    [Senate Hearing 115-12]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                             S. Hrg. 115-12
       LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON S. 518, A BILL TO AMEND THE FEDERAL WATER
      POLLUTION CONTROL ACT TO PROVIDE FOR TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE FOR SMALL
    TREATMENT WORKS, S. 692, THE ``WATER INFRASTRUCTURE FLEXIBILITY ACT OF
    2017'' AND S. 675, THE ``LONG ISLAND SOUND RESTORATION AND STEWARDSHIP
                                     ACT''

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   before the

                          SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES,
                              WATER, AND WILDLIFE

                                     of the

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                          ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                         ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                 MARCH 28, 2017

                                   __________

      Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

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

                               ________

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

     25-243PDF                 WASHINGTON : 2017
    ____________________________________________________________________
     For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing 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 20402-001

                   COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

                         ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
                                 FIRST SESSION

                        JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming, Chairman
    JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma            THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware
    SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia  BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland
    JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas               BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
    ROGER WICKER, Mississippi            SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island
    DEB FISCHER, Nebraska                JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon
    JERRY MORAN, Kansas                  KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York
    MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota            CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey
    JONI ERNST, Iowa                     EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
    DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska                 TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
    RICHARD SHELBY, Alabama              KAMALA HARRIS, California

                  Richard M. Russell, Majority Staff Director
                   Gabrielle Batkin, Minority Staff Director
                                  ----------

                 Subcommittee on Fisheries, Water, and Wildlife

                        JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas, Chairman
    JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma            TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
    SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia  BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland
    ROGER WICKER, Mississippi            SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island
    DEB FISCHER, Nebraska                JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon
    MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota            KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York
    DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska                 CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey
    RICHARD SHELBY, Alabama              EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
    JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming (ex officio)  THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware (ex
                                             officio)

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

                                 MARCH 28, 2017
                               OPENING STATEMENTS

    Wicker, Hon. Roger, U.S. Senator from the State of Mississippi...     1
    Fischer, Hon. Deb, U.S. Senator from the State of Nebraska.......     2
    Boozman, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Arkansas......     8
    Duckworth, Hon. Tammy, U.S. Senator from the State of Illinois...    10
    Gillibrand, Hon. Kirsten, U.S. Senator from the State of New York    11

                                   WITNESSES

    Gray, Richard, Mayor, City of Lancaster, Pennsylvania............    12
        Prepared statement...........................................    14
    Sternberg, Dennis, Executive Director, Arkansas Rural Water
      Association....................................................    35
        Prepared statement...........................................    38
    Crotty, Erin M., Executive Director, Audubon New York............    41
        Prepared statement...........................................    43

                                  LEGISLATION

    S. 518, the ``Small and Rural Community Clean Water Technical
      Assistance Act''...............................................    72
    S. 692, the ``Water Infrastructure Flexibility Act of 2017''.....    76
    S. 675, the ``Long Island Sound Restoration and Stewardship Act''    92

       LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON S. 518, A BILL TO AMEND THE FEDERAL WATER
      POLLUTION CONTROL ACT TO PROVIDE FOR TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE FOR SMALL
    TREATMENT WORKS, S. 692, THE ``WATER INFRASTRUCTURE FLEXIBILITY ACT OF
    2017'' AND S. 675, THE ``LONG ISLAND SOUND RESTORATION AND STEWARDSHIP
                                     ACT''

                                  ----------

                            TUESDAY, MARCH 28, 2017

                                   U.S. Senate,
             Committee on Environment and Public Works,
                Subcommittee on Fisheries, Water, and Wildlife,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:15 p.m. in
    room 406, Dirksen Senate Building, Hon. John Boozman (Chairman
    of the Subcommittee) presiding.
        Present: Senators Boozman, Wicker, Fischer, Duckworth,
    Cardin, and Gillibrand.
        Senator Boozman. The meeting will come to order.
        I would like to welcome everyone to today's legislative
    hearing. We are reviewing three bills: S. 518, the Small and
    Rural Community Clean Water Technical Assistance Act, the Water
    Infrastructure Flexibility Act of 2017, and S. 675, the Long
    Island Sound Restoration and Stewardship Act.
        The sponsors of these bills also sit on the Armed Services
    Committee which has a conflicting meeting in just a few
    minutes. What we would like to do is let them go first. I am
    going to recognize Senator Wicker, Senator Fischer, and Senator
    Gillibrand and let them make remarks about their legislation.
        Then I will give my opening statement followed by Ranking
    Member Duckworth. We will then proceed to the testimony.
        Would you like to start, Roger?

                OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROGER WICKER,
               U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

        Senator Wicker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for accommodating
    our schedule this afternoon.
        I am at this moment here to talk about S. 518, which deals
    with sewer systems that serve fewer than 10,000 people.
    Frankly, in the United States of America, some 80 percent of
    public sewer systems are in that category.
        Many of these small communities often face significant
    challenges in complying with Federal rules, and it is also
    costly.
        S. 518 provides some relief in the form of technical
    assistance and training to assist small communities in securing
    the necessary technical expertise to improve and protect their
    water resources.
        Specifically, under my legislation the EPA Administrator
    would have authority to direct funding to non-profit
    organizations to provide onsite assistance, regional training,
    assistance with implementation of monitoring plans, rules, and
    regulations to ensure compliance with the Clean Water Act.
        I might mention to my colleagues that a similar initiative
    has already been in effect with regard to effective
    implementation of the Safe Drinking Water Act. This would add
    the Clean Water Act to that. I believe this program would share
    the same success for rural community wastewater systems.
        The bill would also one other thing. It would allow States
    to use up to 2 percent of their Clean Water State Revolving
    Loan Fund for technical assistance for these small systems.
        My appreciation goes out to our colleague, Senator
    Heitkamp, for being the lead Democrat on this bill and to
    members of this Committee, Senators Barrasso, Boozman, and
    Capito, for also signing on as co-sponsors. There is a great
    need for this. I urge its adoption at the appropriate time.
        I thank my colleagues for their attention.
        Senator Boozman. Thank you. We thank the Senator from
    Mississippi.
        Now we will go to our Senator from Nebraska.

                OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DEB FISCHER,
                U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEBRASKA

        Senator Fischer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and also the
    Ranking Member for holding this hearing today. I thank the
    Committee for coordinating the schedule with today's
    conflicting Armed Services Committee briefing.
        I would also like to thank Mayor Gray for providing
    testimony today on behalf of the U.S. Conference of Mayors and
    the other witnesses for their willingness to share their time
    and experience with our Subcommittee.
        Last week I introduced S. 692, the Water Infrastructure
    Flexibility Act, with Senators Brown, Cardin, Boozman, Portman,
    Blunt, and Booker. Our bipartisan legislation would provide
    local communities with increased flexibility when complying
    with Clean Water Act requirements for updates to water
    infrastructure projects.
        The bill would also give communities more independence as
    they prioritize and plan for wastewater and stormwater
    investments. More than 700 local communities across the country
    face mandates from the EPA to comply with Clean Water Act
    requirements.
        In my home State of Nebraska, the city of Omaha was hit
    with a $2 billion unfunded Federal mandate from the EPA.
    Specifically, Omaha was required to update its combined sewer
    overflow system.
        We all want clean and safe drinking water but an expensive,
    one size fits all approach handed down from Washington does not
    work.
        According to the U.S. Conference of Mayors, on average,
    municipalities spend between 6 to 7 cents of every tax dollar
    on water and sewer systems. This makes water infrastructure the
    third largest expense for cities after education and emergency
    personnel.
        Local communities forced to comply with these costly
    mandates have no choice but to pass these costs on to families
    through higher utility bills. For example, in 2014 the city
    council in Omaha, Nebraska, approved a sewer rate increase of
    approximately 45 percent over several years. This hurts the
    most vulnerable in the community, our low and fixed income
    families.
        The Water Infrastructure Flexibility Act would allow
    municipalities to prioritize investments in storm and waste
    water projects needed for CWA compliance. It would also
    establish an Office of Municipal Ombudsman at the EPA to assist
    cities in complying with Federal environmental laws.
        Most importantly, our bill requires the EPA to revise this
    regulation to make it more affordable.
        The U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National Association of
    Counties, the National League of Cities and the National
    Association of Clean Water Agencies have all endorsed this
    bill. I am grateful for their support. I would ask unanimous
    consent that their letters of support be included in the
    record.
        Senator Boozman. Without objection.
        [The referenced information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Fischer. Thank you, sir.
        We all want clean water. Our bill helps us work toward that
    important goal without unnecessarily burdening families along
    the way.
        I would like to thank my colleagues for joining me on this
    legislation, and I look forward to working with each of you as
    we move forward to address our Nation's infrastructure needs.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Boozman. Thank you very much, Senator Fischer.
        We are going to have our opening statements. I will speak
    first and then our Ranking Member. If Senator Gillibrand pops
    in we will pause because she also needs to be at Armed
    Services.
        The reality now is we all have two or three things going on
    at the same time. There is a lot going on up here.

                OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BOOZMAN,
                U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ARKANSAS

        Senator Boozman. As a former member of the House
    Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and now part of the
    Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, I understand the
    importance of infrastructure investment.
        During my time in Congress I have been a constant advocate
    for water resources development and infrastructure. In the
    114th Congress the Senate EPW and full Congress demonstrated
    its commitment to infrastructure with the bipartisan--I
    emphasize bipartisan--passage of two bills, the Water
    Infrastructure Improvement for the Nation Act as well as the
    comprehensive highway bill, the Fixing America Surface
    Transportation Act. I was very pleased to support both.
        Passing these pieces of legislation was a major step
    forward. However, there is still more to be done. I am looking
    forward to the opportunities we will have to make investments
    in the 115th Congress. I am really looking forward to working
    with Senator Duckworth in that capacity.
        Like many Americans I am encouraged by the Trump
    administration's commitment to improving our Nation's crumbling
    infrastructure, following the example set by President Dwight
    Eisenhower in establishment of the interstate highway system.
        It is clear that infrastructure investment boosts our
    economy, creates immediate jobs, and produces decades of
    economic opportunity.
        Unfortunately, since the President signed the Federal Aid
    to Highway Act of 1956 we have relied on a fix as fail approach
    to our Nation's infrastructure. Not only is the fix as fail
    approach more expensive, increasingly causing delays to
    commerce, but it also poses a risk to public safety.
        The United States faces a multi-hundred billion dollar
    shortfall for water infrastructure investments which includes
    drinking water, sewer, and water supply projects. This shortage
    is reflected in the American Society of Civil Engineers'
    overall grade for America's infrastructure as a D+.
        America is now at a crossroads. We need to address our
    aging infrastructure, but it comes with a cost. We have options
    that can help fund infrastructure projects so we can get
    shovels in the ground and projects underway.
        The Federal Government has provided funding to establish
    revolving loan grant programs administered by the States as
    well as resources through the Water Infrastructure Finance
    Innovation Act.
        This program leverages small investments to make sure that
    taxpayers get the most bang for the buck. However, solving
    America's infrastructure crisis is not just about funding. We
    also need to make investing in infrastructure more affordable.
        Once investments have been made, smaller communities may
    need technical assistance with operation and maintenance. Of
    course planning is needed to help us make wise investments.
        One example of Congress providing these tools is the Water
    Supply Cost Savings Act, which I co-sponsored and was included
    in another bill. This legislation provides a technical
    clearinghouse that encourages cost effective approaches to
    bring affordable, quality drinking water to rural America,
    which is so very important.
        With this bill we help to ensure that rural States--such as
    Arkansas--are not overburdened by major new infrastructure
    investments. The three bills we are reviewing today provide
    further examples of how we can help communities meet the
    requirements of the Clean Water Act.
        We all want clean water, but communities are being asked to
    do more and more. These requirements are all coming at once
    where there are mandates to update treatment plants, to address
    nutrients, mandates to control stormwater flows, or mandates to
    address combined or sanitary sewer overflows. There are lots of
    unfunded mandates.
        The question is not whether communities are going to
    address these issues. However, we have to recognize there are
    limits to how fast a community can act, particularly when many
    clean water mandates can cost hundreds of millions and in some
    cases billions of dollars.
        Senator Fischer's bill, the Water Infrastructure
    Flexibility Act of 2017, helps address this issue. This
    legislation, which I am also co-sponsoring, allows communities
    to put all their Clean Water Act obligations into a single plan
    and then implement that plan over time, making the investments
    that provide the greatest environmental and economic benefits
    first instead of trying to do everything at once.
        Another issue is whether a community has the technical
    capability to meet Clean Water Act mandates. Many wastewater
    treatment systems operated by small and rural communities have
    few staff and limited resources.
        As a result, they may lack the expertise to maintain
    compliance with Clean Water Act requirements and may not be
    able to afford a full-time technical expert. On-site technical
    assistance and education offered by circuit riders provides a
    cost effective way to address this issue.
        Senator Wicker's bill, the Small and Rural Community Clean
    Water Technical Assistance Act, addresses this issue by
    authorizing funding for rural water circuit riders.
        Under this bill, of which I am also a co-sponsor, funding
    for this program can come directly from EPA. In addition the
    bill also allows States to set aside a part of their State
    Revolving Loan Fund's money for this purpose.
        Finally, we want to know the wisest investments we can make
    to achieve clean water. Senator Gillibrand's bill, the Long
    Island Sound Restoration and Stewardship Act, addresses this
    issue for the waters of Long Island.
        This bill reauthorizes two existing programs that helped
    New York and Connecticut develop, adapt, and implement the Long
    Island Sound Comprehensive Conservation and Management bill and
    helped restore the coastal habitat.
        I look forward to hearing the views of our witnesses on
    these bills and how we can promote flexibility, technical
    assistance and good planning.
        Senator Boozman. I now recognize Senator Duckworth for an
    opening statement.

              OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TAMMY DUCKWORTH,
                U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

        Senator Duckworth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Good afternoon, everyone. Thank you to Chairman Boozman for
    convening this important conversation and to all of our
    witnesses for joining us today. Welcome to rainy DC where the
    cherry blossoms are not as in full bloom as we would like but
    still lovely nonetheless.
        I believe that infrastructure issues broadly can be a
    bright spot of bipartisanship for this Subcommittee and our
    full Committee as well as Congress. Whether it is rural areas
    or urban areas, coastal or plains States, communities across
    this country are grappling with finding ways to provide
    infrastructure that is strong and safe.
        Not only are there challenges all across this country,
    these challenges are often similar. They also have a pressing
    need to prioritize this issue now all across the Nation.
        As we discuss three bills before us today, I would like to
    highlight that each bill in its own way addresses issues I hear
    so many communities in Illinois complaining about. They provide
    communities with the capacity they need to take care of
    themselves and their residents.
        The Water Infrastructure Flexibility Act will supply local
    governments the technical capacity so that they may better
    comply with requirements under the Clean Water Act. The Small
    and Rural Community Clean Water Technical Assistance Act has a
    similar objective. In this bill we provide small communities
    the work force capacity they would not otherwise have access
    to.
        Finally, everyone should support programs like the Long
    Island Sound Restoration and Stewardship Act which would give
    the region the capacity to coordinate restoration activities
    with other Federal activities.
        Clearly, capacity can come in different shapes and sizes.
    However, regardless of the form, the returns are substantial
    and in some cases, critical.
        I am excited to work with all of you and hope that our
    hearing today will be the first of many to come where we will
    come together, hear ideas, and consider solutions to these very
    urgent issues.
        Thank you again, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Boozman. Thank you.
        Senator Gillibrand.

             OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND,
                U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

        Senator Gillibrand. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Madam
    Ranking Member.
        I am very grateful for this subcommittee hearing today and
    for including my bill, the Long Island Sound Restoration and
    Stewardship Act, on the agenda today.
        I would like to welcome my friend, Erin Crotty, and thank
    her for her testimony today. We went to high school together.
    Erin is the Executive Director of Audubon New York and a former
    commissioner of the New York State Department of Environmental
    Conservation.
        Audubon New York has been an important partner in
    protecting the Long Island Sound. I am so pleased Erin could be
    here today to give the perspective of those who work on the
    ground every day and see the benefits of Federal investment in
    restoring the Sound.
        Thank you, Erin, for being here and for traveling from New
    York.
        Mr. Chairman, the legislation I re-introduced this
    Congress, along with Senators Blumenthal, Schumer, and Murphy
    is identical to the bills that have unanimously passed this
    Committee in previous Congresses.
        It has strong bipartisan support from the New York and
    Connecticut delegations in the House, as well as from the local
    communities in the Long Island Sound Watershed.
        Long Island Sound is an estuary of national significance
    that contributes up to $37 billion to the regional economy each
    year. To protect this resource, my legislation would
    reauthorize through fiscal year 2023 our Federal commitment to
    helping our communities in New York and Connecticut restore and
    maintain the health of Long Island Sound and its ecosystems.
        For every $1 in Federal funds appropriated to the Long
    Island Sound program, $87 is leveraged from other sources. We
    have seen the results from our investment. Federal funding has
    already helped to significantly reduce by millions of pounds
    the amounts of nitrogen entering the Sound from sewage
    treatment plants.
        We have protected thousands of acres of habitat land, but
    there is still work to be done to reduce pollution and protect
    vital ecosystems in and around the Sound for millions of my
    constituents who live and work near it and want to enjoy its
    natural resources for recreation.
        I thank the Committee for once again considering this
    legislation. I hope we can move quickly through Congress so we
    can get it to the President's desk.
        Thank you both.
        Senator Boozman. Thank you.
        Let us now go to our witnesses.
        Mr. Gray.

                   STATEMENT OF RICHARD GRAY, MAYOR,
                    CITY OF LANCASTER, PENNSYLVANIA

        Mr. Gray. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the
    Committee.
        My name is Rick Gray, and I am the Mayor of the city of
    Lancaster, Pennsylvania, a city of 60,000 people in 7 square
    miles.
        The Water Infrastructure Flexibility Act is a positive step
    in acknowledging that we need to approach our water and
    wastewater issues in a more practical and cost effective
    manner.
        Attached to my testimony is a letter signed by the U.S.
    Conference of Mayors, the National League of Cities, and the
    National Association of Counties that encourages all Senators
    to co-sponsor this legislation.
        During intense rain storms, due to impervious services and
    our combined stormwater/wastewater system millions of gallons
    of untreated wastewater can be caused to overflow into our
    river.
        The city has been proactively implementing a comprehensive
    stormwater program to improve water quality, meet regulatory
    compliance, and address stormwater challenges using gray as
    well as green infrastructure.
        Since 1999 the city of Lancaster has been implementing a
    State-approved, long-term control plan investing $80 million in
    gray infrastructure improvements. We are close to meeting the
    85 percent captured goal set forth by EPA.
        If Lancaster used gray infrastructure, this remaining 15
    percent would cost an estimated $300 million.
        After more than a year of evaluation and many public input
    sessions, Lancaster determined that a $140 million investment
    in green infrastructure with other gray system improvements
    over the next 25 years could accomplish the remaining
    compliance for the system.
        In 2011 Lancaster adopted a green infrastructure program
    establishing an integrated stormwater management to reduce
    combined sewage overflows in a more cost effective and
    environmentally sustainable manner.
        Lancaster has completed 45 green infrastructure programs at
    a cost of over $10 million. This has resulted in the capture of
    45 million gallons of stormwater annually. EPA Region 3 and EPA
    Headquarters have lauded our program and held Lancaster up as a
    model for other cities to replicate.
        Yet EPA's Enforcement Division continues aggressive actions
    including threats of civil penalties in the seven figure range
    to press us to use costly gray technology rather than allowing
    Lancaster time to implement a more sustainable green solution.
        Lancaster's story illustrates that a new direction for EPA
    is necessary, one that will allow cities the flexibility to opt
    for more sustainable and resilient green infrastructure
    technologies.
        Since the beginning of Lancaster's implementation we have
    had significant rate increases. I believe they were 130 percent
    since 2003 plus a stormwater fee. Rate increases for our
    customers disproportionately affect the disadvantaged
    populations of our community.
        This is a community in which 29 percent of our households
    have incomes of less than $20,000. These programs are shared by
    many cities.
        The Mayors' message to Congress is that renewing public
    water infrastructure and delivering safe water is becoming less
    affordable. Sewer and stormwater mandates are expensive and may
    not address the highest local environmental or public health
    concerns of a city.
        I would like to call your attention to four important
    points of the Nation's mayors. One, codify EPA's integrated
    planning and permitting policy. Integrating planning should be
    designed to allow cities to develop comprehensive plans and
    establish a plan of investment over time to reach these goals.
        Two is achieving long-term control of stormwater through
    permits. We urge Congress to create a path of long-term goals
    that exist through the permitting process rather than by way of
    consent decrees.
        Third is renewed congressional support for exercising
    flexibility in existing clean water law.
        Fourth is eliminating civil fines in consent decrees for
    local governments that develop integrated plans and make
    reasonable progress in improving their waters.
        I wish to thank the Committee for this opportunity to speak
    before you today.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Gray follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Boozman. Thank you very much for your testimony.
        I did not go to school with him, but I do want to
    especially thank Dennis Sternberg for being here from
    Greenbrier, Arkansas. I have had the opportunity to work with
    him for the last several years. He does a tremendous job.
        As of January 2017 Mr. Sternberg has spent 38 years in the
    water and wastewater industry in Arkansas with 29 of those
    years spent working in almost field positions as a field rep,
    EPA program manager, USDA circuit rider, and wastewater
    technician trainer.
        He and his Rural Water Association staff are committed to
    the future of rural communities by assisting utilities
    throughout the State with their many challenges that rural,
    small utilities continue to face.
        He holds the highest in water and wastewater licenses in
    Arkansas. In 2006 he received the Executive Director of the
    Year Award from the National Rural Association. In 2009 the
    U.S. Department of Agriculture and National Rural Water
    Association recognized Dennis for leadership in emergency
    response preparations.
        Thank you for many, many years of service to the people of
    Arkansas. Now you can give your testimony.

      STATEMENT OF DENNIS STERNBERG, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ARKANSAS
                        RURAL WATER ASSOCIATION

        Mr. Sternberg. Thank you, Senator.
        Good afternoon, Chairman Boozman and members of the
    Committee. It is an honor to be here and we are grateful that
    you have included a voice for rural America at this hearing.
        My name is Dennis Sternberg, and I am the Executive
    Director of the Arkansas Rural Water Association, a non-profit
    association of 563 small and rural community water utilities in
    Arkansas.
        I am also a representative of the National Rural Water
    Association which has over 31,000 community members. Our
    mission is to enhance drinking water and wastewater service,
    safety, compliance, and quality in small and rural America.
        My main message to the Committee today is that the small
    and rural communities in all States strongly support S. 518,
    the Small and Rural Community Clean Water Technical Assistance
    Act.
        We urge the Committee and the Senate to pass it as soon as
    possible to help small communities with the operation of their
    wastewater utilities and compliance with all the Federal
    regulations under the Clean Water Act.
        We are very appreciative of Senators Wicker and Heitkamp's
    sponsorship of the bill, and I will explain why the legislation
    is helpful and merits enactment.
        Most all of our country's sewer systems or wastewater
    utilities are small. Approximately 80 percent of the country's
    approximately 16,000 wastewater utilities serve a population of
    fewer than 10,000 persons.
        In Arkansas, for example, approximately 340 of the 370
    community wastewater utilities serve small communities. In
    Illinois it is approximately 700 of 800; in Maryland, it is 130
    of 170; and in Mississippi, it is approximately 270 of 300.
        Small and rural communities have more difficulty affording
    public wastewater service due to lack of population density and
    lack of economies of scale. This challenge is compounded by the
    fact that rural communities have lower average median household
    incomes and often have higher rates of poverty.
        Likewise, we have a much more challenging time complying
    with our Federal Clean Water Act permits and operating complex
    wastewater treatment systems due to the lack of technical
    resources in small communities. While we have fewer resources,
    we are regulated in the exact same manner as a large community.
        S. 518 provides a solution to the lack of technical
    resources in small communities by providing technical experts--
    we call them circuit riders--in each State, to be shared by all
    small and rural communities who are in need of assistance.
        A circuit rider is a person with expertise in wastewater
    treatment operation, maintenance, governance, and compliance
    who constantly travels the State to be available onsite to any
    community in need of assistance.
        For these circuit riders to be effective and helpful, they
    must be available to travel directly to any given community to
    work specifically with a community's leaders with unique
    treatment and personally educate that operator, mayor, or other
    local officials on how to solve their problems.
        They have to be available when the community needs the help
    which can be nights, winters, after natural disasters, and
    weekends. Also, they must be non-regulatory to gain the trust
    of the local communities.
        The small town of Kensett, Arkansas, provides a good recent
    example of technical assistance. Last year the Kensett
    Waterworks called for help with their sewer systems concerning
    a problem with their activated sludge plant. The plant had
    suddenly become upset and out of compliance.
        A rural water circuit rider was dispatched and traveled to
    the community, inspected the plant and their records and
    noticed a decline in the sample results over a 4-month period.
    The circuit rider disassembled the activated sludge return pump
    and line to clean them and found the cause of the problem. The
    line had been blocked by biological growth.
        After clearing the lines and pumps, the circuit rider
    recommended they feed some artificial enzymes and food
    supplements to try to jump-start the recovery of the activated
    sludge plant.
        In addition to providing the technical solution to their
    problem, this assistance saved the community approximately
    $1,000 per day in potential fines. If enacted and appropriated,
    S. 518 would allow for thousands in similar assistance events
    each year throughout the Nation.
        Senator Wicker had a similar bill pass about a year ago to
    provide small communities with circuit rider assistance for the
    Safe Drinking Water Act and drinking water treatment utilities.
        However, we have not been able to have that legislation,
    Public Law 114-98, specifically cited in the EPA appropriations
    bill which is preventing that technical assistance funding from
    reaching rural Arkansas, Mississippi, Illinois, Maryland, and
    other States.
        Any assistance you can provide to correct these issues with
    the EPA Appropriations Subcommittee is greatly appreciated.
    This committee is very important to rural and small town
    America. We are grateful for the opportunity to testify today
    and grateful for the numerous opportunities this committee has
    provided rural America to testify and to be included in
    crafting of the Federal water and environmental legislation.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Sternberg follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Boozman. Thank you very much.
        Ms. Crotty, you are welcome to go now. I will give you some
    extra time if you would like to tell some stories about Senator
    Gillibrand.

     STATEMENT OF ERIN M. CROTTY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AUDUBON NEW
                                  YORK

        Ms. Crotty. I think I will take a pass on that, Senator.
        Good afternoon Chairman Boozman, Ranking Member Duckworth,
    and Senator Gillibrand. I really want to thank you for allowing
    me to testify on Senate Bill 675, the Long Island Sound
    Restoration and Stewardship Act.
        I would especially like to thank Senator Gillibrand from my
    home State for being a champion for our shared environment and
    for sponsoring this critically important legislation.
        My name is Erin Crotty. I am the Executive Director of
    Audubon New York and also Vice President of the National
    Audubon Society. Audubon's mission is to protect birds, their
    habitats, and the places they need to survive throughout their
    entire life cycle.
        For decades Audubon's united network of members,
    volunteers, chapters, national, New York State, and Connecticut
    offices have worked hard to protect and restore Long Island
    Sound and its watershed. Here is why.
        Long Island Sound is a globally significant ecosystem for
    birds, fish, and other wildlife. It is a 1,320-square-mile
    estuary of the Atlantic Ocean and borders 600 miles of New York
    and Connecticut.
        The Sound supports 54 important bird areas which are the
    most important places for birds, 14 of which are globally
    important.
        It is an estuary of national significance. The Sound is
    home to one of the most important tern nesting sites on earth,
    Great Gull Island, with approximately 10,000 pairs of common
    terns and more than 1,000 pairs of the federally endangered
    roseate tern.
        The Sound supports over 1,200 species of invertebrates, 170
    species of fish, and dozens of species of migratory birds,
    including the federally threatened piping plover and red knot.
    Twenty-three million people--7 percent of the total U.S.
    population--live within 50 miles of the Sound, and it is 5
    miles from the heart of the country's most populated city, New
    York. The Sound generates an impressive $9.4 billion annually
    to the regional economy.
        It is for these reasons that Audubon strongly supports the
    Long Island Sound Restoration and Stewardship Act. The Act
    authorizes the Long Island Sound program in the Environmental
    Protection Agency and the Long Island Stewardship Act through
    fiscal year 2023.
        The Act authorizes up to $40 million annually for grants to
    support the Sound's Comprehensive Conservation Management Plan
    and up to $25 million annually to procure and enhance sites
    within the Sound's watershed and adds critical functions to the
    Long Island Sound Study Office including to study the
    environmental impacts on the Sound's source waters.
        The Act is a common sense approach to modern estuary
    protection and helps meet the Federal Government's share of the
    funding needed. The Federal funding, which is often the driver
    for projects moving forward, will be leveraged with other
    Federal, State, local, and private investment.
        On average, the estuaries of the National Estuaries
    Program, of which the Long Island Sound Study is one, raises
    $18 for every $1 provided by the EPA. That is a significant and
    meaningful leverage ratio.
        While the health of the Sound has improved, threats do
    continue. For nearly 30 years this comprehensive effort has
    resulted in measurable improvement to the Sound's health, and
    Audubon has been there every step of the way.
        Water quality has improved, habitat has been restored, and
    open spaces protected, which has resulted in the Sound teaming
    with wildlife and people. Nitrogen is being reduced from
    wastewater treatment plants, habitat is being restored,
    millions of people are being engaged, and dead zones are
    shrinking. Bald eagles are nesting, and species are returning--
    like the humpback whales and bluefish, yet the health of the
    Sound is still threatened. Today's threats are more diffuse and
    challenging.
        A changing climate, extreme weather events, acidification,
    nitrogen discharges from stormwater and septics, aging and
    broken infrastructure, brown tide, invasive species,
    development pressure, and rising sea levels are literally
    squeezing out the habitat for birds and other wildlife. These
    are the challenges facing the Sound today. The collaborative
    and integrated effort enabled by the Act is more important than
    ever.
        The Sound's CCMP was updated in 2015, and the vision is one
    of clean water that is protected and nourished, abundant and
    diverse wildlife, flourishing commercial fisheries, accessible
    harbors, and a public that protects and sustains the ecosystem.
        The Act helps us--governments at all levels--the private
    sector, non-governmental organizations, including Audubon, and
    the public reach that vision.
        The Nation's National Estuaries Program faces an uncertain
    future. The Trump administration has reportedly proposed to
    eliminate funding for EPA's Categorical Grants which Audubon
    believes includes the 28 estuaries of the NEP, including the
    Sound.
        The NEP is a cost effective, non-regulatory program that
    harnesses the power of on-the-ground stakeholders by providing
    them with a structure to collaborate, develop, and implement a
    long-term plan to guide their efforts.
        Over one-half of our country's population lives within 100
    miles of coasts, and more and more people are moving there.
    With a leverage ratio of 18 to 1 and $4.2 billion leveraged
    with an investment of $230 million in EPA grants, the NEP has
    proven to be a highly effective and efficient program.
        Audubon strongly encourages Congress to resist this short
    sighted effort to cut the program.
        Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify today.
    Help us make a difference for the birds, the wildlife and the
    people that rely on the Sound for survival and a high quality
    of life by taking action on Senate Bill 675, the Long Island
    Sound Restoration and Stewardship Act.
        Thank you very much.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Crotty follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Boozman. Thank you, Ms. Crotty.
        Senator Gillibrand.
        Senator Gillibrand. Thank you so much, Ms. Crotty, for your
    testimony. I have two basic questions.
        Can you tell the Committee, for the record, what would be
    the environmental and economic impact if Congress no longer
    funded the Long Island Sound Program? Can you more fully
    describe the level of coordination between the Federal
    Government, State, local, and NGO stakeholders to carry out
    projects to restore and protect the Sound?
        I ask this because that leverage is really significant. I
    think it is important for the Federal Government to know it is
    not just Federal dollars at stake here. It is a lot of other
    dollars that come because of Federal leadership.
        Ms. Crotty. Thank you, Senator.
        The Long Island Sound Study Program of EPA really is the
    lynchpin or the catalyst, if you will, of pulling all of the
    parties working on restoring Long Island Sound which is a bi-
    State effort and involves all of the levels of government and
    certainly not-for-profit organizations and municipalities.
        It really is that glue that holds us together and working
    toward a common vision in the CCMPs in order to protect and
    restore this estuary of national significance. The money we
    find from the Long Island Sound Program is often the catalyst
    for a project to move forward.
        All of these programs are co-funded. It is very rare when
    you have a wastewater treatment plant upgrade, a habitat
    restoration project, or an open space project that is not
    leveraged with private and public dollars.
        It would be extremely detrimental to the progress we have
    made and certainly all of the challenges that we have left if
    the reauthorization did not happen.
        Senator Gillibrand. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Thank you so much.
        Ms. Crotty. Thank you.
        Senator Boozman. Thank you.
        I am going to ask Mr. Gray a question. I would like you to
    respond also, Ms. Crotty. It is going to be about green.
        Mayor Gray, according to your testimony it costs the city
    of Lancaster $80 million to capture 85 percent of flows from
    your combined sewers. I assume capturing the remaining 15
    percent is difficult because the technology gets difficult to
    do that.
        In many cases in Arkansas, we have situations where that
    happens, but there is really no measurable difference as far as
    the streams and things like that. That little extra is costing
    you so much, $300 million.
        To me it is a classic example of the diminishing returns
    that you get at some point. I do not really know where that is,
    but at some point you get really diminishing returns.
        It also points out the need to try new approaches, which
    you are doing. You have gotten a lot of credit for it, and yet
    you really do not get credit for it as far as enforcement. Tell
    me about the barriers you faced to using the green
    infrastructure approach.
        Ms. Crotty, again, the potential of having a portion of
    $300 million in green is a lot of green, and if that would or
    would not be beneficial, trying to figure out the commonsense
    approach with these things.
        Yes, sir.
        Mr. Gray. Senator, all politics are local. In Lancaster we
    have combined green infrastructure with park improvement,
    intersection improvement, and private alley improvement. We
    funded through the State Revolving Fund loan, we got many
    demonstration projects on the local level.
        In doing that, when we do a park, for example, and put in
    green infrastructure, we have one park with six basketball
    courts, all with drain fields underneath them, all of which are
    impervious.
        When we do those types of projects, the people of Lancaster
    know the neighborhood, know the improvements that have been
    done in their neighborhood. It becomes a cost effective problem
    at a certain point. How are we going to pay for this?
        After 3 or 4 years of doing improvements, green
    infrastructure improvements with visible side benefits, the
    public was ready, and we imposed a stormwater fee. You would
    think the people would be up in arms with a stormwater fee, but
    people related to it as visible improvements in their
    neighborhoods, their parks, their streets, their intersections,
    and the rain gardens we have put all over the city.
        They have seen visible improvements which with
    infrastructure very often you cannot see what is being done.
    When it came time to impose a stormwater fee to pay for a lot
    of this, two people showed up at the city council to oppose it,
    lawyers for the two biggest parking lots in the city. The
    residents were ready to say, we are willing to do our part.
        Through a little creative politics over a 3- or 4-year
    period, the people in the community actually bought into it and
    were actually agreeable to doing it.
        The problem with the gray infrastructure, the cost of the
    gray infrastructure, is they want it done now. It must be done
    immediately. You have to put in a holding tank or put in two
    holding tanks at $300 million.
        As compared to green infrastructure which takes time to put
    in and time for its benefits to be realized, a sense of urgency
    I think is one of the biggest problem, the sense of urgency
    imposed upon us.
        Senator Boozman. Ms. Crotty.
        Ms. Crotty. Thank you, Senator.
        I think that example is quite fascinating. I think what we
    have found all across New York State, particularly on Long
    Island, is when you have the ability to be flexible and devise
    local smart solutions from the start, that is sort of the best
    outcome, being able to integrate green infrastructure,
    resiliency, design into clean water infrastructure projects
    funded by multiple parties including State and Federal
    Government.
        That is the best solution, making sure the various
    regulatory statutes build into regulations the kind of
    flexibility that localities need in order to comply.
        You just described a real quality of life issue. The green
    infrastructure and resiliency components built into some of
    these local projects become a real important part of the
    quality of life for their community.
        It makes it nicer, more accessible, and also improves the
    environment. You definitely have had two big wins there in
    terms of your public policy priorities.
        Senator Boozman. Senator Duckworth.
        Senator Duckworth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Sternberg, I understand the Trump administration has
    promised eliminating a key program for rural communities, the
    USDA's Water and Waste Disposal Loan and Grant Program.
        I have 776 small and rural communities throughout my State
    that serve 1.4 million customers. I am hearing from them that
    without this program, their ability to guarantee public sewer
    and wastewater systems would be impaired.
        Can you share with me how important a program like the
    Water and Waste Disposal Loan and Grant Program is to small and
    rural communities?
        Mr. Sternberg. Thank you, Senator. That is a very good
    question.
        It is the same thing in Arkansas. We have 700 community
    water systems and 370 wastewater systems. The majority of the
    systems in Arkansas and in most States are those 31,000
    community water systems that represent national rural water
    across the Nation.
        Small, rural communities go the USDA Loan Grant Program for
    their improvements or upgrades. It has happened for over 70
    years. That is the best program out there. It does not cost the
    Federal Government anything because they pay it back. They have
    less than one-half percent delinquency rate.
        That type of program we need. That is infrastructure that
    we are going to continually need. For that system to go out on
    the private market is not going to be the same cost back to the
    ratepayers. It will be exorbitant.
        There is only so much money in the State Revolving Loan
    Fund. In Arkansas the majority of the larger systems are
    accessing that, so the competition is going to be greater.
        Senator Duckworth. Am I correct in saying the bills we are
    discussing today might be supplemental but certainly cannot
    take over the function of this program?
        Mr. Sternberg. Exactly. No.
        Senator Duckworth. Thank you.
        Can you share with me why technical assistance is also very
    important to rural communities and how technical assistance
    authorized in the Wicker bill would work in partnership with
    other programs?
        Mr. Sternberg. The technical assistance for the small and
    rural communities with populations of 10,000 and under are the
    ones that do not have the expertise like Little Rock or
    Jonesboro where they have engineers, chemists, and different
    ones available and the licensed operator at the highest level
    to troubleshoot those types of things.
        They rely on Rural Water. Rural Water has technicians out
    there right now through USDA. We have some contracts through
    EPA and some through our State SRF on the drinking water side,
    but they are designated to certain systems.
        There will be no duplication, and it is needed, drastically
    needed. We train more water and wastewater operators in the
    State of Arkansas than any other agency, including the primacy
    agency.
        Senator Duckworth. I tried getting bifocals, and it looked
    like this table under me was curved, and they made me dizzy, so
    excuse me while I do this.
        Senator Boozman. I am an optometrist, so I will give you
    some help.
        Senator Duckworth. Would you, please, because I got my
    first pair, and they just drive me crazy.
        Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask unanimous consent to
    enter into the record three letters in support of the USDA
    Water and Waste Disposal Loan and Grant Program as well as the
    Water Infrastructure Flexibility Act.
        Senator Boozman. Without objection.
        [The referenced letters follow:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Duckworth. Thank you so much.
        As I mentioned in my opening remarks, while I support all
    these bills I think there is always room for improvement. For
    example, I would like to work with all of you in making sure
    many of the medium-sized communities in my State are not left
    out.
        Mayor Gray, as you discussed, the city of Lancaster has
    long been working on a green infrastructure plan since 2011.
    Can you share some of the primary and secondary benefits of
    using green infrastructure to address stormwater and wastewater
    projects?
        Mr. Gray. Certainly, Senator.
        There have been three categories of improvements which we
    have seen. Environmental benefits include recharging
    groundwater, protecting and improving water quality, providing
    natural stormwater management, mitigating the heat island
    effect, and reducing energy use. All come from our green
    infrastructure programs.
        Social benefits include increasing recreational
    opportunities, improving health through cleaner air and water,
    and improved psychological well being. Plus, it makes the city
    more attractive to the kind of people you want in the city, the
    millennials.
        A week does not go by that I am not stopped by some younger
    person who tells me they like that the city prides itself on
    being a green city. They like it, they want to move there, they
    want to be a part of it.
        Finally, economic benefits include the future cost of
    stormwater management as well as increasing property values. I
    will give you an example. We have a lot of private alleys in
    Lancaster which are just what they sound like, alleys owned by
    the property owners on both sides.
        We put green alley in one of these private alleys. Within a
    week, the price of a house for sale on the green alley had gone
    up $2,500. There was a small notation in the newspaper
    advertising it as being on ``the green alley.'' They are all
    over the city now.
        We find people who are willing to part with their own
    money, $500 a property owner to put in these types of things.
    There are so many benefits that come from it that are past
    stormwater benefits. Again, environmental, social, and economic
    benefits all come from green infrastructure.
        Senator Duckworth. Thank you. I always find my mayors to be
    the most practical problem solvers. I think you just
    demonstrated that in your answer.
        Mr. Gray. We have to be, Senator.
        Senator Duckworth. You do.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Boozman. Thank you.
        The Senator from Nebraska.
        Senator Fischer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mayor Gray, since you just received that great compliment
    from the Ranking Member, I have a question for you.
        In your written testimony, you mentioned that the current
    EPA enforcement approach employs aggressive actions, rigid
    methods, and threats of large civil penalties. What are the
    consequences for such an approach for small cities like
    Lancaster?
        Mr. Gray. We have one consent decree we operate under
    already from the American with Disabilities Act. My predecessor
    was sued and rightfully so, and they entered a consent decree.
        Now, for everything we do with our sidewalks and streets,
    we have to go to Philadelphia and get approval from a Federal
    judge who is very nice and sympathetic, but it has taken it out
    of our hands. The practical things have been taken out of our
    hands.
        We met with the EPA, and the EPA region was very supportive
    of our green infrastructure program. Politically, I sold it to
    people that we have to get ahead of the EPA. We want to do this
    before they make us do things. We want to be positive about it.
    We want to be friends with the EPA. We want them to be our
    friends.
        They supported us for years. If you went to a Chesapeake
    Bay meeting and they were having a slide show, there would
    always be a couple of slides the EPA would put up about
    Lancaster. This is what we want, this is what we want you to
    do.
        A few years ago enforcement got involved. I am not sure the
    region and the enforcement division talk to each other because
    it was a totally different attitude. It was you have to do
    this, it must be done now.
        Negotiations have proceeded which are quite costly to the
    city, between experts and lawyers and whatnot. We spent a lot
    of money at this point talking with the EPA. We are trying to
    work out something with them.
        For example, to impose a civil penalty, I am not going to
    pay it. I was in private practice. I represented clients who
    had civil penalties that came off their bottom line. Where does
    the civil penalty of the city of Lancaster come from but out of
    the taxpayers' pocket?
        We are negotiating with them right now. It sort of shocked
    us when they came with that kind of attitude because we thought
    we had a different relationship with them.
        Senator Fischer. My apologies; I gave your city the
    Nebraska pronunciation of Lancaster instead of Lancaster.
        Mr. Gray. You are forgiven, Senator.
        Senator Fischer. How would provisions within the Water
    Infrastructure Flexibility Act help to give cities and counties
    a stronger seat at the table in addressing really the long-term
    strategic water infrastructure needs that you have?
        You said you are working with the EPA and redevelop a good
    working relationship. Do you think my bill would help with
    that?
        Mr. Gray. Absolutely. We think we do have a good working
    relationship with one part of the EPA. We support their goals,
    and we support their efforts.
        The bill has a couple of things in it that would really be
    different and change the culture. The permitting, to have
    permitting and including this all in permitting rather than
    doing it through a consent decree, there is a 20-year decree,
    do it for 5 years. Look at it, work together on it, and see
    what your abilities are.
        There are provisions in there for affordability. Again, the
    city of Lancaster has 29 percent of its families that have
    $20,000 or less income. Affordability is an important issue to
    us. We want to do it, we want to do it right. How much can we
    afford for it?
        Finally, the provision that you take out the civil
    penalties is another approach. Why not use that money to
    implement green infrastructure or gray infrastructure? Why
    penalize us for what has happened in the past?
        Senator Fischer. You mentioned how under the current
    structure, cities are faced with the need to increase rates on
    the families with a regressive impact on those most in need or
    on a fixed income. I am concerned about that as well. A 2
    percent increase on utility rates means a great deal for
    working families.
        Can you explain why the median household income benchmark
    is harmful to low and fixed income families?
        Mr. Gray. Not really.
        Senator Fischer. Do any other panel members wish to address
    that?
        Mr. Sternberg.
        Mr. Sternberg. The median household income for that city or
    area, you still have the lower income people who will be
    affected through it all. There are similar situations in
    Arkansas. We have that same problem.
        You set it at the median household income so the lower
    income people are still getting hit harder because of their
    poverty or whatever the case might be. It is something that
    really needs a hard look.
        Mr. Gray. Again, 29 percent of our population makes less
    than $20,000 per year. We estimated that if you did that it
    would be around $700 a year for water. Right now in the city of
    Lancaster, you might pay $200 a year. It would impact the low
    and moderate income people. That would be a substantial
    increase.
        Senator Fischer. That is what we are trying to address in
    the bill to make sure those people who have low or fixed
    incomes are not hurt disproportionately by the legislation we
    are putting forward and that we are still able to make sure
    that those water infrastructure projects are going to get done.
        Thank you very much.
        Mr. Gray. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Fischer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Boozman. Senator Cardin.
        Senator Cardin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I want to thank the witnesses for being here and share a
    story.
        I was helping a local councilman from Baltimore City during
    the elections this year, so I did something that Senators do
    not normally do, I was actually knocking door to door for this
    candidate. I was not on the ballot in Baltimore City.
        There was a theme from every person who answered the door.
    That was the water bills in Baltimore and the affordability to
    the ratepayers.
        I recognized that we have a real problem. That is you have
    an aging water system that needs desperate repair that costs a
    lot of money that has yet to be fully implemented. Certainly in
    Baltimore City it has not been fully implemented. Then you have
    the pressure on the ratepayers that is beyond their
    affordability.
        We have to figure out a way to deal with this real problem
    in our community. I thank the Chairman for his leadership on
    this issue. The two of us have joined together on several
    initiatives to try to deal with water issues.
        I am working now with Senators Fischer and Brown on a bill
    that we think would make the water more affordable by an
    integrated planning process. We require a lot of different
    plans. If we integrated together we can save considerable
    resources for local governments, and by the way, take a more
    holistic approach rather than taking a look at the specific
    program.
        We are hoping that will help deal with some of the
    affordability issues. We are also looking at the median income
    standard for Federal assistance. It is interesting, Mr.
    Chairman, and I want to share this with you.
        I got the numbers for Baltimore City because I found they
    were kind of shocking. Baltimore City shows a relatively high
    median income but when you take a look at the poverty levels in
    Baltimore City, we have a large number of people, the majority
    of people fall under the poverty level. The median income as
    the sole indicator for eligibility we think is just the wrong
    approach.
        We are offering those suggestions in an effort to try to
    make the Federal partnership more available, particularly to
    those jurisdictions that are really being stressed on their
    ratepayers.
        I wanted to make those comments. Thank you for the hearing.
    I would be happy to hear from any of our witnesses who would
    like to respond as to other ways we can provide relief to the
    ratepayers and still get the type of modernization of our water
    infrastructure that is desperately needed, particularly in our
    older communities.
        Mr. Sternberg. I would just say, Senator, as far as rural
    and small communities, that is why what Senator Duckworth
    brought up about the USDA Loan and Grant Program is so
    important.
        If it goes away, water rates will go up in rural and small
    America. There is no way around it. You hit on the larger
    systems having the same issue. I think Congress is doing
    starting something with WIFIA program, funding some of that for
    the larger utilities. I think that is great.
        You are right. You have to be more inventive in how we go
    about doing things like that, but the USDA Loan and Grant
    Program for infrastructure is vital. It has to be put back in
    place.
        Senator Cardin. I strongly support the initiative that came
    out of this Committee. It does not take away, though, the need
    for us to have the basic partnership programs that help in
    regard to water infrastructure.
        Ms. Crotty. Thank you, Senator.
        I was going to mention that under the Clean Water State
    Revolving Fund Model, having the ability to give hardship
    grants and grants to municipalities can be very critical at
    times.
        The other thing I was going to mention was Senator Boozman
    raised the prospect of having a large infrastructure investment
    coming out of Congress potentially this year. Having clean
    water as part of that larger bill I think would be a tremendous
    investment in not only jobs and our economy but also a benefit
    to our environment and our high quality of life.
        We do find in New York State sometimes the grant money that
    does not have to be paid back, it is not the low interest,
    long-term loan but actual grants, having the flexibility to be
    able to give out the grant money becomes a real critical point
    for some of the projects in rural parts of the State and less
    affluent areas.
        Senator Cardin. I would point out that you are correct.
    There is strong interest in an infrastructure bill. It is going
    to be more difficult to deliver than just interest because we
    have to come together.
        What we urge you all to do--and you will have our support--
    is whatever infrastructure bill comes out, make sure water is
    included in it. That is not a foregone conclusion because the
    interest on things you see more visibly like roads and bridges
    usually gets more attention than things that are underground
    that people do not see and recognize the desperate need.
        Mr. Chairman, I have a letter from Baltimore City. I would
    ask it be made a part of our record.
        Senator Boozman. Without objection.
        [The referenced letter follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Boozman. Let me ask Mr. Sternberg a couple quick
    questions. Can you explain to the committee why circuit riders
    that actually come to your community are more effective in
    providing technical assistance than other approaches like
    Webinars?
        Has EPA shifted support for rural technical assistance away
    from the circuit riders in your experience?
        Mr. Sternberg. The first part of it is the reason for the
    circuit riders and the need to go to the local communities
    versus the Webinars, you are one on one with that operator,
    that mayor, and that council. You can show them their actual
    problem with their system.
        In a classroom or a Webinar, you are just seeing different
    portions and functions at treatment plants. There is no trust
    there. You are just reading something or hearing something.
    When you are with those circuit riders, or those circuit riders
    are there, you build that bond and trust.
        The next issue that comes up with that utility, they will
    call them and call them quickly. That is the reason for the
    circuit riders. You share that cost across all the small and
    rural communities. It is not just one engineer coming out there
    that costs that system to come up with a solution to it. That
    is where the circuit riders are so vital to this project.
        As far as the EPA, we have lost funding through EPA on
    water technicians. Back in 2009 we had a groundwater technician
    fully funded. That runs about $110,000 a year, I think it was.
    Our trainer that was fully funded back then. We are subsidizing
    that by about 45 percent.
        We do not get the money because they spread out the cost to
    the Webinars and different things like that. There is nobody
    going on site like the circuit riders. That is where it
    happens. The rubber meets the road. That is where it is at.
        Senator Boozman. In your testimony, you mentioned the
    circuit riders providing emergency response. Can you give some
    examples of that? Is anyone else out there providing that type
    of assistance?
        Mr. Sternberg. In Arkansas we are very proud of what we do
    in Arkansas Rural Water. We actually have seven big mobile
    generators we can deploy. An example would be February 27,
    2014, my birthday, the tornadoes came through and hit
    Mayflower, Arkansas, and hit Vilonia, Arkansas. It was an F-4.
    It demolished the towns in both communities.
        I was not actually in the State at the time. My staff
    called me, and I said deploy whatever assistance they need.
    Find out and identify the need. Within 24 hours, we had every
    water system, the water and wastewater system in Mayflower, the
    water and wastewater system in Vilonia, up and running. We had
    no SOS or SSOs, sanitary sewer overflows on the sewer system.
        We have four small mobile generators that we use VFDs for
    that we can actually run three-phase motors so we use them on
    the sewer lift stations. We had them on pickup trucks moving
    around station to station. Hardwired them, pumped all the sewer
    down so we never had overflows. We continually had them making
    the rounds.
        The emergency response is very beneficial to the utilities.
    We are the first call. They do not call ADEM, they do not call
    the health department, they do not call ADEQ. They call
    Arkansas Rural Water, and it works.
        Senator Boozman. Mayor Gray, just from years of hearing
    testimony always being on water, I can sympathize with the
    situation you are in as far as your community. I do not know if
    you are a Republican, a Democrat, or whatever; I could care
    less.
        Mr. Gray. It does not matter at the local level. It really
    does not.
        Senator Boozman. Exactly. I am thinking of a community in
    Arkansas with a good friend running the community and working
    very, very hard, really doing much the same things you have
    done and is kind of the poster child for getting on the stick.
    He happens to be a liberal Democrat, so there is no rhyme or
    reason to this thing. It is just communities in general.
        There is a finite amount of money, and we do have to be
    wise and use some common sense as to the final part that you
    are lacking that cost $300 million. We have had testimony from
    the person that runs the unit in Decatur, Washington. They have
    spent, I think, $1 billion, and do not hold me exactly
    responsible.
        They have done a great job. The taxpayer rates have gone up
    dramatically. They are wanting, I think, another $1 billion to
    ratchet down small amount which everyone agrees would not make
    any difference in the quality of the river.
        If you spend a lot of money, relatively speaking, you would
    not need to spend $1 billion, but just think what you could do
    with some of the greenery that you are doing not only to help
    the wildlife but also the quality of life in our communities
    and the adjacent things.
        Again, we appreciate your story.
        We will go now to Senator Duckworth.
        Senator Duckworth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have one
    final question.
        I wanted to ask Mr. Sternberg to elaborate a little bit on
    how the circuit riders perform in emergency situations, kind of
    elaborate on what we talked about just now but in terms of do
    they or do they not help in coordinating with local agencies
    and other Federal agencies in the event of an emergency?
        How is that integrated, and how do you see that happening
    on the ground when there is an emergency and you have to
    respond and have all different levels of government, vertical
    and horizontal?
        Mr. Sternberg. I can give you an example in Mayflower and
    Vilonia. We are recognized as one of the emergency responders.
    We work with ADEM, we work with the Arkansas Department of
    Health on all public water systems.
        The first call we have, if we get a call from a water
    system with an emergency, we contact the health department and
    make sure they are aware of it. They ask us to provide reports
    back to them of our findings. They know we are going to be
    deployed.
        My field staff is in the field anyway and live all across
    the State. Normally I have someone who can get there within an
    hour and a half just because of where my staff lives.
        We work with all the local agencies. When we came to the
    city of Mayflower, we checked in with the city of Mayflower.
    They were the ones who requested us. When they request us we
    come with all our equipment and our manpower.
        We have the county, the Office of Emergency Services
    officer there. They contact and stay in communication with ADEM
    at the State office. We stay in communication with the health
    department.
        If they get any request through ADEM, it goes to the health
    department and comes to Rural Water. We are part of the
    Arkansas Water Agency Response Network. We work very closely
    with them, and there is no duplication of what we are doing. It
    works very well.
        Senator Duckworth. They are part of your team. You talked
    about how it is so important to have a person that is there on
    the ground that you know and trust. Do you do emergency
    training programs when it comes to water emergency response and
    that sort of thing? Is that something on an annual basis with
    all the different agencies along with the circuit riders? Is
    that being done?
        Mr. Sternberg. Actually, I am on the national level.
        Senator Duckworth. You are a busy man.
        Mr. Sternberg. I know. I have too many titles. I am the
    Chairman of the National Rural Water Association Emergency
    Response Committee. We meet at least twice a year. We do a 1-
    week training located somewhere throughout the Nation. This
    year we are going to Florida. Last year, we were in Louisiana,
    and 3 years prior to that we did it in Lonoke, Arkansas. We
    have moved around to different places.
        We have invited other State circuit riders to come in to be
    trained and continually update them on new things out there. It
    is continuation of that work.
        In-State, my staff is all trained. Every month they come
    in, they are assigned different duties, to check out the
    generators, make sure they are maintained, making sure the load
    bank has been done on them. We actually load bank those
    generators so we know even if the motor is running on that
    generator that does not mean that generator is putting out
    power.
        All our generators have multi-voltage electric switches on
    them. When we pull up on site, it does not matter what voltage
    that system has. We can set it and forget it and go with it. We
    did it for a reason that way.
        Senator Duckworth. Wonderful. Thank you so much.
        Mr. Sternberg. Thank you.
        Senator Duckworth. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Boozman. Thank all of you for being here.
        Any follow up questions will be submitted to the witnesses
    for response. This record will be open for 2 weeks for
    additional submissions.
        Thank you all for sharing our stories and commenting on the
    legislation before us. I think today we have demonstrated that
    this is an issue where there really is a lot of common ground.
    We are going to be working very, very hard.
        Senator Duckworth and I had a great meeting yesterday
    talking about areas we are going to be working hard to get some
    things done.
        With that, the meeting is adjourned. Thank you again very
    much.
        [Whereupon, at 3:25 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
        [The referenced legislation follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]