the plant currently 

faces. As several of the NGS participants articulated to EPA in a March 12, 2012 

letter, if the EPA imposes a requirement to install the most costly additional emission controls as BART before the lease is extended, other agreements are reached, 

and the NEPA and ESA processes are complete, the continuing viability of the plant 

is at substantial risk. A copy of the participants’ letter to EPA is attached. 

Given the significance of this issue, SRP and the other NGS participants have 

more recently been engaged in several studies to quantify the overall economic benefit of NGS to the state of Arizona, and to evaluate the potential economic impacts 

of the EPA’s pending BART rule. 

The economic contribution of NGS is substantial. NGS has over 500 employees, 

more than 80% of whom are Navajo. NGS and the Kayenta Mine, which supplies 

the plant with coal, employ almost 1,000 people, with a combined annual operating 

budget of approximately $500 million. The plant and the mine provide significant 

economic benefit to the Navajo Nation and the Hopi Tribe through employment, 

scholarships, lease payments, and coal royalties. 

NGS and the mine also provide far reaching economic benefits to the state of 

Arizona as a whole. Arizona State University’s Seidman Institute recently conducted 

a study that found that NGS and the mine will contribute over $20 billion to 

Arizona’s economy between 2011 and 2044, and contribute over 3,000 jobs each year 

throughout the state. 

In addition to providing electricity for millions of customers in the Southwest, 

NGS also provides 95% of the power used by CAWCD to pump water from the Colorado River to central Arizona. It provides funds for the repayment of the cost of constructing the Central Arizona Project (CAP), and for water rights settlements with 

multiple central Arizona Indian Tribes. 

A study conducted by Harvey Economics, a consulting firm specializing in water 

resource economics, estimated that the shutdown of NGS could result in a loss of 

over $3.5 billion between 2012 and 2044 to the economies of the Central Arizona 

Tribes that depend on the affordable water received through the CAP. 

Clearly, the closure of NGS would have far-reaching adverse economic impacts to 

the State of Arizona as a whole, and more particularly to Arizona’s Indian Tribes. 

SRP continues to strongly believe that LNB/SOFA is BART for NGS and that a 

prompt decision by EPA is critical for the NGS participants to make appropriate 

plans moving forward. 

Forest Health 

We are pleased that the Committee also is looking at forest health, which is important in ensuring we are able to deliver a dependable and reliable water and 

power supply. Salt River Project has a long-standing commitment to forest health 

and restoration, and I would like to compliment the Forest Service for its commitment to the Four Forest Restoration Initiative (4FRI or Initiative), an endeavor that 

is sorely needed to prevent further catastrophic destruction of Arizona’s forests, in 

particular those forests that are part of Salt River Project’s 13,000 square mile watershed. 4FRI provides the framework for implementing forest management actions 

that will result in a ‘‘natural’’ ecological regime less likely to be devastated by 
46 

wildfires to ensure the forests continue to provide recreational, economical, 

hydrological and biological value into the future. 

An important step in moving the Initiative forward was the Forest Service’s recent award of a contract to begin mechanized treatments on the thinning of 300,000 

acres of forest land in the Coconino and Kaibab National Forests. That action, which 

also supports job creation in the area, is welcomed by SRP and we hope is a step 

towards continued sustainable forest management practices. 

Yet, despite the proactive actions by U.S Congress, fire suppression and other 

management practices on the National Forest lands over the past one hundred 

years or so ultimately have resulted in unnaturally dense forest conditions. Such 

dense conditions result in unhealthy trees that are increasingly vulnerable to insect 

attack and diseases, which further increases the threat of catastrophic wildfires. 

Poor forest health and catastrophic wildfires impact the hydrologic characteristics 

of the watershed. Specifically, runoff and water yield, peak flows and low flows, erosion and sedimentation, and water temperature and chemistry are adversely impacted by unnatural forest conditions and severe wildfires. 

Northern Arizona University’s Ecological Research Institute has partnered with 

Salt River Project to conduct field work, data collection and modeling to better understand the effects of the restoration program by comparing hydrologic and natural 

resource responses under alternative forest treatments. The effort will include in the 

field measurements and management analysis to provide empirical evidence and 

modeling data to compare control watersheds to those treated. 

Healthy forests correspond to healthy ecosystems and water resources, and are 

components of the public good that directly compliment Salt River Project’s watershed stewardship responsibility. In addition to improving watershed health, forest 

restoration actions also protect Salt River Project investments in facilities and infrastructure, including C.C. Cragin reservoir, power lines and rights of way, and communication sites. We reiterate our commitment to working with this Committee, 

federal agencies and other stakeholders to work toward long-term forest health 

through active management. 

Western Area Power Administration (Western) Issues 

Finally, I would like to briefly address two policies impacting Western operations 

and power customers. Salt River Project and numerous consumer-owned utilities in 

Arizona are Western customers and receive an allocation of power generated at Hoover Dam, the Colorado River Storage Project, and the Parker-Davis Project. These 

resources produce important clean and renewable power that benefits millions of 

customers throughout the west. 

Secretary Chu Memo to PMAs 

On March 16, 2012, Department of Energy Secretary Chu sent a memo outlining 

a number of new policy goals for the Power Marketing Agencies (PMAs), including 

Western. Let me begin by thanking the members of the Committee for their support 

regarding this issue, especially Congressmen Gosar and Matheson for their leadership in the House on the forthcoming Congressional letter to Secretary Chu. This 

has truly been a bi-partisan effort. 

Like the municipal and cooperative associations represented by Mr. Jones, Salt 

River Project would be directly impacted by the policy changes Secretary Chu is 

pursuing. 

Our primary concerns relate to the proposal that Western participate in the creation of an automated Energy Imbalance Market (EIM) proposed for the Western 

Interconnection. An EIM is a sub-hourly, real-time, centrally-dispatched energy 

market intended to improve the integration of variable generation from renewable 

resources such as wind and solar. Salt River Project fully supports the development 

of renewable resources. We have a robust portfolio of renewable resources that includes solar, wind, biomass, geothermal and energy efficiency programs. Like Secretary Chu we want to see these resources reliably and efficiently integrated in to 

the grid. In fact, as a public power entity, we are obligated to ensure that our limited resources are spent wisely to ensure the efficient integration of these resources. 

It is this obligation that drives our concern about the desire to include Western as 

a participant in an EIM when the value of this approach is still in question. The 

economic studies to date do not make the case for the implementation of EIM across 

the west right now. 

The industry is developing and implementing a number of other lower cost initiatives to help with the integration of variable generation—tools such as inter hour 

scheduling, dynamic scheduling service, area control error diversity exchange and 

implementation of low cost energy efficiency and demand-side management programs. We think a better approach is also studying the implementation and im-
47 

provement of these tools while continuing to study the potential of an EIM. We are 

concerned that the approach advocated in the Secretary’s memo is a rush to judgment that will increase costs for consumers without the commensurate benefits. 

Glen Canyon Dam Operations 

Salt River Project also is affected by several recent actions and ongoing processes 

impacting power generation at Glen Canyon Dam. Last week, the Department of the 

Interior (DOI) announced that it may begin high-flow releases from the Dam beginning next fall and continuing periodically through 2020. Salt River Project and other 

beneficiaries of power from Glen Canyon Dam remain committed to improving habitat of native species on the Colorado River. 

In fact, power customers have agreements in place to fund a significant portion 

of the $626 million (in 2003 dollars) Lower Colorado Multi-Species Conservation 

Program. 

However, we are concerned that if the releases require moving water so that it 

is unavailable during a month when energy demand is high, and depending on the 

volume and frequency, it could cost power customers as much as $120 million over 

10 years. As a not-for-profit utility, any increase in costs is passed through directly 

to our customers. In addition, the impacts of releases are highly complex and concerns have been raised about the revised operations benefiting non-native species, 

which could in turn negatively affect endangered native species. 

Furthermore, Salt River Project is a cooperating agency in DOI’s Long-Term Experimental Management Plan Environmental Impact Statement process. Launched 

in February of this year, this process will dictate the long-term operation of Glen 

Canyon Dam. Recognizing that power customers bear the economic consequences associated with major operational changes at Glen Canyon, Salt River Project believes 

that a balance evaluation of alternatives should be conducted. To date, however, 

Salt River Project and other cooperating agencies have not been included in meaningful participation, and we urge the Committee to continue oversight on this issue. 

Summary 

In summary I would like to again thank Chairman McClintock, Representative 

Gosar and the Committee for your continuing support and interest on all of these 

issues. Because others also have addressed the other issues we discussed, I will 

close by emphasizing that complex and critical issues must be addressed, and resolved, in a timely manner to ensure that NGS continues to serve as an important 

economic driver for multiple stakeholders: 

• For the state of Arizona, NGS and the mine that supplies it with coal are expected to provide more than $20 billion in economic benefit for the state between 2011 and 2044 and to contribute more than 3,000 jobs each year 

throughout the state; 

• For the Navajo Nation and the Hopi Tribe, NGS and the mine generate revenues that support government operations and further economic development; 

and 

• For the Central Arizona Tribes, NGS provides assurance of affordable water 

received through the CAP, the loss of which could result in a loss to their 

economies of over $3.5 billion between 2012 and 2044. 

Salt River Project is working diligently with the NGS participants, the Navajo 

Tribe and a host of others to seek solutions to the complex issues faced by NGS, 

and we have reached consensus with stakeholders on many issues. Salt River 

Project is committed to continuing those efforts and to working with the multiple 

federal agencies that will play a role in the future of NGS. 

Chairmen McClintock and Members of the Subcommittee, Salt River Project appreciates your support and interest. Thank you again for the opportunity to testify 

before you today on these important issues. I would be happy to answer any questions. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Actually this is the appropriate time. 

I will start those questions in five-minute intervals. And I would 

like to begin with Mr. Jones and Mr. Sullivan. 

How many Arizona consumers do you serve? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. The Salt River Project serves 950,000 plus a few 

electric customers here in the metropolitan—— 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Arizonans and of course former Californians 

who are now Arizonans. 
48 

Mr. Jones. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Arizonans and former Californians. I am happy 

and proud to say I am a native myself. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Mr. Jones. 

Mr. JONES. Mr. Chairman, the electric cooperatives serve 220,000 

customers. That’s homes, farms, ranches, businesses. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Well, what would be the impact on all of these 

customers if all the provisions of the Chu Memo are implemented? 

Mr. JONES. Mr. Chairman, for us that’s a bit uncertain in that 

the Chu Memo itself is rather broad in terms of the objectives and 

goals that it lays out in the PMAs going forward. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. We see exactly where they are going. Is this 

going to be good news or bad news for your consumers? 

Mr. JONES. It is hard to imagine that the results of the Chu 

memo would do anything but raise the cost of power to our consumer members, sir. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Mr. Sullivan, the same. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. I would agree. In the short term our estimates are 

that to implement just the early stages of this EIM program could 

cost as much as $60 million additional to the power customers in 

the inland southwest. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Now, Governor Mendoza, you said you were 

the biggest consumer of electricity from the Navajo Generating Station. We have been told that it would be a good thing to shut the 

station down. What is the impact to your folks? 

Governor MENDOZA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Again, as I mentioned, without a mitigation plan, our community 

will suffer. Again, the health and future of our tribal people depends on our community being able to continue to cultivate our 

lands. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Now, by the way, the issue on the selective 

catalytic reduction technology, is that going—first of all, that’s not 

a public health issue, as I understand it. That’s strictly what the 

Left is calling a viewshed issue, correct? 

Governor MENDOZA. Correct. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. On haze. So this is not a public health issue. 

It is a viewshed issue. 

And what is the practical difference between the very expensive 

selective catalytic reduction technology advocated by a witness that 

is selected by the Democrats today and the actions that have already been taken on viewshed issues? 

Governor MENDOZA. Again, you know, with regard to that, again, 

you know, the community—— 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Point blank, is it a difference that would be 

visible to the human eye? 

Governor MENDOZA. No. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. OK. So this is not a public health issue. It is 

not even a viewshed issue that a human eye can discern. So I, for 

one, have to conclude this is part of an ideological battle being 

waged by the radical Left that has no logic or reason to it. This is 

more religion than it is anything else. 

Governor MENDOZA. Correct. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Back to Mr. Jones and Mr. Sullivan, actually 

Mr. Sullivan I think in this case. What would be the cost to con-
49 

sumers of additional Glen Canyon water releases to simulate 

spring floods? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. The estimate that I have seen would be $120 million over a 10-year period—— 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. To your consumers. 

Mr. SULLIVAN.—at a minimum to the consumers of public power 

that benefit from Glen Canyon Dam. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Wasn’t it the spring flood releases that the 

dams were built to conserve for dry periods? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. That’s correct. The dams were built to preserve 

water so that the compact between the upper basin states and the 

lower basin states of the Colorado River—— 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. OK. 

Mr. SULLIVAN.—could be met. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. So we have all of these spring floods that inundate the area, and all of that water then is not available in dry 

periods. We build dams to assure that we can save that water, conserve that for the dry periods. And now this Administration is releasing all of that water so that we don’t have it to store in dry 

periods. Is that essentially what is going on here? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. I think the Chairman has the story straight. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. You know, sometimes I wonder if we are not 

dealing with the lunatic fringe of our society and at the moment 

they are in charge of our public policy. 

Let me ask you. To your knowledge, Mr. Jones, probably more 

up your alley, have we yet invented a more expensive way to 

produce electricity than solar power? 

Mr. JONES. Mr. Chairman, I believe that’s an accurate statement, 

yes. It is quite expensive. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. We are told we can replace coal electricity, 

which is one of the cheapest ways of generating electricity, with 

solar, which is the most expensive, and somehow consumers will be 

better off. Can you supply me with a wiring diagram of that logic? 

I don’t get it. 

Mr. JONES. We have not been able to solve that one either. We 

are under a requirement in Arizona, the electric cooperatives along 

with the investor owned utilities, to have a certain percentage of 

our portfolio resources come from renewable energy. And we are 

finding that to be a challenge to work that more expensive resource 

into our rate bases. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. By the way, we have a very ambitious one in 

California, and the result is we have among the highest electricity 

prices in the continental United States and the lowest per capita 

consumption of electricity not only among all of the states, our per 

capita electricity consumption is now lower than Guam. 

Mr. JONES. Correct, Mr. Chairman. But on the bright side, you 

do have a whole host of other states trying to find ways to sell you 

high cost power. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Now I am in debt for 53 seconds. 

Dr. GOSAR. You get a reprieve for a second. 

You know, before I start my questioning, I would like to submit 

for the record testimony from Arizona Representative Brenda Barton. Representative Barton is one of my constituents who lives in 

the area. And she serves on the House Agriculture Water, House 
50 

Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and is a strong advocate on behalf of rural Arizona. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Without objection. 

Dr. GOSAR. I would also like to reiterate Chairman McClintock’s 

offer to folks to submit their testimony for the congressional record. 

We would have loved 30 witnesses, but there is just not time and 

energy for. So please reach out to my office. We will make sure that 

your testimony is included into the record. 

Mr. Sullivan, so just let’s reiterate this. Is there any replacements for the Navajo Generating Station, renewable or traditional? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. That’s a difficult question. There are alternatives. 

None are really base-load alternatives. What—— 

Dr. GOSAR. What do you mean by base-load, sir? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. A resource that’s available 24 hours a day, 365 

days out of the year. 

Dr. GOSAR. So if we were to take a solar project or an alternative 

energy project like wind and solar, are those considered base loads? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Those are renewable resources. Like solar and 

wind are not base-load. They are intermittent in nature. Even the 

folks from St. Johns, Arizona will say every once in awhile the 

wind stops. And we have 128 megawatts of wind power in the St. 

Johns, Winslow area. 

We also are proud to have a number of solar projects. They run 

very, very well in Arizona, but only from about 10:00 in the morning until 3:00 in the afternoon. So we like our air conditioning in 

Arizona. So 10:00 at night, we would still like to have energy 

sources, base-load resources to take care of that. 

Dr. GOSAR. So if you were to take a solar alternative type of 

mechanism to replace Navajo Generating Station, how many thousands of acres would it take to cover? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. I do not know exactly. I have seen the number. 

It is thousands of acres. 

Dr. GOSAR. That’s what I thought. 

Governor Mendoza, the solar project that you mentioned, it 

sounds like a great project. And regardless of the NGS issue, we 

are certainly happy to help you. We are very aware of all the Federal barriers to all that development. 

The NGS is really the only option in the short term to pump the 

CAP water. If the EPA mandates the SCRs as the best retrofit 

technology, the effects would be devastating to your tribe and other 

Arizona tribes, is that true? 

Governor MENDOZA. Yes. 

Dr. GOSAR. So this is a huge issue with the tribal obligation of 

Congress, right? 

Governor MENDOZA. Correct. 

Dr. GOSAR. And the jurisdiction is Congress and Congress only? 

Governor MENDOZA. Yes. 

Dr. GOSAR. Thank you. 

Representative Reeve, according to the ADEQ and your Committee’s work, SCR would have negligible environmental effects and 

unproven visibility improvements. DOE’s NREL study backs that 

as well, does it not? 

Ms. REEVE. I believe so, yes. 
51 

And I have to answer, if I may, Chairman McClintock’s question 

earlier. Director Eric Massey of the ADEQ from the air division has 

said that you measure the units, visibility is measured in units 

called deciviews. And the lowest level of change perceptible to the 

human eye is perceived between .5 and 1 deciview. He notes that 

some studies with the SCR technology the EPA favors have shown 

less than .05 deciview change, meaning the human eye doesn’t register the difference. So I think that answers both your questions. 

Dr. GOSAR. Let’s take it a step further. So you know where the 

plant is compared relative to the canyon; would it have really impacted the canyon, especially when you look at air currents? 

Ms. REEVE. No. 

Dr. GOSAR. And doesn’t the DOE’s evaluation actually show that? 

Ms. REEVE. I believe so. I would have to look at that. 

Dr. GOSAR. Most Arizonans remember air moving from southwest 

to northeast. That would be a Colorado problem. And the remainder or the majority of the time it is from northwest to southeast, 

which would be a New Mexico problem. 

So maybe really our problem is from you, from California. Sorry 

about that. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Don’t let that happen again. 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Will the gentleman yield for a second? 

Dr. GOSAR. I would be happy to yield. 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. I think most of our problems are from California. 

Dr. GOSAR. So—— 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Most of your water, too. 

Dr. GOSAR. So if the EPA requires the SCRs, they would make 

it a mandate that would have negligible environmental and visibility effects, that would wreak havoc on our state’s economy, 

threaten the water security of fifth and 32nd largest cities in the 

country, devastate multiple tribal agricultural and mining economies, undermined Federal Government’s ability to meet its obligations under current water settlements and public view in future 

settlements, I am not so sure what the EPA defines as best, but 

clearly SCRs are not the best retrofit technology. The best, the current technology at the Navajo Generating Station is the best retrofit technology. 

What we have to do is we have to base it on science. I am a 

science guy. And we can’t be basing it on theoretical science. And 

that’s part of the problem we see here over and over, is the Federal 

Government advocating to junk science. 

And with that, I will catch back up on some of my allocated over 

allotment. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Put the rest of us to shame. 

The Chair is now pleased to recognize Mr. Schweikert for five 

minutes, or thereabouts. 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. We shouldn’t let him have any caffeine. He is 

like a machine gun. 

And I said this in our opening statement. I sort of feel like I am 

in the time warp machine because many of the arguments seem to, 

you know, resurge or come back, you know, every few years. 
52 

Governor, and you and I have had this conversation, but I want 

to make sure I completely have my head around it. You are the 

largest user of allocated CAP—— 

Governor MENDOZA. That’s correct. 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT.—today? 

Governor MENDOZA. Yes. 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. If your costs change substantially, A, how does 

that affect your community, but, also, how do you think it affects— 

how would you and your legal team and the community you represent feel that affects also the compacts or the water settlement 

agreements? 

Governor MENDOZA. Well, again, as mentioned, without that 

plant our community will suffer. Again, we are, we are still suffering as a consequences of this illegal taking of our water. But 

using our settlement water to refocus, again, our way of life back 

to our agriculture and traditional foods, our access to affordable 

CAP water that was guaranteed to us in our 2004 law is critical 

to the long-term health of our, of my people. 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Would you, and I will ask from a personal 

level, would you consider that if all of a sudden that water got dramatically more expensive that we are now in violation of that settlement? 

Governor MENDOZA. Yes, yes. 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. And how many years did it take to get to that 

settlement? 

Governor MENDOZA. Oh, wow, many years. Many of my former 

leadership have been involved in this for years. 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Would you both—would you agree it is older 

than you and I are? 

Governor MENDOZA. Yes, yes. 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. And we are getting old. 

Senator, and you put up one of my very favorite maps, years ago 

we were trying to work on the calculation of saying if only 13 percent of the population, or of the acreage can be privately held, how 

much of that actually has water rights, and is it a mountaintop or 

others. We were getting down to around 8 percent of the state’s 

acreage that was truly usable. 

There is a bit of a movement starting to take off in parts of the 

west where the discussion is could we put much of this public lands 

under a single management regime, maybe a state based one. 

From your, because I know this is one of your areas of specialization, would you be ready to take that on at an Arizona level? 

Ms. GRIFFIN. My letter to Santa Claus would be for the state to 

take over for the public lands. 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Because when you consider Forest Service, 

BLM, Bureau of Reclamation, the list just goes on and on. 

Ms. GRIFFIN. I would be happy to tackle that and address that. 

I would be most interested in doing that. 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. OK. And forgive me, but, I am embarrassed, 

but I can’t even read your names without my glasses. Is it Nicole? 

Ms. HORSEHERDER. Yes. 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Pronounce your last name for me. 

Ms. HORSEHERDER. Horseherder. 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. OK. 
53 

Ms. HORSEHERDER. Just the way it is spelled. 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. I couldn’t see that. 

I saw in your testimony you were speaking of asthma. How much 

statistical modeling—and this is one of my personal fixations, because we often will throw out saying we have this experience rate. 

But do you know if it has been truly statistically modeled for both 

a regional national means or is that just sort of what you are finding, you know, on Black Mesa? I mean, how much study has truly 

gone into those numbers? 

Ms. HORSEHERDER. Which particular statistic are you referring 

to? 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. You spent some time throwing out, saying we 

are seeing higher asthma rates. And I am a rather severe sufferer 

of asthma, you know, growing up here in the valley. 

But I bounce off the walls, because at first I was a quantitative 

major, and I find people throw out numbers and they don’t understand the modeling that actually goes into the facts. And I am 

just—you threw out the number, so I was looking for the statistics 

layout. 

Ms. HORSEHERDER. OK. So one bit of information, one bit of statistic is from the Indian Health Services, which covers a pretty 

broad area—— 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. OK. 

Ms. HORSEHERDER.—on the reservation. But the statistics I mentioned in specifically here in my testimony was based on a questionnaire that was done in the region of the NGS. 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. But a questionnaire model is not real facts. 

Ms. HORSEHERDER. It is the best that we have. I am sorry. 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. OK. 

Ms. HORSEHERDER. Yeah, if we could compel some agency to take 

on that study, I would bet that it would be similar. 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. And I know I am out of time but it is one of 

my actual fixations. I find in Washington particularly they make 

public policy on folklore instead of true, truly vetted data. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Thank you, gentlemen. 

I would also point out McClintock’s second law of political physics is also at work in that folly. And that is the more we invest in 

our mistakes the less willing we are to admit them. 

And on that very subject, I just want to hammer home the point 

that Mr. Gosar began with Mr. Sullivan. And that is wind and 

solar, you say, do not add to baseline power. We have to constantly 

have backup supply for that unpredictable moment when the wind 

suddenly drops off or a cloud passes over an array or the sun sets 

on the western horizon as it is wont to do from time to time, is that 

correct? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. That is correct, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. So we not only are dealing in the case of solar 

with the most expensive way we have ever invented to produce 

electricity—after 170 years, by the way, of technological advancement and innovation and God knows how much in taxpayer subsidies—we start with the most expensive possible way of producing 

power, we then on top of that have to have backup supply immediately ready. 
54 

Now, how do you do that with a turbine generator for example? 

How do you keep that ready at a moment’s notice to kick in to 

maintain the integrity of the grid? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. There are several ways that we maintain readiness, as you would put it. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Don’t you have to run the boilers? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. We maintain spinning reserves. So we have units 

that are not fully—— 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. So you are running—— 

Mr. SULLIVAN. So—— 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK.—all this generating capacity? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Right. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. So you are just not getting any generation out, 

is that correct? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Right. So we are burning fuel. We do that also in 

case we lose a generating unit. The other thing we have done is 

invested in a rapid response gas turbine plant in Pinal County—— 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Right. 

Mr. SULLIVAN.—where we can have—— 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. But the more—— 

Mr. SULLIVAN.—quick start capacity. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. The more wind and solar you add to the grid 

the more you have to do this, correct? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. That’s correct. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Now, who is paying for all of this, this second 

ready-to-go backup supply? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. The customers of the utilities that benefit from 

the solar. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. So you are now paying the most expensive way 

to generate electricity on itself. They are then paying for additional 

backup because that process is intermittent and unreliable and you 

have to maintain the integrity of the grid. Then we are told, oh, 

well, we need to modernize our transmission lines. Well, we are not 

actually talking about modernizing transmission lines. We are talking about replacing existing transmission lines with high tension 

direct current lines because that’s the only way to transmit solar 

generated, wind generated electricity over any kind of considerable 

distance because of the low output of these facilities. 

Mr. Jones, is that correct? 

Mr. JONES. Mr. Chairman, the short answer to that would be 

yes. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Mr. Sullivan, do you agree? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. It depends. In our particular case, we have been 

able to integrate the intermittent resources without major additions to our transmission. We have taken a little different approach. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. But when the Chu Memo calls for—— 

Mr. SULLIVAN. The Chu Memo calls for—— 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK.—high tension—— 

Mr. SULLIVAN.—large changes. We don’t believe those are required. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. For you, but they are required obviously for 

remote locations where most of the solar arrays and wind generators are located. 
55 

Now, when Mr. Chu’s memo says that general ratepayers, for example those whose rates have already paid for our existing hydroelectric facilities, are now going to have to cough up the money for 

this, too, what does that do to their electricity bills? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Unless the Federal Department of Energy comes 

up with a way to spread these costs over the general transmission 

users, it would fall on the public power customers, both co-ops and 

public agencies, that currently pay for those transmission facilities. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. OK. So you have the cost for these, these most 

expensive ways of generating electricity, plus all the backup power, 

plus the special high tension direct current lines to transmit this 

electricity. Is any of this broken down in the bills for consumers? 

Can they actually see the costs broken down that they are paying 

for this ideological program? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. It depends on the utility. Some do break it down 

and have a number of escalators. In our particular case, we have 

an escalator much like a fuel escalator. When natural gas prices go 

up and down, we have an escalator for environmental and renewable portfolio activities. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Well—— 

Mr. SULLIVAN. So it is—— 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK.—I will tell you in California my bills certainly 

don’t break that down. I don’t think the bills of most consumers 

break that down. In fact, that’s the way that the advocates get 

away with claiming, oh, this is very cost competitive. It is only because we have hidden the true costs in other people’s electricity 

bills or on their tax bills. 

Mr. Jones, was that the other people’s money that you were referring to? 

Mr. JONES. Somewhat, yes, Mr. Chairman. We do show in 

Arizona on customer bills for electric co-ops the amount of surcharge on the bill that’s authorized by our public utility commission for renewable energy. It is the RES surcharge. So we are trying to give consumers an indication what those costs are. 

But, yes, we are very concerned that the historical ‘‘pay as you 

go, beneficiary pays’’ methodology that has been used with the 

PMAs is at risk under the Chu Memo and that we are going to be 

faced with paying for costs of items that, frankly, we either see no 

benefits for or, even if there are benefits, may not be those that 

would directly affect the consumers but be there for other purposes. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Thank you. 

Mr. Gosar. 

Dr. GOSAR. Well, thank you, Chairman. 

Before I start my questions again, I would also like to take a 

chance to thank the staff, because you can’t have meetings like this 

without the help of the endless work of the staff: Daniel Briggen, 

Kyle Briggen, Rose Estes, Daniel Frank, Adrianne Luff, Ryan 

Omay, I am probably saying your name wrong, Clarissa Wright, 

Jason Fitzpatrick, Ron Geld, and Dan Nichols. So thank you so 

very, very much for helping us out with that. 

You know, I want to make sure that we get in some pretty good 

facts here. The NGS produces enough power to be a large nuclear 

power plant. That’s how much power we are talking about, enough 

power for 2 million homes. What we are looking at in renewable 
56 

type energy is still experimental. There are things that actually 

still work but there are a lot of things that still have to happen. 

We have photovoltaic. And we have also got mass types of solar collectors, what we are seeing here in Abengoa in Gila River. 

Those are the pursuits we ought to have. And I think what we 

have to look at here is all the above energy policy. No one is dispelling solar and wind power and hydropower. In fact, myself and 

Congressman Tipton actually looked at empowering the small conduits, the Cal systems, by using small hydropowered systems that 

actually generate, increase the number of megawatts toward 

locales where you have elevation drops which feeds the water going 

through. These are the conscientious aspects of how we ought to be 

looking at our energy policy. 

And then the last part that I also want to make mention is the 

beneficiaries of utilizing our natural resources in this state is education. We lose that so many and so often, is that the educational 

system actually benefits from the dollars generated. So we ought 

to be using this beneficially and worthwhile. 

Mr. Groseta, I want to touch base with you in here because this 

is also about looking at your natural resources. You know the Wallow Fire. It took us almost $400 million to put that fire out, money we don’t have. And we lost $2.5 billion, with 

a B, of board feet, of habitat and trees. You know, we actually 

brought down a portable mill and we have yet to cut one single tree 

out of salvage. In fact, we have locked a lot of the forest up, have 

we not? 

Mr. GROSETA. That is correct, Congressman Gosar. As I shared, 

we are in an analysis-paralysis litigation gridlock. Two particular 

acts, Endangered Species Act and National Environmental Policy 

Act, they have been manipulated and massaged over the years to 

use these tools to inhibit progress to go out and harvest timber, to 

go out and harvest forage on our national forests. And as long as 

our national forests are continued to be managed in the name of 

protecting the Mexican Spotted Owl and the Goshawk, both of 

those require highly dense old growth trees, we will continue to be 

in this predicament. So—— 

Dr. GOSAR. I want to touch base with you on that. So in the Wallow Fire, what percent of the Spotted Owl habitat did we lose? 

Mr. GROSETA. I am told that half of the habitat for the Mexican 

Spotted Owl burned up and went up in smoke. 

Dr. GOSAR. And isn’t it also true that we lost half that population? 

Mr. GROSETA. That’s correct. 

Dr. GOSAR. Wow. We really won on this one, just really won. Plus 

I wonder how many of the gray wolves we also lost, too. 

Mr. GROSETA. I don’t know the number, but there were several 

species that we lost during that fire. 

And also, in addition to that, I would like to just, for the point 

of the record, I have submitted photos, two pages, to each one of 

you up there. This is pictures of dead fish on the San Francisco 

River. And this happened last summer after the big fire, the Wallow Fire that you alluded to. After we started to have our summer 

rains, the monsoons that we have here in Arizona—that fire was 

so hot that it just, it burned and sterilized the soil. It actually was 
57 

just barren landscape. And all of the ashes, once we received the 

summer rains, we not only had soil erosion problems but look 

what—we were talking about the Spotted Owl and the Goshawk— 

but look at what it did to the fish. 

Dr. GOSAR. Yes. 

Mr. GROSETA. Look at all the dead fish in the San Francisco 

River. These photos, all four of these photos were taken late July 

of last year after the summer rains starred northeast of Safford, 

Arizona. 

So we not only talk about we are not only losing the species we 

are trying to protect up there, but we are also losing owls, we are 

losing fish. And the bottom line is the status quo is not working 

and we need to change the management on these lands in order to 

get to go out and harvest the resources. We have the world’s richest—— 

Dr. GOSAR. And I agree—— 

Mr. GROSETA.—resources here in this state. 

Dr. GOSAR. I agree with you on that one. Let me ask you another 

question. There is also complications from windmills. Do birds have 

problems with windmills? What is one of the biggest killers of migratory birds? It is actually windmills. 

Mr. GROSETA. Wind machines. 

Dr. GOSAR. Wind turbines, absolutely. And actually we are finding out about wind turbines that we actually create microclimates. 

Mr. GROSETA. That’s correct. 

Dr. GOSAR. They actually create microturbidity that planes are 

affected by. So there is a lot of consequences here. 

I have one more thing here. I know, Ms. Griffin, you know, up 

in Flagstaff we had the Schultz Pass Fire, a disaster. We are going 

to still have ramifications with this over and over again. We have 

a flooding issue because, you know, of that mountain, San Francisco Peaks, this volcanic cone has got projections about 45 degree 

angles. So when water comes off of this, it flies. That’s why we lost 

a little girl. 

That’s what is so sad about this. We could have had solutions 

here but were prohibited. Do you realize—and I, really, this is my 

last comment—it is going to be awhile because we just broke 

ground on the Schultz Pass Fire amendment for fixing the pipeline 

from the inner basin, that’s how sad this is, and we are still talking 

about, and the words have been, condemning private property. 

How do you feel about condemning private property, ma’am? 

Ms. GRIFFIN. You saw the map. We have very little private property there. I believe the state and the people in Arizona can manage our public lands better than the Federal Government. We can 

do it cheaper, more effective, and immediate. It is going to take a 

long time to take care of the devastation that has occurred because 

of the fires. But it is, and it is moonscapes out there. The wilderness areas in my area, they are all gone. I had pictures of bear and 

deer and different animals that are—it is a moonscape, you know. 

They are cinders. 

Dr. GOSAR. You are exactly right. And I want to say, you know, 

because of that map that you saw up there, the Federal—the western states get less than one half of what eastern states get in educational funding. And we have to rely on PILT and secure rural 
58 

schools, which we have to beg, plead and steal from to try and get. 

And this is a mechanism and a way that we should be getting back 

the authority for the states. 

I want to thank the Chairman for allowing me a little extra time. 

And thank you for coming out today to see why Arizona, why we 

wanted to bring these issues to point and center in Arizona. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Oh, Mr. Gosar, it is a genuine pleasure. Misery loves company, and many of the problems that you have talked 

about here today we have been suffering in my district in the Sierra Nevada as well. 

Mr. Schweikert. 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. I don’t think he actually gave you the extra 

time. I think you just took it. 

Dr. GOSAR. I did. 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Andy, I want to throw from—and this is one 

of my personal fixations. I actually think a lot of the litigation, a 

lot of the things you see out there, it is about money. You know, 

when equal access to justice and those mechanics, we have 

incentivized not decision making, we have incentivized law firms 

to, hey, this is a book of business, let’s sue. And it has been a decade since I last asked this question, but we had someone in front 

of us from the Forest Service who was telling us almost half the 

regional budget was going into some litigation or litigation preparation or mechanics. 

Would you disagree with me? Am I, I mean, am I off base? 

Mr. GROSETA. No, I agree with you, Congressman. We definitely 

need tort reform. It is big business. 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Well, actually some of this is less even than 

tort reform. You actually redesign the statute saying, instead of 

funding a bunch of lawyers, let’s actually use the money to actually 

fund plans that actually work. Personal opinion. If any of you are 

lawyers, I am sorry if I offended you. 

Mr. Mayor, you, in your testimony you sort of, you spoke of trying to take part of your community and turning it into an alternative energy hub. A noble effort. Have you actually sort of modeled how much of that is going to require subsidies, specialty line 

items, credits and cash and those things from the Federal Government for that to actually work? 

Mr. VON GAUSIG. Yeah. Actually the plans Clarkdale has and the 

way we have looked at it so far don’t require any at all. They would 

all be private-public partner ships based on various kinds of efficiency that are gained by the improving technologies that we have 

out there. 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Wonderful. It is one of the things I will—from 

a policy maker’s standpoint, as you know, we often hear the rhetoric about, well, we subsidize fossil fuels, which isn’t actually accurate. The depletion allowance, that is 2.4 billion, there is almost 9 

billion a year that goes into green energy, so green energy gets 

about three times more than fossil fuels. So, and my guess is, with 

the pending fiscal crisis that is coming very fast, that whole world 

is going to change. So from a personal standpoint, please be careful 

in public-private partnerships. I mean you saw how well it worked 

in Ireland. 
59 

Mr. Sullivan, a tough question. SRP, you do your modeling and 

your capital planning five years? Ten years? 50 years? When you 

do a capital plan for your generation for your delivery, how far out 

are you planning? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Typically for our generation plans we look out 15, 

20 years. In terms of our financial plan, we do detailed financial 

planning looking out six years. 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. In that planning, how do you do that modeling, 

that planning in this environment where, you know, Navajo Generation’s capacity may be in play, you know, low yield generation 

coming from alternative energy? I mean, are you having to do an 

A, B, and C plans? I mean, how are you modeling? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Typically we do a lot of scenario planning, so 

with/without Navajo going forward. 

We also participate in the Four Corners plant. So we have to factor in the future of the Four Corners generating station, whether 

it will be there once that plant gets through the environmental 

process. 

And then in terms of our renewables, our board has established 

both an energy efficiency and renewable standard combined for us, 

a sustainability portfolio. And our view is you have to have a balance. Representative Gosar talked about that. 

That’s how we try to approach our future resource planning, is 

a balance of renewables that we can adjust for as we move forward, 

a balance of energy efficiency, and then a balance of traditional, 

mostly nowadays natural gas resources. 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Sullivan, in the models you 

have done, let’s just take the five year, best case scenario for a 

ratepayer is what, and worst case scenario? You know, how big is 

the spread right now? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Well, what we don’t do is factor in rate increases 

or price adjustments. What we do look at is, as we go out in time, 

how big a deficit are we building that would have to be made up 

by our customers. So I can’t answer your question exactly—— 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. OK. 

Mr. SULLIVAN.—today. But it would be quite a spread. It would 

be a large spread if you look out five years without Four Corners 

or Navajo in our resource plan. It would be a very expensive plan 

for our customers. 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. 

Sullivan. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. You are very welcome. And we are going to go 

to one final round, mainly because I owe the till about a minute 

and a half and Mr. Gosar owes two. So between me and ourselves 

let me have two quick questions. 

First to Mr. Governor Mendoza. You painted a compelling picture 

of the economic devastation that imposing SCR technology on the 

Navajo Generating Station will have on your community. Yet we 

are told by a representative of the Navajo that the Nation welcomes shutting it down. Why should we believe you? 

Governor MENDOZA. Well, again, you know, again, you know, the 

community would support any pragmatic solution about this issue. 

Again, it is, it protects the rights of our community and it does not 

jeopardize our water settlement. 
60 

Again, with regard to having the access to affordable water that 

was guaranteed to us in our 2004 water settlement law is critical 

to our community. And if we lose access to affordable CAP water, 

we won’t be able to help cultivate our lands for our community. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Thank you. 

Final question to Senator Griffin and Representative Reeve. 

What can you advise us, what should the Federal Government be 

doing to spur the economic and natural resource development of 

Arizona? 

Ms. GRIFFIN. Get out of the way. 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Sort of to the point. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Representative Reeve. 

Ms. REEVE. There is a reason that we have state primacy on certain issues. And they should allow the state to, to do what we are 

doing. 

I mean we have things in place. We are, you know, ADEQ is 

doing a very competent job on these air issues. And yet we are 

being cut at the knees right now with the regional haze rule in particular. They should allow the states to do what we know—you 

know, we know this area better than they do because we live here. 

And that’s why there is such a thing as state primacy. So they 

should work at least with the states if nothing else, but yes. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Thank you very much. I yield back my three 

minutes and I am square. 

Mr. Gosar. 

Dr. GOSAR. Well, Ms. Horseherder, let me ask you a question. 

Has the life expectancy of the Navajos increased or decreased over 

the last century? 

Ms. HORSEHERDER. The life expectancy has probably increased in 

the last century. 

Dr. GOSAR. Governor Mendoza, has the life expectancy gone up 

or down on the Gila River Community? 

Governor MENDOZA. It has gone down. 

Dr. GOSAR. The life expectancy? 

Governor MENDOZA. Yes. 

Dr. GOSAR. OK. Is it part of—what would you attribute that to? 

Governor MENDOZA. The health, the health of our community. 

Again, you know, when the waters of our community were diverted 

illegally, our tribal members had to change their diets to one of 

cheap processed foods. And, of course, it devastated our community, 

because, as you know, we have the highest rate of diabetes in the 

world. So, again, you know, the water was the blood line to our culture. 

Dr. GOSAR. So the other thing I want to make sure we understand is that almost half of the water that Phoenix utilizes comes 

from CAP water, almost half, 45 percent. And 80 percent of the 

water that goes to Tucson comes from CAP water. 

So I guess what my hearing—what I am trying to get at here is 

this is not an option to shut the Navajo Generating Station down. 

There is not an option here, just absolutely not an option. What we 

have to do is start building upon science, real science, a science 

that is based by facts. What I mean by that is, is that I provide 

the criteria, or you provide the criteria, and I can go replicate your 

results. That’s why surveys don’t work. 
61 

I am a healthcare professional. Surveys are only an inquisition 

into maybe a problem, and that you have to follow it up with scientific study. That’s one of the things that I have to tell you, is we 

have to start basing our discussions not on scare tactics but on real 

data, real data. 

Now, the other thing that I also want to make sure is that today 

I know the Navajo Nation person said that they were against the 

Navajo Generating Station. That’s not what the tribal council and 

the president has advocated for. They have been in front of us advocating for not shutting it down. So those are things we want to 

make sure that those viewpoints are poignant and perfectly legit. 

I think one of the things that I would hope, and I am a dentist 

impersonating a politician, is that what we have to start doing is 

start working together. I am tired of the Federal Government picking and choosing winners and losers. We need to have everything 

on play. And the magic of America is its beauty to investigate and 

invigorate and create. That’s why we are here today and that’s why 

we share in the economy that we so do. And we need to get the 

Federal Government out of the way. 

And I think what we saw today from the NGS to the Chu Memorandum to the forest dictations to how we use Federal lands, it is 

obvious we have a problem. And the way I look at it is when there 

is disarray is the greatest opportunity for change. 

So I hope that we work much better together than working 

against each other, and not to pit one solution over another. 

So I thank everybody for coming today. It has been an absolute 

pleasure. It is so great to see everybody in attendance, even Bass 

in the back. But thank you very much Chairman for having us. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Thank you for inviting us. 

And final words to Mr. Schweikert. 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I know the Chairman is going to make a motion to accept 

additional testimony. If anyone has information in writing, please 

give that to us. It will get read. One of the joys of having a fivehour flight is we get on that airplane with binders like this. And 

this is sort of like graduate school on steroids. You often sit there 

and read things that were never in your area of specialty. 

I do have some mechanical concerns, because I know part of our 

focus has been on Navajo Generation, part of it is on what it does 

to our water resources, but the issue here, if you even look at each 

of you on the panel, I believe each of you care passionately, but 

those of us in the west, it is our public lands, it is how we manage 

our resources. 

You have to take a step back and take a look. 30, 40 years ago, 

was our forest healthier or less healthy today? Where are we at? 

I remember going up to Round Valley and watching forest harvesting. We don’t do it today. Are those lands actually healthier 

today? 

And to our mayor friend, I actually as a young man spent a 

bunch of my summers in your community, have some—used to 

have family, they have all passed, that lived there. I hope—I wish 

you great, great success. You may want to do a little bit of research, because I think there were a couple communities in Iowa 

that, about a decade and a half ago, were going to become the eth-
62 

anol capitals of the world. So always be very careful how you build 

your financial structures on, is it truly sustainable, particularly as 

we go through—the reality is we are devastatingly broke and it is 

getting bad really fast. You know, as baby boomers retire, I don’t 

think people understand what is going on with the Federal deficit 

and how fast it is going to grow. 

But within that, to all of our members of the Legislature, there 

might be an opportunity here where, if we can deal with the 

egomaniacs back in Washington and maybe say let’s treat the 

states like adults, let’s hand you back some authority because 

maybe managing the resources closest to the resources would be 

best for the citizens of the states and best for the lands and the 

critters that live on those lands, I know that’s a bit of a diatribe, 

but that is our future. So that was why the question about do we 

now have the talents and the data and the ability to manage those 

data and talents, because I think a lot of the authority is going to 

have to come back over the next few years. 

And with that, Mr. Chairman, thank you for being here in 

Arizona with us. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Again, a genuine pleasure. I want to thank all 

of you for coming here, thank our witnesses. 

As Mr. Schweikert said, the Subcommittee will be receiving additional written testimony. So if there is anyone here that would like 

to weigh in on this, that would be the opportunity to do this. The 

hearing record will be open for ten days to receive those responses. 

And if there is no further business and without objection, the 

Subcommittee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:51 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

Æ