State engineer urged to deny DOE water use at Yucca Mt.

Cy Ryan and Mary Manning

Wednesday, Nov. 17, 1999 | 10:14 a.m.

CARSON CITY -- A state attorney said Tuesday that granting the Department of Energy a water permit to develop and operate a high-level nuclear dump at Yucca Mountain was "a clear and present danger to the robust economy of Nevada."

Deputy Attorney General Marta Adams urged state Engineer Mike Turnipseed to deny the DOE's applications for permanent use of 430 acre feet of water because it "threatens the life blood of the state."

Brent Kolvet, attorney for the DOE, however, argued that it was pure speculation what would happen in Nevada if a repository was located 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. He told Turnipseed his decision should be made on the scientific evidence presented that shows there is adequate water, and it would not impair the water rights of others.

"The ruling should not be based on speculation, public opinion or editorials in newspapers," Kolvet said during closing arguments at the hearings, which lasted five days.

Turnipseed said he would leave the record open for a few weeks to allow others to submit comments. He said he hoped to have a ruling shortly after the first of the year. But he said that depended on a District Court hearing today in Tonopah on a petition sought by the Southern Nye County Conservation District.

Turnipseed had dismissed the conservation district, composed of farmers from the Amargosa Valley, from the case. They have sued to stop any further proceedings.

The conservation district, along with Amargosa Valley water users, represented by Michael DeLee, will have two days in court.

District Court Judge John Davis will rule on the request of the district and the water users to be reinstated in the hearings before Turnipseed. U.S. District Judge Johnnie Rawlinson has scheduled a second hearing in Las Vegas on Dec. 1.

The nearest Amargosa Valley farm lies 12 miles south of Yucca Mountain, the proposed site of the first high-level nuclear waste repository in the world. Farmers and residents are worried that if Turnipseed allows the DOE permanent water rights, there will not be enough supply.

Nye County remains neutral on the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository. The county is conducting independent water testing through eight wells drilled at the mountain's base.

The final witness Tuesday was Scott Wade, environmental, health and safety team leader for the DOE at Yucca Mountain, who testified that there would be no reduction in monitoring the ground water if the permanent permit was issued.

The federal agency, since 1991, has been testing whether the pumping now being done under a temporary permit has depleted the water table at Yucca Mountain and in the adjacent areas such as Devil's Hole, where the endangered pup fish live. The department presented evidence that the water table has remained stable despite the pumping.

Testimony in opposition to the water permit Tuesday was presented by Kaitlin Backlund of Citizen Alert; Michel MacDonald of Friends of Nevada Wilderness; Abby Johnson for Eureka County and Shirley Swafford, a citizen activist.

Swafford cited a long list of cases where the DOE has been responsible for radiation leaks or water contamination. She said the federal agency has compiled a record of covering up mistakes. "They certainly have ignored the safety of drinking water.

"We're supposed to have confidence and trust in this agency? I don't agree."

Backlund and Macdonald complained the water used at the project would be contaminated. "It will end up becoming low-level waste," Backlund said.

The DOE, she said, "wants to push this down our throats." Backlund said a study done for the DOE found the state had legitimate concerns about the socio-economic effects on Nevada. But those were never addressed by the federal agency in the hearing.

Adams, in her closing argument, said the amount of water sought by DOE is not significant but there's a possibility it could become contaminated after use at the proposed burial grounds.

She cited public opinion polls that show 75 percent of Nevadans either oppose or strongly oppose Yucca Mountain. The Legislature has passed resolutions opposing the site and there's a state law prohibiting any person from storing nuclear waste in the state, Adams said.

That's evidence, she said, that it's not in the public interest to allow a dump site. "It will lend stigma to Las Vegas and Nevada and cause tourists to stay away and business not to locate here."

While there may be some employment created at the repository, Adams suggested there could be a loss of 30,000 jobs in the tourism and other industries.

Awarding the permit, Adams said, would signal a change in the stance of the state against Yucca Mountain. And that signal alone could result in "negative impacts."

Kolvet argued the public interest will be served if Turnipseed follows Nevada water law and not be swayed by public opinion polls. He said the federal government has the right to be treated as any other applicant for a water right.

This project, he said, is similar to industrial or mining applications. The water will be used for construction, tunneling, drilling and dust control. "It will not be used in any storage of nuclear material," he said.

He estimated that less than one acre foot of water would be contaminated annually out of the 430 acre feet in the application. An acre foot is enough to supply water to a family of four for one year. The energy department secured a temporary permit in 1991 that expires in 2002. It now wants a permanent permit.

Other applicants, Kolvet said, have not been held to the standards being requested by the state.

During the hearing, Kolvet said the state failed to present any evidence that there wasn't sufficient water or that it would be detrimental to other water users. "It will not affect the Amargosa farmers or Beatty," he said.

This project, before it is approved, still has many hurdles, Kolvet said. The water permit does not mean that construction will start. Congress must first pass on the issue. And there are additional permits to secure.

The state never presented hard evidence there would be adverse economic impacts. "There was speculation about the impacts. Nobody said this will occur. They said it might occur or it might not occur."

Kolvet warned Turnipseed, "If you open up the decision to what the newspapers say or what public opinion say, you are setting a precedent."

archive