Washington, D.C. - U.S. Representative Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) today released the following testimony during the D.C. City Council Committee on Public Works and the Environment hearing on Washington Aqueduct’s Proposed Water Treatment Residuals Management Process.
“For the past year, I have expressed my concerns over the process that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has followed in developing its Environmental Impact Statement for the residuals management project at the Washington Aqueduct. My concerns with this process have not yet been fully addressed. The issuance of the EIS last week has not changed my position on this and has only made it more urgent.
“Many residents believe that the process of developing the EIS, including the requirements relating to public participation and input throughout the process, was fatally flawed from the outset and needed to be restarted. I shared their concerns in many significant respects and requested that additional time be given to consider more fully alternatives that do not locate this industrial facility in the residential neighborhoods surrounding the premises of the Washington Aqueduct. Although additional time was given by the Corps for public input at various stages during the development of the Environmental Impact Statement, I do not believe that sufficient consideration was given to such alternatives. On several occasions, I joined with Senators Paul Sarbanes and Barbara Mikulski and Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton to request additional time specifically so that the Corps could pursue and seriously consider other alternatives for disposal of the residuals. That level of consideration was never given nor was the appropriate analysis conducted on the feasibility of locating the dewatering facility on a site that has a lesser impact on the community.
“The Montgomery County Council, the Montgomery County Planning Board, and the Washington D.C. Department of Health have all expressed reservations about siting a dewatering facility in a residential area and trucking these residuals through residential streets. While it remains to be seen what obstacles lie in the path of potential relocation sites, it is my view that a final decision on this project should not be made until thorough and serious consideration is given to the use of alternative sites proposed by neighboring residents, by Montgomery County, and by the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission. The United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, and others in the community have suggested that a mediated settlement might result in a mutually agreeable solution. I would support bringing this issue to a formal mediation setting in order to determine the most effective and satisfactory course to pursue.
“As I have before, I pledge to do all within my power to facilitate the Corps’ investigation and consideration of reasonable alternatives. Until such consideration is given, the conclusion of the Environmental Impact Statement should not be acted upon. Its analysis, ultimately, was incomplete and, as a consequence, flawed.”