STATE OF NEW MEXICO

BEFORE THE SECRETARY OF THE ENVIRONMENT

In the Matter of:
STAGE 2 ABATEMENT PLAN
PROPOSAL, DOA ANA DAIRIES,
DOA ANA COUNTRY, NEW MEXICO

GWB 14-28 (AP)

WRITTEN DIRECT TESTIMONY OF KATHY J. MARTIN

My name is Kathy J. Martin, PE (NM#21522), and I am presenting this written direct
testimony before the Hearing Officer appointed by the Secretary of the Environment in this
proceeding, GWB 14-28(AP), concerning the Second Stage Abatement Plan (Plan) for
remediation of the Doa Ana Dairies (DAD). I am testifying as an expert witness on behalf of
the Rio Valle Concerned Citizens (RVCC) and present this written technical testimony in
response to the referenced Second Stage Abatement Plan and the Procedural Order in this matter
issued on February 19, 2015.
I.

BACKGROUND AND EXPERIENCE

I have a Bachelor of Science degree in Petroleum Engineering and a Master of Science

degree in Civil Engineering from the University of Oklahoma. My graduate research included
extensive literature review of liner system performance; liner systems including clay, synthetic,
and composite liners; waste-liner compatibility, liner failure mechanisms, and transport and fate
of leakage in the subsurface.
My work experience includes work for the State of Oklahoma at the Oklahoma Water
Resources Board (OWRB) where I was responsible for creating rules and regulations for the
use of surface impoundments and land application with respect to non-hazardous industrial

RVCC Exhibit KJM-01

Page 1 of 20

wastewater and drafting water quality permits under those rules. The regulations were a direct
result of my graduate research on liners and waste/liner compatibility. In addition to updating all
non-discharge permits to the new regulations, I was also responsible for overseeing closure of
surface impoundments, including closure plan evaluation and approval. While at the OWRB, I
served as the third Project Officer of the Tar Creek Superfund Site and helped develop and
oversee the ground water monitoring of public water wells within the 50 square mile area
affected by lead and zinc mine discharge. When I transferred to the Oklahoma Department of
Environmental Quality, I received training in the Clean Air Act, including permit writing, air
pollution controls, and the hazardous air pollutant program under the Clean Air Act Amendments
of 1990 and the Small Business Assistance Program. My duties included providing one-stop
permit assistance to various industries in Oklahoma, as well as developing strategies to assist
applicants in pursuing all applicable environmental permits.
In 1996, I started a consulting company called Martin Environmental Services and
worked with foundry and metal casting facilities for a year preparing Form Rs under Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) Title III community-right-to-know reporting
requirements and developing state toxic air emission permit determinations. In 1997, my focus
changed to wastewater issues related to concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) and I
have been working on CAFO waste issues for the past 17 years. During that time, I have
reviewed several hundred environmental permit applications for CAFOs in 21 States and
prepared engineering evaluations of the waste management systems and nutrient management
plans associated with large-scale livestock production facilities. A good part of that effort
involves evaluating the engineering design plans and specifications for waste storage facilities
including liner systems for impoundments, feed storage areas, and mortality handling.

RVCC Exhibit KJM-01

Page 2 of 20

In addition to my experience performing engineering reviews of CAFO environmental

permit applications, I have been involved in numerous efforts related to state regulations for
livestock production facilities in Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, Colorado, Illinois, and New
Mexico. I have testified as an expert witness in matters related to waste management systems,
water quality, and air emissions related to livestock production facilities in state agency
adjudicatory hearings and in higher Courts.
I participated in all stages of the creation of the current Dairy Rule including serving as
expert witness for the Coalition before the Water Quality Control Commission during the initial
proceedings and the proceedings to approve the negotiated revisions, as well as being involved in
the negotiation process for the revisions to the regulations that were memorialized in the
settlement agreement on July 7, 2011. I observed much of the DAD Stage I Abatement Plan
appeal hearing held in 2010 and made myself familiar with the various abatement issues since
that time. Prior to developing this direct testimony, I reviewed the Stage II Abatement Plan
(revised) Final version, the Final Site Investigation Report, the November 2014 Quarterly
Monitoring Report, and various documents submitted during the 2010 hearing.
I am a professional engineer in the field of Civil Engineering and hold licenses for both
Oklahoma (OK#18254) and New Mexico (NM# 21522). This pre-filed written testimony serves
as RVCC Exhibit KJM-1. My Curriculum vita and List of Testimony is attached as RVCC
Exhibit KJM-2. My Written Comments Regarding the Doa Ana Dairies Proposed Stage II
Abatement Plan prepared on May 17, 2014 and submitted during the public comment period of
the proposed Stage II Abatement Plan is attached as RVCC Exhibit KJM-3.

RVCC Exhibit KJM-01

Page 3 of 20

II.

SCOPE OF DIRECT TESTIMONY

A.

Scope of Direct Testimony

My direct testimony for this proceeding will cover the following issues: (1) sampling
frequency of the DAD monitoring wells; (2) background concentrations; (3) Upper Prediction
Limit and statistical analysis; (4) identification of abatement options not addressed by the
proposed plan; (5) data inconsistent with premise that all pollution comes from lagoons or land
application areas; and (6) efforts to protect sources of water for communities living nearby.
B.

Reservation of Right to Supplement Testimony

I reserve the right to submit rebuttal testimony on any appropriate topic presented in the
Notices of Intent submitted by DAD and the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED).
III.

DIRECT TESTIMONY AND PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO THE PLAN.

A.

Testimony.

1. Sampling frequency of DAD monitoring wells The Stage II Abatement Plan calls for the
sampling frequency for the DAD monitoring wells to be twice annually rather than quarterly, as
is the frequency for all the other monitoring wells (Discharge Permit or DP wells) used to
evaluate the effectiveness of the abatement plan.
Quarterly monitoring implies that the year is divided into quarters that consist of three
months each. The first quarter would include January, February, and March. The second quarter
would include April, May, and June. The third quarter would include July, August, and
September. The fourth quarter would include October, November, and December. I have
prepared a table that summarizes the sampling dates for the DAD wells since 2009 (See RVCC
Exhibit KJM4).

RVCC Exhibit KJM-01

Page 4 of 20

Without specifying a particular week of a particular month as the sampling period for that
quarter, the data collected for each quarter could be up to 120 days different when comparing
collection dates over the years. In my table, it shows that data points already taken are up to 30
days apart for the 1st quarter (Jan 24 to Mar 21), up to 70 days apart for the 2nd quarter (Apr 20 to
June 29); 62 days in the 3rd quarter (July 20 to Sept 10), and 46 days in the 4th quarter (Oct 27 to
Dec 12). The groundwater monitoring data already has significant variability because samples
were not taken at the same time each year.
It is my understanding that the parties had agreed that all the monitoring wells, DAD
wells and DP wells, would be sampled using the same procedure in order to be sure that the data
are reliable and can be compared to each other. If a percentage of the monitoring wells are
sampled during only two seasons and the rest of the monitoring wells are sampled for four
seasons, one cannot confidently compare the DAD and DP data sets if the effects of the monsoon
season, snowfall, and periods of no rain are not fully represented in the biannual data.
Expert Opinion: It is my professional engineering opinion that all monitoring wells be
monitored with the same frequency and methods so that contamination trends can be made with
greater confidence based on a robust set of data that captures seasonal changes in groundwater
concentration and potential plume migration.
2. Background Concentrations The key to determining if the Stage II Abatement Plan is
effective is to observe the changes in pollutant concentration in the groundwater and not only
compare to prior values to determine if the concentration is trending upward or downward but
to also determine if the contamination level is brought back to background concentrations. The
dairies are quick to exclaim that they should not have to clean pollution that was caused by
someone else and to a certain extent that is a valid claim within the abatement area itself.

RVCC Exhibit KJM-01

Page 5 of 20

However, if they choose to pick an upgradient well that has a background concentration that far
exceeds any concentration under the dairies does that mean they are free to pollute the
groundwater beyond New Mexico groundwater quality standards?
The background well for the North Section of the abatement area is Monitoring Well
86/340-01. The north monitoring well used to represent background groundwater concentration
contains concentrations of nitrates that are relatively lower than found in monitoring wells
throughout the northern portion of abatement area, but are more often than not above the MCL
value of 10 ppm. In addition, this background well has TDS values that have increased steadily
over the three year sampling period with the most dramatic increase occurring after April 25,
2012 (2,480 to 3,410 ppm) nearly a 30 percent increase.
At the public hearing, when asked why the background well had high TDS and nitrate
concentrations more than 10 ppm, it was implied that the high concentrations at MW 86/340-01
was due to nearby community on-site domestic septic systems. A search on Google Earth shows
that the original community of 25-30 homes (north of the monitoring well) existed prior to 1996.
Around 2004, 12-15 homes were built along Clovis Road northwest of the monitoring well. It
wasnt until 2009 that homes were built on Socorro Road to the north of the original homes and
by 2014 total number of homes in the area are 50-75 (See RVCC Exhibit KJM-5).
Using the Natural Resource Conservation Service Animal Waste Management Field
Handbook (NRCS-AWMFH), Chapter 4 on Waste Characteristics, Table 4-17 (RVCC Exhibit
KJM-6) one can estimate the amount of nitrogen generated by 30 homes assuming 2 adults per
home as follows: (2 people x 180 pounds per person) x 0.2 lbs nitrogen per day per 1000 pounds
of people x 365 days per year x 30 homes equals 788 lbs nitrogen per year for the neighborhood.
Over twenty years, that original group of 30 homes would have generated 15,768 pounds of

RVCC Exhibit KJM-01

Page 6 of 20

nitrogen. The next group of houses built in 2004 would produce the following amount of
nitrogen: 15 homes x (2 people per home x 180 pounds per person) x 0.2 lbs nitrogen per day per
1000 pounds of people x 365 days per year x 10 years equals 3,942 pounds nitrogen. The last
group of houses built five years ago would produce 50 homes x (2 people per home x 180
pounds per person) x 0.2 lbs nitrogen per day per 1000 pounds of people x 365 days per year x 5
years equals 6,570 pounds nitrogen. Over the past twenty years, that neighborhood generated
15,768 + 2,942 + 6,570 or 26,280 pounds of nitrogen and that is the only obvious source of
nitrogen pollution upgradient from the MW 86/340-01.
Using Table 4.5(a) in Chapter 4 of the NRCS-AWMFH (RVCC Exhibit KJM-6), one can
estimate the amount of nitrogen generated by a 2000 head dairy during the same time frame. For
a lactating cow producing 75 pounds of milk per day, the NRCS estimates the cow will generate
0.97 pounds of nitrogen per day. The amount of nitrogen generated is estimated as follows:
2000 head of dairy cattle x 0.97 pounds of nitrogen per cow per day x 365 days per year equals
708,100 pounds of nitrogen per year and over 20 years that adds up to 14,162,000 pounds of
nitrogen for one 2000 head dairy.
Clearly, one dairy generates a lot more nitrogen than 100 homes on septic: in fact one
dairy would generate 539 times more nitrogen over the same 20 year time frame. Any effort by
the Doa Ana Dairies to blame ground water pollution on 100 or so homes is exaggerating the
septic system impact well beyond believability.
The location of MW 86/340-01 is far west of the northern most part of the north section
of the abatement area. If the shallow groundwater flows south to southeast, it is unclear how it
can be assumed to impact any of the north section. Instead it would seem that pollution would
flow past the dairies on the west side and never impact the shallow groundwater under the dairies

RVCC Exhibit KJM-01

Page 7 of 20

in the north section of the abatement area. Therefore, it should be agreed that there is no
nitrogen pollution component upgradient from the north section that would allow an abatement
goal to be anything other than below the Action Contaminant Level for nitrates. I do not believe
the dairies should be allowed to abate to the Maximum Contaminant Level of 10 ppm for
nitrates because they cannot prove that there is a non-dairy related source for existing and
ongoing contribution of nitrates to the shallow groundwater under the north section dairies.
The background wells for the Central Section of the abatement area are DAD-03 located
in a residential zone and DP 74-03 located directly downgradient from DAD-03 (See RVCC
Exhibit KJM-7). This DP well is located on Buena Vista II dairy land and when compared to the
historical data of the other Buena Vista II wells actually represents the highest values for
chlorides and TDS, but not nitrates (See page 20 of 38 of Table 4 of the DAD Stage II
Abatement Plan). Interestingly enough, both central background wells are located
downgradient from a residential area similar in size to that found in the north region of the
abatement area, yet we see no influence of septic nitrates in the groundwater data.
When comparing nitrate concentrations at the Buena Vista II Dairy, the following
observations can be made: Nitrate concentrations for DP 74-01 range from 33.2 to 94.2 ppm and
is located directly downgradient from a lagoon. Nitrate concentrations for DP 74-02 range from
12.7 to 93.2 ppm and is located south and west of DP 74-01. Nitrate concentrations for DP 7403 range from 1.06 to 27.6 ppm and this well is located upgradient to DP 74-01. Nitrate
concentrations for DP 74-04 range from 7.2 to 33.6 ppm and this well is located directly east of
DP 74-01. Nitrate concentrations for DP 74-5 range from 10.8 to 33.2 ppm nitrates and this well
is located south and east of DP 74-05 at the southeastern corner of the corral area.

RVCC Exhibit KJM-01

Page 8 of 20

On August 20, 2014 the nitrate concentrations from upgradient to downgradient are as
follows: DP 74-03 (2.77 ppm), DP 74-01 at the lagoon (76.2 ppm), directly east of DP 74-01 is
DP74-04 (16.3 ppm), continuing south and west from DP 74-01 to DP 74-02 (29.8 ppm), and
then south and east of DP 74-01 is DP 74-05 (18.8 ppm). The question that needs to be asked is:
if the background well for the central region is showing little to no detect in DAD-01 (the deeper
screened interval) and only 2.77 ppm at DP 74-03 (screened at water table) then where is the
pollution source for DP 74-04 that would cause nitrate contamination up to 33.6 ppm?
DAD-03 is screened deeper in the aquifer and shows very few nitrate detects as reflected
in Table 1 of the Memorandum (14 percent). However, it has historically shown high
concentrations of chlorides (>1200 ppm) and TDS (>3000 ppm). When comparing the
minimum values for TDS, the lower screened interval of DAD-03 is nearly 2000 ppm greater
than the shallow screened interval of DP 74-03 with no apparent source between the two wells.
When looking for likely candidates for high TDS in shallow groundwater, one should
consider past practices of land application of manure and milking parlor wastewater. Plain
irrigation would not be a likely candidate because according to page 1 of Table 2 of the Final
Site Investigation Report dated July 16, 2009 the groundwater quality of the Buena Vista II
supply well LRG-01876 (well depth of 335 feet bgs) showed no nitrates or TKN, 64 ppm
chlorides, and 450 ppm TDS.
The closest upgradient DAD well is DAD-02 located on church land south of the small
community south of Gonzalez Dairy. August 2014 values for chlorides is 451 ppm and for TDS
is 1,690 ppm (see page 1 of 9 of Table 3 of the November 2014 Quarterly Monitoring Report).
The concentrations of chlorides and TDS in well DAD-02 has been fairly consistent with a range
of 301 to 490 ppm chlorides and 1,520 to 2,240 ppm TDS. The DAD Stage II Abatement Plan

RVCC Exhibit KJM-01

Page 9 of 20

fails to explain how groundwater concentrations in 2014 for TDS can double from 1,690 ppm to
2,890 ppm and chlorides double 451 ppm to values greater than 686 ppm without any obvious
source of salts between the two wells. If we are to trust DAD-03 as the background well for the
Central Section, it is imperative that the groundwater quality behavior is well understood. This
is especially important if a potential source of chlorides and TDS on abatement lands could be
identified and possibly removed.
The background well for the South Section of the abatement area is DP 692-08 and is
located just north of the hay storage area of Del Oro Dairy. On page 38 of 46 of Table 1 of the
November 2014 Quarterly Monitoring Report, depth to groundwater in August 2014 is listed as
68.72 feet bgs. As of August 2014, this designated background well had groundwater quality of
2.71 ppm NO3, 418 ppm Chlorides, and 1,300 ppm TDS.
Expert Opinion: It is my professional engineering opinion that the Stage II Abatement
Plan relies upon background water well data in the North and Central Sections that is influenced
by as of yet unidentified sources that if properly identified could be removed as part of the
abatement activities. If the sources of contamination cannot be properly attributed to a specific
activity, then the Plan relies upon background wells of dubious reliability.
3. Upper Prediction Limit statistical method Appendix B of the proposed Stage II Abatement
Plan contains an EA Engineering, Memorandum dated March 4, 2013 to Jay Snyder, Project
Manager from Rebecca Murphy describing the Doa Ana Dairies Site Statistical Analysis. It
should be noted that during the three Technical Conference calls conducted between the various
experts from the Dairies, New Mexico Environmental Department (NMED) and the RVCC, it
was revealed in the third call, when I asked more specific questions about the statistical methods,
that Ms. Murphy is no longer employed with EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc.

RVCC Exhibit KJM-01

Page 10 of 20

In that Memorandum, specifically Table 1 Background Conditions, there is a tabular

explanation of how EA Engineering calculated the Upper Prediction Limit for nitrates, chlorides,
and TDS for the north, central, and south abatement regions using the chosen background wells
for each region. This Upper Prediction Limit represents the higher concentrations of those
background wells. Clearly, the range of concentrations is wide (some high values are double,
triple, and in the case of nitrates 10 times the lowest value for that well) and should cause some
concern about whether or not the background well concentrations are reliable as a gauge for
abatement goals. This is especially a problem when the chloride and TDS values are higher in
the background wells than can be found under any particular dairy in that section of the
abatement area.
Expert Opinion: It is my professional engineering opinion that the extreme variability of
groundwater quality data, some within a year of each measurement, should cause concern and
hesitation when relying upon those wells to dictate if and when a particular part of the DAD
Abatement area is considered abated.
4. Assessment of Abatement Options - The Stage 2 Abatement Plan offers up six abatement
options for nitrate groundwater contamination: (1) no action or limited action involving
monitoring, (2) containment by slurry wall or other barrier, (3) removal of contaminated soils
and/or groundwater, (4) capping contaminated soils and/or installing plastic liners on lagoons,
(5) treatment of groundwater using methods such as denitrification in-situ, and (6) monitored
natural attenuation. These options were explained by Jay Snyder at both public meetings with
the common conclusion that all were impossible except installing plastic liners on the lagoons
and long-term monitoring.

RVCC Exhibit KJM-01

Page 11 of 20

The proposed abatement options fail to include other actions that are possible, such as
installing concrete liners under pollution sources (silage storage areas, manure stacks, the
feedlots, and mortality compost piles), covering manure stacks and mortality compost piles to
prevent stormwater falling on the materials and thus controlling volume of contaminated
stormwater runoff, monitoring the chlorides and TDS in the wastewater that is land applied and
cease land application if the mass loading exceeds a particular value regardless of nutrient need
of the crop, removing manure solids from the corral area more frequently, land applying manure
solids and wastewaters away from the dairy row and at a location that has deeper groundwater
and larger acreage to utilize the nutrients and spread out the application of salts, reducing the
number of animals per acre at each dairy which would reduce the amount of manure and milking
parlor wastewater generated, and relocating some or all of the dairies where subsurface materials
are not dominated by sand and gravel and depth to groundwater is significantly deeper.
The proposed abatement options are based on the assumption that most, if not all of the
ground water pollution originated from the leakage/seepage from unlined or clay-lined lagoons
and that the installation of plastic liners basically stops any additional pollution into the
subsurface. This conclusion does not explain high concentrations of nitrates, chlorides, and TDS
downgradient from portions of the abatement plan area that did not historically have lagoons,
lined or unlined. In fact, several of the monitoring wells downgradient from land application
areas show extremely high concentrations of these groundwater pollutants and there are no
lagoons to blame. I will explore a few examples of this phenomenon later in this testimony.
During discussions of the monitoring well data, both the dairy consultants and NMED
agree that some groundwater pollution comes from land application practices. It follows
logically that the abatement options should include provisions to investigate past land application

RVCC Exhibit KJM-01

Page 12 of 20

practices at the individual dairies to determine why certain fields have violated groundwater
quality standards and others have not. In addition, the abatement options should include the
option to require changes to land application practices at any applicable individual dairy to a
practice that is a more conservative approach in order to stop contaminating the groundwater.
The abatement options do not include the types of activities that I propose are possible.
Instead, it has been argued by industry that those types of changes belong in the Discharge
Permit requirements and not in the Abatement Plan. This argument assumes that the NMED can
orchestrate their Discharge Permit renewals and modifications in a timely enough fashion that
the impacts to the Abatement Plan would be immediate and concurrent. In actuality, DADs
argument for the Discharge Permit pathway for change falls flat when you consider the best
reason to join all of the dairies under one abatement plan was to avoid a dozen individual
abatement plans, basically one for each dairy that could result in dozens of individual appeal
hearings, mediations, and compromises. Arbitrarily identifying some activities that could
reduce pollution as an individual action best required through an individual amended Discharge
Permit basically creates a dozen different opportunities for appeal, mediation and compromise
that would be difficult to execute and nearly impossible to cause to occur at the same time.
Asking the NMED to draw definitive lines between what is allowed to be required under
abatement and what is required to be addressed by a discharge permit negates the advantage of a
singular and grouped abatement plan process.
Expert Opinion: It is my professional engineering opinion that if any of DADs activities
(beyond lagoon leakage) causes significantly more pollution than other activities in the
abatement zone, then the Stage II Abatement Plan needs to identify those activities and propose a
way to change them in order to reduce the pollutant load on that particular part of the

RVCC Exhibit KJM-01

Page 13 of 20

abatement area. Those activities should be changed through one process the abatement plan
process to insure timeliness of its implementation and integration of its impacts into the
greater design of the regionalized pollution abatement.
5. Data inconsistent with premise that all pollution comes from unlined lagoons or land
application areas
Monitoring Well DP70-03. The second well downgradient from the background well
for the North Section is located approximately 3250 feet south/southeast of MW70/86/340-01
and downgradient of a full center pivot circle used by Mountain View Dairy Land Application
Area (LLA) for disposal of manure wastewater. Concentrations of pollutants measured on
August 7, 2012 were 45.3 ppm nitrates, 2,440 ppm chlorides, and 6,700 ppm TDS. When
compared to background, the concentration of nitrates was 2.6 times the concentration measured
in MW 70/86/340-01 during the same sampling time period. However, the TDS concentration
was basically the same (1.04 times background) with chlorides greater by 30% (1.3 times
background).
The concentration of TDS over time in DP70-03 does not follow the same pattern as
observed in the upgradient well MW70/86/340-01. Values for TDS remain flat from March 4,
2009 to March 26, 2010 then increase dramatically between March 26 and September 22, 2010
(5,180 to 7,840 ppm TDS) an increase of 50 percent. A slight drop occurs over the winter and
then by spring April 21, 2011 increases to a high of 8,040 ppm TDS. The concentration drops by
20 percent between November 11, 2011 and April 25, 2012 (7,910 to 6,550 ppm) but never goes
back to the original and much lower value of 5,180 ppm observed in 2009. While both wells
show dramatic increases in concentration in 2010 the background well took 1 years to reach
a high value and the downgradient well took only six months or one-third the time.

RVCC Exhibit KJM-01

Page 14 of 20

Note that the depth to groundwater measured from the surface in DP70-03 on October 12,
2012 was 54.05 feet as compared to the upgradient well MW70/86/340-01 of 47.30 feet on the
same date a difference of 6.75 feet. The difference in elevation between the two wells is
approximately 4.66 feet leaving a depth to groundwater of two feet difference between the two
wells. The groundwater level dropped two feet over a distance of 3,250 feet or 1/3 foot per mile.
Monitoring Well DP126-09. This well is located approximately 938 feet northeast of
DP70-03 along the same access road and also directly downgradient from the Mountain View
LAA full circle center pivot. It could be argued that both DP70-03 and DP126-09 are basically
the same distance downgradient from the upgradient well labeled MW 70/86/340-01 (DP126-09
is about 200 feet farther away) and that the only pollutant source between the two downgradient
wells and the upgradient well would be the full circle center pivot land application area. The
elevation of groundwater is 0.70 feet below DP70-03 and 1.4 feet lower than MW70/86/340-01.
The data for TDS at DP126-09 is very different than for DP70-03. Starting on September
22, 2010 (no earlier data for DP126-09), the concentration of TDS is only 3,320 ppm as
compared to DP70-03 which had a value of 7,840 on the same day. The next year in April, TDS
concentrations in DP70-03 increased to a high of 8,040 but the concentration in DP126-09
dropped to 2,730 ppm TDS. The concentrations of nitrates in DP126-09 range from a low of
2.28 to a high of 3.31. On September 22, 2010, the concentration in DP70-03 was 62.8 ppm or
25 times more concentrated in nitrates than DP126-09.
The Stage II Abatement Plan does not explain a difference of 5,300 ppm TDS between
wells DP70-03 and DP126-09 when they are basically the same distance from the upgradient
well and located equidistant from the only source identified on the aerial map the center pivot
land application area.

RVCC Exhibit KJM-01

Page 15 of 20

The Stage II Abatement Plan does not explain why the upgradient well (70/86/340-01)
would have a TDS concentration of 6,400 ppm and a well downgradient (DP126-09) with a
source in between would only have a TDS concentration of 3,050 less than half the
concentration while a similarly distanced downgradient well have a concentration of 6,700
(DP70-03) which is 200 ppm greater than background and two times the concentration of the
nearby DP126-09.
Monitoring Wells DP42-02, DP42-09, and DP42-13 are located in proximity to each
other along an east/west direction with DP42-02 to the west near a wastewater lagoon, DP42-09
in the center, and DP42-13 to the east. DP42-09 and DP42-13 are located in the south central
part of Dominguez Dairy directly downgradient from two lagoons. On August 8, 2012, the
nitrate concentrations were measured as 7.73 ppm, 49.5 ppm, and 62.3 ppm respectively.
Using Google Earth, one can compare the use of the various lagoons over time and see
that the east lagoon was lined with plastic, the lagoon in the center was not, and the west lagoon
was lined with plastic (see Figure 6 of RVCC Exhibit KJM-3). Over time, the unlined central
lagoon was not used as much as the other two lined lagoons until ultimately the central lagoon
was repurposed as flat land (see Figures 7 and 8 of RVCC Exhibit KJM-3).
The Stage II Abatement Plan does not explain why the groundwater has significantly
lower nitrates under the west lagoon than under the east lagoon when both appear to have been
lined with plastic from the beginning of use.
Expert Opinion: It is my professional engineering opinion that the Stage II Abatement
Plan does not address groundwater quality inconsistencies within discrete areas of the
abatement area and thus fails to identify other potential pollution sources that appear to belie
the premise that all pollution was derived from lagoons or land application.

RVCC Exhibit KJM-01

Page 16 of 20

6. Efforts to protect sources of water for communities living downgradient.

In the North Section of the abatement area, the Stage II Abatement Plan implies that
nitrate pollution found within the community downgradient from Gonzalez Dairy is, for the most
part, due to poorly constructed septic systems. The Plan states The Del Cerro subdivision is
suspected of being the main source of groundwater contamination within this area (USEPA
1998). As shown by my calculations in earlier in this testimony, the nitrogen generated by a
community of 100 homes would pale in comparison to the amount of nitrogen generated by just
one 2000 head dairy.
During the technical discussions, I asked Jay Snyder to insert one sentence that would
serve to acknowledge that the septic systems of Del Cerro subdivision have been replaced by a
sewer collection system and regional domestic wastewater treatment system and he refused to do
so. It is important that everyone understand that millions of dollars were spent by the USEPA to
remedy not only the septic issues of Del Cerro, but many other small communities in the region
by causing the design, construction, and operation of a regional domestic wastewater treatment
system. Construction of that system began sometime in 2004-2005. That means the Del Cerro
community has not been polluting the shallow groundwater for nearly 10 years. The Stage II
Abatement Plan should not be allowed to place any more blame on the Del Cerro community for
nitrate contamination south of Gonzalez Dairy as any new nitrate contamination would most
certainly be due to plume migration beyond the abatement boundary.
The map provided as Figure 2 on PDF page 78 of 144 pages of the Stage II Abatement
Plan represents the North Section and shows plume delineation for nitrates, chlorides, and TDS.
The western plume boundary is presented as dashed lines, which means there is not enough data
to establish a solid line of known concentration. There are dozens of homes located directly

RVCC Exhibit KJM-01

Page 17 of 20

across the abatement boundary that appear to be in the direct path of the west edge of those
contamination plumes. The monitoring well network does not include enough monitoring wells
on the west side that would define the groundwater quality such that the dashed line could be
expressed as a solid line and hence a plume boundary of known extent.
That same map shows dashed plume boundaries at the southern end of the North Section,
basically south of Gonzalez Dairy and entering the Del Cerro subdivision. It was explained to
this expert by Jay Snyder that the County would not allow monitoring wells in their right-ofways because when they did that before and the monitoring well was damaged by County
activities that the County was asked to pay for the replacement hence their hesitation to allow
any more monitoring wells in the right-of-way. It was also explained that little or no effort was
made to ask landowners in the Del Cerro subdivision if they would allow a monitoring well on
their property. In fact, neither DAD nor NMED knew for certain who owned the various parcels.
It is known that one of the private water wells showed a concentration of 28 ppm nitrates. The
only monitoring well downgradient from the Del Cerro community that could possibly detect
plume migration past the community is DAD-02. It is located on church land south and east of
the Del Cerro subdivision, but in such a location as to be quite a bit east of the predicted plume
migration direction of south to southeast and thus not as likely to detect the highest concentration
of the plumes moving south from Gonzalez Dairy through the Del Cerro subdivision and
possibly towards the rest of the community south of Del Cerro (See RVCC Exhibit KJM-8).
The map provided as Figure 3 on PDF page 79 of 144 pages of the Stage II Abatement
Plan represents the Central Section and shows plume delineation for nitrates, chlorides, and TDS.
The nitrate plume boundary at the southern end of the Central Section is shown as a dashed line.

RVCC Exhibit KJM-01

Page 18 of 20

What is not shown on that map is the community of Berino directly downgradient from the
nitrate plume (See RVCC Exhibit KJM-8).
The map provided as Figure 4 on PDF page 80 of 144 pages of the Stage II Abatement
Plan represents the deeper regional aquifer in the South Section and indicates the contamination
plumes mimic the exact dimensions of the abatement boundary. It should be noted that DAD-09
located at the southwest edge of the abatement area had historically high nitrate values up to
nearly 60 ppm as recently as June 2010 and January 2012. The August 2012 data indicates a
nitrate value of 5.25 ppm. The question remains as to whether the nitrate plume that was
detected between May 2009 and March 2013 (all nitrate values greater than 10 ppm) has
continued to flow through the community to the south and west even though the bulk of the
pollution is no longer detected at the abatement boundary. It is unclear whether there are
sufficient deeper monitoring wells in the community to properly delineate that nitrate plume.
The map provided as Figure 5 on PDF page 81 of 144 pages of the Stage II Abatement
Plan represents the shallow or perched aquifer in the South Section and indicates dashed lines for
the plume delineation that has left the abatement boundary and entered the community to the
west and south. It must be emphasized that the data collection for this part of the abatement area
needs to be sufficient enough to create a more definitive plume boundary and thus illustrate the
risk to those in the community that should be able to rely upon a clean groundwater supply.
Expert Opinion: It is my professional engineering opinion that the Stage II Abatement
Plan is deficient with respect to acquiring enough data near downgradient communities to
establish a solid rather than dashed indication of contaminant plume migration. It is of the
utmost importance that the result of the Stage II Abatement Plan is to identify the extent of the

RVCC Exhibit KJM-01

Page 19 of 20

contaminant plumes and to prevent its 3pread beyond the abatement boundary and into
communities that have the right to rely upon a clean groundwater supply.
This concludes my written, pre-filed direct testimony on the issues of sampling frequency
of the DAD monitoring wells; background concentrations; Upper Prediction Limit and statistical
analysis; identification of abatement options not addressed by the proposed plan; data
inconsistent with premise that all pollution comes from lagoons or land application areas; and
efforts to protect sources of water for communities living downgradient.
As stated earlier, this expert witness reserves the opportunity for rebuttal after reviewing
the Notices of Intent for both DAD and NMED, as well as both DAD and NMED direct and
rebuttal testimonies.

I af:finn under penalty of perjury that my testimony is true and correct to the best of my
knowledge and ability.

Seal:

RVCC Exhibit KJM-01

Page 20 of20