[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



                  EPA'S LEAD AND COPPER PROPOSAL: FALLING
                     SHORT OF PROTECTING PUBLIC HEALTH

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

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

             SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND CLIMATE CHANGE

                                 OF THE

                    COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                     ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                               __________


                       TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 2020

                               __________

                           Serial No. 116-99





                 [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]






      Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce

                   govinfo.gov/committee/house-energy
                        energycommerce.house.gov

                               ______
                                 

                 U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

51-560 PDF                WASHINGTON : 2024











                    COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE

                     FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
                               Chairman

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois              GREG WALDEN, Oregon
ANNA G. ESHOO, California              Ranking Member
ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York             FRED UPTON, Michigan
DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado              JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois
MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania             MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois             STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana
G. K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina    ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
DORIS O. MATSUI, California          CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington
KATHY CASTOR, Florida                BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky
JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland           PETE OLSON, Texas
JERRY McNERNEY, California           DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia
PETER WELCH, Vermont                 ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois
BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico            H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia
PAUL TONKO, New York                 GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida
YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York, Vice     BILL JOHNSON, Ohio
    Chair                            BILLY LONG, Missouri
DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa                 LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana
KURT SCHRADER, Oregon                BILL FLORES, Texas
JOSEPH P. KENNEDY III,               SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana
    Massachusetts                    MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
TONY CARDENAS, California            RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina
RAUL RUIZ, California                TIM WALBERG, Michigan
SCOTT H. PETERS, California          EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan             JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
MARC A. VEASEY, Texas                GREG GIANFORTE, Montana
ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire
ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California
A. DONALD McEACHIN, Virginia
LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware
DARREN SOTO, Florida
TOM O'HALLERAN, Arizona
                                 ------                                

                           Professional Staff

                   JEFFREY C. CARROLL, Staff Director
                TIFFANY GUARASCIO, Deputy Staff Director
                MIKE BLOOMQUIST, Minority Staff Director



             Subcommittee on Environment and Climate Change

                          PAUL TONKO, New York
                               Chairman

YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York           JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois
SCOTT H. PETERS, California            Ranking Member
NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California    CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington
A. DONALD McEACHIN, Virginia         DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia
LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware       BILL JOHNSON, Ohio
DARREN SOTO, Florida                 BILLY LONG, Missouri
DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado              BILL FLORES, Texas
JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois             MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
DORIS O. MATSUI, California          EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
JERRY McNERNEY, California           JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
RAUL RUIZ, California, Vice Chair    GREG WALDEN, Oregon (ex officio)
DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey (ex 
    officio)










                             C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
Hon. Paul Tonko, a Representative in Congress from the State of 
  New York, opening statement....................................     1
    Prepared statement...........................................     3
Hon. John Shimkus, a Representative in Congress from the State of 
  Illinois, opening statement....................................     4
    Prepared statement...........................................     5
Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the 
  State of New Jersey, opening statement.........................     6
    Prepared statement...........................................     8
Hon. Greg Walden, a Representative in Congress from the State of 
  Oregon, opening statement......................................     9
    Prepared statement...........................................    10

                          Witnesses Statement

Mona Hanna-Attisha, M.D., Director, Pediatric Public Health 
  Initiative, C. S. Mott Endowed Professor of Public Health, 
  Division of Public Health......................................    12
    Prepared statement...........................................    15
Deborah Kim Gaddy, Environmental Justice Organizer, Clean Water 
  Action of New Jersey...........................................    22
    Prepared statement...........................................    24
Angela Licata, Deputy Commissioner, New York City Department of 
  Environmental Protection.......................................    29
    Prepared statement...........................................    31
Cathy Tucker-Vogel, Public Water Supply Section Chief, Kansas 
  Department of Health and Environment...........................    42
Prepared statement \1\
Steve Estes-Smargiassi, Director Of Planning And Sustainability, 
  Massachusetts Water Resources Authority........................    43
    Prepared statement...........................................    46
Cindy Bobbitt, Commissioner, Grant County, Oklahoma..............    55
    Prepared statement...........................................    57
Mae Wu, Senior Director Health and Food, Senior Attorney Healthy 
  People and Thriving Communities Program........................    65
    Prepared statement...........................................    67

----------
\1\ The information has been retained in committee files and also 
  is available at https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF18/
  20200211/110501/HHRG-116-IF18-Wstate-Tucker-VogelC-
  20200211.pdf.

                           Submitted Material

Letter of February 11, 2020, to Mr. Tonko and Mr. Shimkus, by 
  Dominick Longobardi, Regional Director Region II, from American 
  Public Water Works Association, submitted by Mr. Tonko.........   118
Letter of February 10, 2020, by William E. (Bill) Spearman III, 
  P. E. President, and Scott D. Grayson, CAE, Cheif Executive 
  Director, from American Public Water Works Association to the 
  Energy and Commerce Committee, submitted by Mr. Tonko..........   122
Letter of February 10, 2020, to Subcommittee on Environment and 
  Climate Change, by Mike Keegan, National Rural Water 
  Association, submitted by Mr. Tonko............................   128
Letter of February 10, 2020, to Mr. Tonko and Mr. Shimkus, by Tom 
  Cochran, CEO and Executive Director, U.S. Conference of Mayors 
  and Clarence E. Anthony, CEO and Executive Director, National 
  League of Cities, submitted by Mr. Tonko.......................   130









 
                  EPA'S LEAD AND COPPER PROPOSAL: FALLING
                     SHORT OF PROTECTING PUBLIC HEALTH

                              ----------                              


                       TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 2020

                  House of Representatives,
    Subcommittee on Environment and Climate Change,
                          Committee on Energy and Commerce,
                                                    Washington, DC.
     The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:30 a.m., in 
room 2322 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Paul Tonko 
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
    Members present: Representatives Tonko, Clarke, Peters, 
Barragan, Blunt Rochester, Soto, DeGette, Matsui, McNerney, 
Ruiz, Dingell, Pallone (ex officio), Shimkus (subcommittee 
ranking member), McMorris Rodgers, McKinley, Johnson, Long, 
Flores, Carter, Duncan, and Walden (ex officio).
    Staff present: Jacqueline Cohen, Chief Environment Counsel; 
Adam Fischer, Policy Analyst; Anthony Gutierrez, Professional 
Staff Member; Rick Kessler, Senior Advisor and Staff Directory, 
Energy and Environment; Brendan Larkin, Policy Coordinator; Tim 
Robinson, Chief Counsel; Nikki Roy, Policy Coordinator; William 
Clutterbuck, Minority Staff Assistant; Jordan Davis, Minority 
Senior Advisor; Tyler Greenberg, Minority Staff Assistant; 
Peter Kielty, Minority General Counsel; Mary Martin, Minority 
Chief Counsel, Energy and Environment and Climate Change; and 
Peter Spencer, Minority Senior Professional Staff Member, 
Environment and Climate Change.
    Mr. Tonko. The Subcommittee on Environment and Climate 
Change of the Committee on Energy and Commerce will now come to 
order.
    I recognize myself for 5 minutes for the purposes of an 
opening statement.

   OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PAUL TONKO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
              CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

    In 2004, EPA initiated a review of the lead and copper Rule 
following the lead crisis in Washington, DC 16 years later, we 
are still waiting for EPA to finalize its long-term revision. 
The intention at that time was to take action to prevent the 
next crisis. Since then, we have witnessed one water crisis 
after another, upturning the lives of millions in Flint, in 
Newark, in Pittsburgh, and other communities which have had to 
suffer at least partially due to an unproductive standard, 
unprotective standard.
    Last year, EPA proposed its long-awaited revision for the 
Lead and Copper Rule. The deadline for public comment is 
tomorrow. I expect we will hear today that the proposal still 
needs work and, in my opinion, it falls far short of the 
meaningful protective action necessary to get lead out of our 
drinking water systems.
    Today's panel includes witnesses representing health 
experts, environmental advocates, state regulators, local 
governments, and utilities. I appreciate everyone's perspective 
and hope we can find some common ground around which a goal can 
be developed, a common that we share in those efforts in 
ensuring that Americans have safe drinking water. The Lead and 
Copper Rule was first promulgated in 1991, so we have known for 
decades that there is no safe level of lead for children. We 
also know that the impaired brain development these children 
experience from lead exposure will follow them the rest of 
their lives.
    Unlike other contaminants, lead enters into drinking water 
from within the system. It can be found in millions of service 
lines and fixtures within homes. Action to get the lead out of 
our water systems starts with identifying existing service 
lines and making that information publicly available. I support 
EPA's proposal to require inventories of service lines, but 
identifying these lines must be followed with full replacement, 
removing lead service lines and prohibiting unsafe partial 
replacements.
    Many of the communities currently responding to lead 
contaminations are doing this at no cost to residents. 
Unfortunately, the proposed Lead and Copper Rule revision does 
not require proactive service line replacement. It also fails 
to establish a health-based household lead action level or even 
reduce the current action level of 15 parts per billion.
    The proposal does include a new trigger level for utilities 
to begin to plan for future action at ten parts per billion. 
But we already have challenges with risk communication and lead 
contaminations and, in practice, this new level adds complexity 
to an already complicated rule without directly improving 
public health outcomes. I know replacing all lead service lines 
will not be easy or cheap. That is why I strongly support 
additional federal funding to ensure that state and local 
governments, schools, daycares, and water utilities have the 
resources necessary to map and replace water infrastructure 
containing lead as quickly as possible.
    Today, we will also hear about other aspects of the 
proposal, including treatment requirements, sampling 
procedures, public notification, and monitoring at schools and 
child care facilities. Ultimately, the revision as proposed 
will not require the action needed to get lead out of our 
drinking water systems. This EPA proposal has further 
demonstrated the major deficiencies of the Safe Drinking Water 
Act which have prevented EPA from setting enforceable standards 
that are truly protective of public health.
    The past 24 years of SDWA, including recent considerations 
of PFOS, have made it clear that the regulatory framework for 
standard setting has left Americans dangerously exposed. I look 
forward to today's discussion on EPA's proposal and hope that 
we can continue to explore the reforms necessary to ensure the 
Safe Drinking Water Act is able to guarantee the safe water 
that our constituents expect, our constituents require, and our 
constituents deserve.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Tonko follows:]

                 Prepared Statement of Hon. Paul Tonko

    In 2004, EPA initiated a review of the Lead and Copper Rule 
following the lead crisis in Washington, DC.
    Sixteen years later, we are still waiting for EPA to 
finalize its long-term revision.
    The intention at that time was to take action to prevent 
the next crisis. Since then we have witnessed one water crisis 
after another, upturning the lives of millions in Flint, 
Newark, Pittsburgh, and other communities who have had to 
suffer, at least partially, due to an unprotective standard.
    Last year, EPA proposed its long-awaited revision for the 
Lead and Copper Rule. The deadline for public comment is 
tomorrow.
    I expect we will hear today that the proposal still needs 
works.
    And in my opinion, it falls far short of the meaningful 
protective action necessary to get lead out of our drinking 
water systems.
    Today's panel includes witnesses representing health 
experts, environmental advocates, state regulators, local 
governments, and utilities.
    I appreciate everyone's perspective and hope we can find 
some common ground around a goal I know we share: ensuring 
Americans have safe drinking water.
    The Lead and Copper Rule was first promulgated in 1991, so 
we have known for decades that there is no safe level of lead 
for children.
    We also know that the impaired brain development these 
children experience from lead exposure will follow them the 
rest of their lives.
    Unlike other contaminants, lead enters into drinking water 
from within the system. It can be found in millions of service 
lines and fixtures within homes.
    Action to get the lead out of our water systems, starts 
with identifying existing service lines and making that 
information publicly available.
    I support EPA's proposal to require inventories of services 
lines, but identifying these lines must be followed with full 
replacement--removing lead service lines and prohibiting unsafe 
partial replacements.
    Many of the communities currently responding to lead 
contaminations are doing this at no cost to residents.
    Unfortunately, the proposed Lead and Copper Rule revision 
does not require proactive service line replacement.
    It also fails to establish a health-based household lead 
action level or even reduce the current action level of 15 
parts per billion.
    The proposal does include a new ``trigger'' level for 
utilities to begin to plan for future action at ten parts per 
billion.
    But we already have challenges with risk communication and 
lead contaminations.
    And, in practice, this new level adds complexity to an 
already complicated rule without directly improving public 
health outcomes.
    I know replacing all lead service lines will not be easy or 
cheap. That is why I strongly support additional federal 
funding to ensure state and local governments, schools, 
daycares, and water utilities have the resources necessary to 
map and replace water infrastructure containing lead as quickly 
as possible.
    Today we will also hear about other aspects of the 
proposal, including treatment requirements, sampling 
procedures, public notification, and monitoring at schools and 
childcare facilities.
    Ultimately, the revision as proposed will not require the 
action needed to get lead out of our drinking water systems.
    This EPA proposal has further demonstrated the major 
deficiencies of the Safe Drinking Water Act, which have 
prevented EPA from setting enforceable standards that are truly 
protective of public health. The past 24 years of SDWA (``sid-
wah''), including recent considerations of PFAS, have made it 
clear that the regulatory framework for standard-setting has 
left Americans dangerously exposed.
    I look forward to today's discussion on EPA's proposal and 
hope we can continue to explore the reforms necessary to ensure 
the Safe Drinking Water Act is able to guarantee the safe water 
that our constituents expect, require and deserve.

    With that, I will now recognize Mr. Shimkus, our ranking 
member of the Subcommittee on Environment and Climate Change, 
for 5 minutes for his opening statement, please.

  OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN SHIMKUS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
              CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

    Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Mr. Tonko.
    Mr. Chairman, lead is a potent neurotoxin, exposure to 
which is known to cause serious educational deficits in 
children. Our country has made significant strides in reducing 
harmful exposure to lead by removing it from gasoline and 
paint. Even still, preventing lead from entering drinking water 
remains a serious issue and it deserves this committee's 
attention.
    Over the last 15 years, breakdowns in oversights, 
engineering, enforcement, and leadership have caused and 
highlighted some of the more troubling incidents of increased 
levels of lead in drinking water. In Washington, DC, Flint, 
Michigan, and Newark, New Jersey, and every community we 
represent, our constituents should be drinking safe water from 
their taps.
     What is troubling to me today is not that we are 
addressing the subject, but that we are not giving it the 
serious attention it deserves. Almost three months ago, the 
Environmental Protection Agency issued its first major revision 
of the Lead and Copper Rule since 1991. This is obviously long 
overdue, and I am glad they at least released this in November. 
This updated rule has been greatly anticipated by the regulated 
stakeholders and the general public and since its release, many 
have expressed strong feelings about its contents and whether 
it does too much or not enough. Meaningful oversight is 
imperative, but that is not what is happening here today. Why?
    To the best of my knowledge, the decision to have this 
hearing was made just over seven days ago, an amount of time 
that barely meets the requirements of the committee's rules. 
This might be less of a problem if this were an easy subject 
which we all agreed upon, but it is not. It is a highly 
technical, emotionally charged matter that demands time and 
attention to be done right. Moreover, it seems we are 
continuing a pattern of complaining about the Agency without 
affording them the opportunity to explain themselves.
    The EPA has been clear with us in the past that a week's 
notice isn't sufficient to provide members the detailed context 
and answers that we expect. I understand the Agency offered to 
provide us with a witness on other dates if the committee 
wanted them. It appears they did not. I am not the only one who 
thinks the EPA was unwanted here today. The Agency itself has 
publicly asserted some of these same points in a press 
statement, which they released this morning, which I would ask 
unanimous consent to place into the record, Mr. Tonko.
    Mr. Tonko. We will review it.
    Mr. Shimkus. Had EPA been here, I would want to ask where 
the Agency sees pipe replacements versus optimized corrosion 
control, considering from 1991 to 2001, the number of large 
systems exceeding the action level for lead dropped by 90 
percent. I would ask how the 2012 amendments tightening the 
amount of copper and brass in fixtures was impacting drinking 
water levels. I would ask what time, effort, and resources EPA 
planned in undertaking to assist water systems, especially in 
rural and low-income areas, to comply with the proposed rule as 
well as make information available for managing the rule. And I 
would ask how the Agency expects communities to pay for new 
mandates.
     The reality is, this rule will increase costs and the 
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund will not be able to meet 
all these needs. Moreover, the funds should not be viewed as a 
way to federally subsidize rates, and I want to ask about the 
Agency's thinking on this question too. These are just my 
questions, but they are worthy of a live, public discussion 
that addresses these and other concerns raised in the 
testimony.
    For our witnesses that are here today, thank you for being 
with us. Most of you are not local and had to rearrange your 
schedules to make hotel and travel arrangements, written 
testimony, finished your comments to the Agency on this rule, 
and travel here in a few days' time. We appreciate your 
sacrifice under the expedited timeframe and we look forward to 
what you have to tell us.
    Before I yield back my time, I want to ask unanimous 
consent to have the following letter inserted in the hearing 
record from the honorable Dominick Longobardi, mayor of Floral 
Park, New York, president of the Hempstead, New York, board of 
directors, and member of the American Public Works Association 
board of directors. We believe his views are important and 
should be included in the hearing record, even though we were 
refused an additional witness.
    With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Shimkus follows:]

                Prepared Statement of Hon. John Shimkus

    Lead is a potent neurotoxin, exposure to which is known to 
cause serious educational deficits in children. Our county has 
made significant strides in reducing harmful exposure to lead 
by removing it from gasoline and paint.
    Even still, preventing lead from entering drinking water 
remains a serious issue and it deserves this committee's 
attention. Over the last fifteen years, breakdowns in 
oversight, engineering, enforcement, and leadership have caused 
and highlighted some of the more troubling incidents of 
increased levels of lead in drinking water.
    In Washington, DC, in Flint, Michigan, in Newark, New 
Jersey, and in every community we represent, our constituents 
should be drinking safe water from their taps.
    What is troubling to me about today is not that we are 
addressing this subject, but that we are not giving it the 
serious attention it deserves.
    Almost three months ago, the Environmental Protection 
Agency issued its first major revision of the Lead and Copper 
Rule since 1991. This updated rule has been greatly anticipated 
by regulated stakeholders and the general public and, since its 
release, many have expressed strong feeling about its contents 
and whether it does too much or not enough.
    Meaningful oversight is imperative, but that is not what is 
happening here today.
    Why?
    To the best of my knowledge, the decision to have this 
hearing was made just over seven days ago--an amount of time 
that barely meets the requirements of the Committee's rules. 
This might be less of a problem if this were an easy subject on 
which we all agreed, but it's not--it's a highly technical, 
emotionally charged matter, that demands time and attention to 
be done right.
    Moreover, it seems we're continuing a pattern of 
complaining about the Agency without affording them the 
opportunity to explain themselves. The EPA has been clear with 
us in the past that a week's notice is insufficient to provide 
Members the detail, context, and answers we expect. I 
understand the Agency offered to provide us a witness on other 
dates if the Committee wanted them--it appears they did not.
    Had EPA been here, I would want to ask where the Agency 
sees pipe replacement versus optimized corrosion control--
considering from 1991 to 2001 the number of large systems 
exceeding the action level for lead dropped by 90 percent.
    I would ask how the 2012 amendments tightening the amount 
of copper and brass in fixtures was impacting drinking water 
lead levels.
    I would ask what time, effort and resources EPA planned in 
undertaking to assist water systems--especially in rural and 
low-income areas--to comply with the proposed rule as well as 
make information available for managing lead.
    And I would ask how the Agency expects communities to pay 
for new mandates. The reality is this rule will increase costs, 
and the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund will not be able to 
meet all these needs. Moreover, the fund should not be viewed 
as a way to federally subsidize rates and I would want to ask 
about the Agency's thinking on this question too.
    These are just my questions, but they are worthy of a live, 
public discussion that addresses these, and the other concerns 
raised in the testimony.
    For our witnesses that are here, thank you for being with 
us. Most of you are not local and had to rearrange your 
schedules, make hotel and travel arrangements, write testimony, 
finish your comments to the Agency on this rule, and travel 
here in a few days' time. We appreciate your sacrifice under 
the expedited timeframe and look forward to what you have to 
tell us.
    Before I yield back my time, I want to ask unanimous 
consent to have the following letter inserted in the hearing 
record from the Honorable Dominick Longobardi, Mayor of Floral 
Park, New York; President of the Hempstead, New York Board of 
Directors; and members of the American Public Works 
Association's Board of Directors. We believe his views are 
important and should be included in the hearing record even 
though Majority refused to include Mayor Longobardi as a 
witness for today's panel.
    With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.

    Mr. Tonko. OK. We will submit that, without objection.
    [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
    Mr. Shimkus. Thank you.
    Mr. Tonko. The release from the EPA seems to have some 
inaccuracies in it, so perhaps we should have the staff go 
through it and----
    Mr. Shimkus. OK. That would be fine.
    Mr. Tonko. OK.
    Mr. Shimkus. So we will just hold that off until further 
review.
    Mr. Tonko. Right. So the gentleman yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes Representative Pallone, chair of 
the full committee, for 5 minutes for his opening statement, 
please.
    Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, Jr., A REPRESENTATIVE 
            IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

    Today's hearing focuses on a widespread and pressing public 
health crisis, lead contamination in drinking water. Safe 
drinking water is a fundamental right and duty of our federal 
government. Every American should be able to turn on their tap 
confident that the water coming out is safe, and this should be 
true for all communities and it must be safe for pregnant 
women, infants, children, and the elderly.
    But we are falling short and failing communities like 
Washington, DC, Flint, Michigan, and Newark, in my home state 
of New Jersey. The Environmental Protection Agency has an 
important opportunity to strengthen our protections against 
lead by revising the Lead and Copper Rule, but, unfortunately, 
the Trump EPA's recent proposal squanders that opportunity. 
Lead is a known toxin and Congress banned lead pipes in '86, 
but those pipes remain in the ground leaching lead into the 
drinking water that comes into our homes and schools.
    Since 1991, EPA has set the maximum contaminant level goal 
for lead and drinking water at zero, but nearly 30 years later, 
EPA is still saying we can't achieve that goal or even get 
close to it. To make matters worse, the Trump EPA's proposed 
rule would not even set us on the path to achieving the goal of 
lead-free water because it doesn't require aggressive 
replacement of lead service lines.
    And the proposal also falls short of providing the 
certainty and clarity states and localities need in 
implementing the Lead and Copper Rule. It ignores the lessons 
of Flint, so it will fail to prevent the next Flint. It also 
doesn't properly reflect some of the lessons from the drinking 
water issue in Newark, New Jersey, where aggressive lead 
pipeline replacement appears to be working.
    Any final rule that fails to aggressively replace lead 
service lines will fail to solve the problem of lead in 
drinking water and those shortcomings should be addressed as 
EPA works to finalize this important rule. Ultimately, if EPA 
were to finalize this proposal, there is a real possibility 
that 30 years from now, we could be no closer to ensuring lead-
free water for the American people and we can't allow that to 
happen.
    The inactivity over the last 30 years certainly highlights 
the weaknesses in the Lead and Copper Rule. The fact is that 
the Safe Drinking Water Act instructs EPA to set drinking water 
standards based on cost-benefit analysis, not public health and 
this is a fundamental flaw in the statute that leaves 
vulnerable populations and disproportionately exposed 
communities unprotected.
    This hearing is the beginning of work in this subcommittee 
to explore how the Safe Drinking Water Act should be reformed. 
I thank chairman Mr. Tonko for undertaking this work. The Safe 
Drinking Water Act should absolutely ensure that drinking water 
is safe and that means health protective, not defined by cost-
benefit analysis. Chairman Tonko and I have worked together 
repeatedly over the years to provide more funding for drinking 
water infrastructure. That funding not only helps cities and 
towns modernize their infrastructure and protect public health, 
but it also creates jobs.
    We will continue to work to provide the resources water 
utilities need, the resources that those utilities need to 
address lead and other threats to public health. The cost of 
replacing lead service lines should be addressed through 
infrastructure funding and financing. It should not dictate how 
safe our water can be. Now the science is clear; there is no 
safe level of lead exposure. The time for action is overdue. 
EPA has to strengthen this proposal to protect public health, 
including the health of vulnerable populations, and we in 
Congress should strengthen the Safe Drinking Water Act to do 
the same.
    So, I just want to welcome Kim Gaddy from Clean Water 
Action of New Jersey for joining us today. I look forward to 
hearing from Kim and from all our witnesses about ways we can 
strengthen the Safe Drinking Water Act for the future to better 
protect the American people.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]

             Prepared Statement of Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr.

    Today's hearing focuses on a widespread and pressing public 
health crisis--lead contamination in drinking water. Safe 
drinking water is a fundamental right and duty of our federal 
government. Every American should be able to turn on their tap, 
confident that the water coming out is safe. This should be 
true for all communities, and it must be safe for pregnant 
women, infants, children, and the elderly. But we are falling 
short and failing communities like Washington, DC, Flint, 
Michigan, and Newark in my home state of New Jersey.
    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has an important 
opportunity to strengthen our protections against lead by 
revising the Lead and Copper Rule, but unfortunately the Trump 
EPA's recent proposal squanders that opportunity.
    Lead is a known toxin and Congress banned lead pipes in 
1986. But those pipes remain in the ground, leaching lead into 
the drinking water that comes into our homes and schools.
    Since 1991, EPA has set the maximum contaminant level goal 
for lead in drinking water at zero. But, nearly 30 years later, 
EPA is still saying we cannot achieve that goal or even get 
closer to it.
    To make matters worse, the Trump EPA's proposed rule would 
not even set us on the path to achieving the goal of lead-free 
water because it doesn't require aggressive replacement of lead 
servicelines. The proposal also falls far short of providing 
the certainty and clarity states and localities need in 
implementing the Lead and Copper Rule.
    It ignores the lessons of Flint, so it will fail to prevent 
the next Flint. It also doesn't properly reflect some of the 
lessons from the drinking water issue in Newark where 
aggressive lead pipeline replacement appears to be working. Any 
final rule that fails to aggressively replace lead service 
lines will fail to solve the problem of lead in drinking water. 
These shortcomings should be addressed as EPA works to finalize 
this important rule.
    Ultimately, if EPA were to finalize this proposal, there is 
a real possibility that 30 years from now we could be no closer 
to ensuring lead free water for the American people.
    We simply cannot and will not allow that to happen. The 
inactivity over the last 30 years certainly highlights the 
weaknesses in the Lead and Copper Rule. The fact is that the 
Safe Drinking Water Act instructs EPA to set drinking water 
standards based on cost-benefit analysis, not public health. 
This is a fundamental flaw in the statute that leaves 
vulnerable populations and disproportionately exposed 
communities unprotected.
    This hearing is the beginning of work in this Subcommittee 
to explore how the Safe Drinking Water Act should be reformed. 
I thank the Chairman Tonko for undertaking this work. The Safe 
Drinking Water Act should absolutely ensure that drinking water 
is safe, and that means health protective, not defined by cost-
benefit analysis.
    Chairman Tonko and I have worked together repeatedly over 
the years to provide more funding for drinking water 
infrastructure. That funding not only helps cities and towns 
modernize their infrastructure and protect public health, but 
it also creates jobs. We will continue to work to provide the 
resources water utilities need to address lead and other 
threats to public health. The cost of replacing lead service 
lines should be addressed through infrastructure funding and 
financing--it should not dictate how safe our water can be.
    The science is clear--here is no safe level of lead 
exposure. The time for action is overdue. EPA must strengthen 
this proposal to protect public health, including the health of 
vulnerable populations. And we in Congress should strengthen 
the Safe Drinking Water Act to do the same.
    I would also like to welcome Kim Gaddy from Clean Water 
Action of New Jersey for joining us today. I look forward to 
hearing from Kim and from all of our witnesses about ways we 
can strengthen the Safe Drinking Water Act for the future to 
better protect the American people. I would now like to yield 
my remaining time to Representative Dingell.

    I now yield the rest of my time to Congresswoman Dingell 
from Michigan.
    Ms. Dingell. Thank you, Mr. Pallone, for yielding. I would 
like to briefly recognize an important witness here today, Dr. 
Mona Hanna-Attisha, from the great state of Michigan, who has 
done some truly amazing work to help bring critical attention 
to the dangerous levels of lead in Flint, Michigan's drinking 
water, and she has become a national champion.
    Dr. Mona, as the kids call her, thank you for being here. 
We are all grateful to you for all the work that you have done 
during the Flint water crisis and all the good that you 
continue to do as a pediatrician, professor, and public health 
advocate. There is much that the committee can learn from her 
today and it is an honor to have you here.
    This is actually a very true story. I met Dr. Mona early 
on, like before any of you had heard about Flint water, and it 
was the first sick child that I met. And you all can picture me 
doing this; I was going to take the child in my arms, put him 
in the car, and take him to the best hospital I could in the 
country. And she said, ``OK, Debbie. Take a deep breath. It is 
systematic. There are a lot more kids like this.''
    And she has taught me much ever since that first day I met 
her. Welcome, and I welcome all the witnesses for being here 
today. I yield back.
    Ms. Dingell. It is a true story.
    Mr. Pallone. I yield back.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes Representative Walden, ranking member of the full 
committee, for 5 minutes for his opening statement, please.

  OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GREG WALDEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
               CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON

    Mr. Walden. Good morning, Chairman.
    Mr. Tonko. Good morning.
    Mr. Walden. And I will say at the top of this; we have 
another subcommittee meeting concurrent with this one, so I 
will be, so some of us will be going back and forth. But we all 
believe the issue of lead exposure in drinking water is of 
great concern to the safety of our citizens, safety of our 
children, to our communities, and our overall health and well-
being.
    The question is, how do we tackle this issue in a way that 
makes the most sense for public health in a broad sense, in a 
constitutionally permissible manner, and that best leverages 
finite public and private resources on this task? No matter how 
simple people want to make this issue, from engineering to 
policy choices, the Lead and Copper Rule and its proposed 
revisions are one of the most technical and challenging 
drinking water rules that EPA has. It is really hard work.
    Lead is typically not present in drinking water sources, 
nor is it removed at the treatment plant. Moreover, as raised 
in testimony of the witnesses from the Association of 
Metropolitan Water Agencies, even if every lead service line in 
the country were replaced, lead-tainted home plumbing fixtures 
and piping would continue to present lead exposure issues, is 
my understanding. So getting EPA to agreement in 1991 on the 
existing Lead and Copper Rule was no small feat, and the fact 
that its revisions have taken three decades to formally propose 
is both frustrating, but not surprising.
    While they are not here to accept congratulations, 
Administrator Wheeler and the staff in the EPA's Office of 
Ground Water and Drinking Water deserve great credit for 
finally getting a proposal out the door when many had given up 
on its prospects altogether. As we all know though, the 
proposed rule is still very early in the process. Tomorrow, the 
public comment period closes and the EPA will be busy digesting 
and assembling responses to the many issues the public is 
raising on this rule, which I expect today to be just a brief 
preview.
    While I wish we had this oversight hearing at a time when 
the EPA and a broader set of witnesses could be heard, it is 
important that we learn these issues on the front end to 
understand their impacts when decided by the EPA. So I am 
especially interested in learning more from Mr. Estes-
Smargiassi--did I get close to that?
    Mr. Estes-Smargiassi. That was good.
    Mr. Walden. Oh, good. Well, don't expect me to do it twice 
and get it right--and other municipal officials about the 
impact the mandates this proposed rule will place on drinking 
water systems, particularly unfunded mandates because that is 
something we have to be aware of. The Drinking Water State 
Revolving Fund program in the Safe Drinking Water Act owes its 
existence entirely to a congressional desire to address 
unfunded mandates posed by federal regulations, not to 
subsidize rates or chase other collateral goals.
    I also want to understand from these same folks whether 
this rule strikes the correct balance between addressing lead 
pipes, their treatment or replacement in a cost-effective way 
for citizens and local governments, so we must also be careful 
not to avoidably have federal law and state and local 
requirements conflict with each other and make simultaneous 
compliance impossible. We have all seen that happen before in 
different areas. In addition, because of continued disturbances 
that rattle pipes in turn shakes new lead into the system, I 
also want to better appreciate what economic and practical 
impact this rule might have on local planning related to other 
emergency services like fire safety, sewage, and 
telecommunications.
    And, finally, I am interested in learning from Commissioner 
Bobbitt as a rural elected official. I think we must look at 
the cost of this rule to taxpayers, states, communities, and 
the Federal Government. Every finite dollar we spend here is 
one dollar less we can spend on other public health priorities, 
and we have a lot of those.
    So, Mr. Chairman, thanks again for having this panel. And I 
want to welcome our witnesses and some of you, I know, are 
making return appearances and we appreciate that. We are 
fortunate to have the level of expertise that many of you bring 
to this subject and I look forward to the question-and-answer 
period to get behind your written statements. So thanks again 
for your participation. We share a goal here and hopefully, we 
will get a good outcome. And with that I yield back and I have 
to go to the other sub.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Walden follows:]

                 Prepared Statement of Hon. Greg Walden

    The issue of lead exposures in drinking water is obviously 
of great concern to the safety of our communities and our 
children's health and well-being. The question is how do we 
tackle this issue in a way that makes the most sense for public 
health - in a broad sense, in a constitutionally permissible 
manner, and that best leverages finite public and private 
resources on this task?
    No matter how simple people want to make this issue, from 
engineering to policy choices, the Lead and Copper Rule and its 
proposed revisions is one of the more technical and challenging 
drinking water rules that EPA has. Lead is typically not 
present in drinking water sources, nor is it removed at the 
treatment plant.
    Moreover, as raised in testimony of the witness from the 
Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies, even if every lead 
service line in the country was replaced, lead tainted home 
plumbing fixtures and piping would continue to present lead 
exposure issues.
    Getting EPA to agreement in 1991 on the existing Lead and 
Copper Rule was no small feat and the fact that its revisions 
have taken three decades to formally propose is both 
frustrating and unsurprising. While they are not here to accept 
congratulations, Administrator Wheeler and the staff in EPA's 
Office of Groundwater and Drinking Water deserve credit for 
finally getting a proposal out the door when many had given up 
on its prospects.
    As we all know, though, the proposed rule is still very 
early in the process. Tomorrow, the public comment period 
closes and EPA will be busy digesting and assembling responses 
to the many issues the public is raising on this rule, of which 
I expect today to be a brief preview. While I wish we had this 
oversight hearing at a time when EPA and a broader set of 
witnesses could be heard, it is important that we learn these 
issues on the front end to understand their impacts when 
decided by EPA.
    I am interested in learning more from Mr. Estes-Smargiassi 
and other municipal officials about the impact of the mandates 
this proposed rule will place on drinking water systems--
particularly an unfunded mandates, The Drinking Water State 
Revolving Fund program in the Safe Drinking Water Act owes its 
existence entirely to a congressional desire to address 
unfunded mandates posed by Federal regulations--not to 
subsidize rates or chase other collateral goals.
    I also want to understand from these same folks whether 
this rule strikes the correct balance between addressing lead 
pipes--their treatment or replacement--in a cost-effective way 
for citizens and local governments. We must also be careful not 
to avoidably have Federal law and state and local requirements 
conflict with each other and make simultaneous compliance 
impossible.
    In addition, because continued disturbances that rattle 
pipes in turn shakes new lead into the system, I also want to 
better appreciate what economic and practical impact this rule 
might have on local planning related to other emergency 
services, like fire safety, sewage, and telecommunications.
    Finally, I am interested in hearing from Commissioner 
Bobbitt, as a rural elected official. I think we must look at 
the cost of this rule to taxpayers, states, communities, and 
the Federal Government. Every finite dollar we spend here is 
one dollar less we can spend on other public health priorities.
    Mr. Chairman, I want to welcome our many witnesses here 
today--some making return appearances. We are fortunate to have 
the level of expertise that many of our witnesses bring to this 
subject and I look forward to the question and answer period to 
get behind their written statements.
    I yield back the balance of my time.

    Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back. We thank him. And the 
Chair would like to remind Members that pursuant to committee 
rules, all Members' written opening statements shall be made 
part of the record.
    I agree with Representative Walden's assessment that this 
is an expert panel that we are very much helped by your 
presence here today, so thank you for joining in this 
discussion which will lead us to, I think, strong advocacy.
    I will now introduce the witnesses for today's hearing. We 
begin with Dr. Mona Hanna-Attisha, Director of Pediatric Public 
Health Initiative with C. S. Mott, Endowed Professor of Public 
Health, Division of Public Health, Associate Professor of the 
Department of Pediatrics and Human Development at Michigan 
State University with the College of Human Medicine.
    So, quite the credentials.
    Next, we have Kim Gaddy, who is with the Environmental 
Justice efforts. She is an organizer with Clean Water Action of 
New Jersey. She has joined us in the past, so welcome on the 
return.
    Ms. Angela Licata, New York City Department of 
Environmental Protection, and she is appearing on behalf of the 
Association of Metropolitan Administrators.
    Next, we have Ms. Cathy Tucker-Vogel, Public Water Supply 
Section Chief with the Kansas Department of Health and 
Environment, and she is appearing on behalf of the Association 
of State Drinking Water Administrators.
    Mr. Steve Estes-Smargiassi, Director of Planning and 
Sustainability at Massachusetts Water Resources Authority, and 
he is appearing on behalf of the American Water Works 
Association.
    And we then have the honorable Cindy Bobbitt, Commissioner 
of Grant County, Oklahoma and she is appearing on behalf of the 
National Association of Counties.
    And, finally, Ms. Mae Wu, Senior Director of Health & Food, 
Senior Attorney, Healthy People & Thriving Communities Program 
with the Natural Resources Defense Council.
    Again, to each and every one of you, thank you for taking 
the time and for informing us. Before we begin, I would like to 
explain the lighting system. In front of you are a series of 
lights. The light will initially be green. The light will turn 
yellow when you have 1-minute remaining. Please begin to wrap 
up your testimony at that point. The light will turn red when 
your time has expired.
    At this time, I recognize Dr. Hanna-Attisha for 5 minutes 
to provide her opening statement, please.

  STATEMENTS OF MONA HANNA-ATTISHA, M.D., DIRECTOR, PEDIATRIC 
   PUBLIC HEALTH INITIATIVE, C. S. MOTT ENDOWED PROFESSOR OF 
 PUBLIC HEALTH, DIVISION OF PUBLIC HEALTH; DEBORAH KIM GADDY, 
  ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ORGANIZER, CLEAN WATER ACTION OF NEW 
   JERSEY; ANGELA LICATA, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, NEW YORK CITY 
  DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; CATHY TUCKER-VOGEL, 
PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY SECTION CHIEF, KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH 
 AND ENVIRONMENT; STEVE ESTES-SMARGIASSI, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING 
 AND SUSTAINABILITY, MASSACHUSETTS WATER RESOURCES AUTHORITY; 
HONORABLE CINDY BOBBITT, COMMISSIONER, GRANT COUNTY, OKLAHOMA; 
 AND, MAE WU, SENIOR DIRECTOR HEALTH AND FOOD, SENIOR ATTORNEY 
        HEALTHY PEOPLE AND THRIVING COMMUNITIES PROGRAM

             STATEMENT OF MONA HANNA-ATTISHA, M.D.

    Dr. Hanna-Attisha. Good morning.
    Mr. Tonko. Good morning.
    Dr. Hanna-Attisha. I would like to begin by thanking 
Chairman Paul Tonko, Ranking Member John Shimkus, and all the 
distinguished members of the subcommittee for the opportunity 
to present today. A special thank you to Michigan Congresswoman 
Debbie Dingell for all of her leadership and support of Flint 
kids during the crisis and since.
    Like all of you, I also took an oath. As a pediatrician, I 
literally put my hand up and dedicated my career to serve and 
to protect the children entrusted in my care. Much of that work 
centers around the child in front of me to make sure that they 
are healthy today but, more importantly, my work as a 
pediatrician is nestled in protecting and promoting the promise 
of our children. Yet in Flint, there was something in our 
water, something that you couldn't see or taste, or smell that 
was threatening the tomorrows of all of our children.
    In a breakdown of democracy and driven by austerity, our 
drinking water was changed without proper corrosion control 
treatment. The corrosive water leached lead from our 
infrastructure into our water in the hundreds and thousands of 
parts per billion. It has been said that pediatricians are the 
ultimate witnesses to failed social policies. It is in our exam 
rooms where we see the everyday consequences of policy 
decisions like Medicaid cuts and action on gun violence and lax 
public health protections.
    Our children disproportionately share, bear the burden of 
these consequences both in their bodies and in their blunted 
potentials. And as a pediatrician in Flint, I can attest that 
once again, our children were the victims of a failed policy, 
specifically the Lead and Copper Rule that provided the vehicle 
of loopholes, minimal oversight, confusion, and nonhealth-based 
standards that helped create and perpetuate our crisis.
    I wish there was a magic pill that could take away what 
happened, but when it comes to lead the treatment is 
prevention. Lead is an irreversible neurotoxin with lifelong 
multisystem, multigenerational impacts. There is no safe level. 
Children should never be exposed to lead. What we should be 
practicing is what we call in public health, primary 
prevention. And that is why in Flint, after our citywide 
exposure, our only option has been to move forward to create a 
sanctuary where children can recover and thrive.
    Critical to our recovery has been the congressionally 
supported Flint Lead Exposure Registry, with funding set to 
expire next year absent congressional action. The Flint 
Registry has been an essential resource for identifying 
individuals exposed to our crisis, connecting them to public 
health promoting resources, and sharing best practices with 
similarly impacted communities.
    Flint's crisis is an extreme case, but not the first, not 
the last, and not the worst. A positive ripple effect of our 
crisis has been the growing awakening across our country that 
our drinking water regulations never intended for us to consume 
lead-free water. A troubling number of our cities across the 
country are now recognizing and struggling with elevated lead 
in their drinking water.
    On behalf of children everywhere, we need a stronger Lead 
and Copper Rule that catches policy up with science, rights 
historic wrongs, and prioritizes public health over a minimal 
compliance. Unfortunately, the proposed revisions are a missed 
opportunity and fail to rebuild trust in our nation's drinking 
water.
    With further details in my written testimony, I recommend 
that the EPA make the following improvements: One, lower the 
action level and remove the trigger level; two, mandate removal 
of all lead pipes and ban partial line replacements; three, 
improve sampling to better detect lead and water, especially 
the contribution from service lines; and four, improve 
communication, public health, and transparency.
    Michigan has decided that we can do better and we revised 
our state Lead and Copper Rule in 2019. It exceeds national 
standards. It is now implemented and Michigan's Lead and Copper 
Rule now better locates service lines through mandatory 
inventory, improves education and transparency, mandates the 
replacement of lead lines, and more optimally samples for lead 
and will eventually lower the action level. Our nation can 
learn from Michigan and do better.
    In conclusion, in 1969, a scientist warned that the problem 
of lead is so well defined, so neatly packaged with both causes 
and cures known that if we don't eliminate the social crime, 
our society deserves all the disasters that have been forecast 
for it. We have come a long way, but we have more to go. We 
have not eliminated the social crime and as a pediatrician, I 
continue to diagnose in the bodies of our children the 
consequences of our collective inaction and paralysis. Thank 
you for the opportunity to testify and I look forward to your 
questions.
    [The prepared statement of Dr. Hanna-Attisha follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Doctor.
    And now we recognize Ms. Gaddy. You are recognized for 5 
minutes, please, and again, welcome.

                     STATEMENT OF KIM GADDY

    Ms. Gaddy. Good morning, Chairman Tonko and Ranking Member 
Shimkus and all members present as well as Congressman Pallone 
from my home state of New Jersey. My name is Kim Gaddy and I am 
the Environmental Justice Organizer for Clean Water Action of 
New Jersey.
    Clean Water Action is a national organization working in 14 
states on environmental and health issues with a focus on 
drinking water and water pollution. Thank you for the 
opportunity to address the subcommittee today. Although I live 
in Newark, I am also here to lift up the voices of residents in 
environmental justice communities to speak about the needs of 
all communities in New Jersey and to comment on how this 
Environmental Protection Agency can improve its proposal to 
revise the Safe Drinking Water Act Lead and Copper Rule.
    Our experience with elevated lead levels in Newark points 
to the need for clear federal requirements for water systems 
and state primacy agency. We also sorely need increased federal 
investment in water infrastructure in EPA and state 
implementation and enforcement and in promoting improved 
managerial, operations, and communications capacity for water 
systems.
    In Newark, we experienced the difficulty of communicating 
health risk and technical information. At a time when residents 
needed the clearest possible information, some felt that city 
officials were not being transparent. The role of our state 
agency in overseeing our water system's compliance with 
regulations was not obvious to residents, nor was the role of 
the EPA regional office.
    Rules and procedures for water systems need to be 
straightforward and the states' responsibilities need to be 
well defined as well. Newark has taken significant steps to 
reduce the risk of lead at the tap, including partnering with 
the state to fully replace, at no cost to the homeowners, 
18,000 lead service lines in three years. New treatment has 
been installed and is expected to reduce lead levels by the end 
of the year. Filters and replacement cartridges have been made 
available to impacted residents as well as free water testing.
    We are relieved to see progress, but we think this crisis 
could have been avoided and if we can prevent similar problems 
in other New Jersey communities and around the country, we must 
act now. Revisions to the Lead and Copper Rule are not the only 
solution, but they can help to prevent communities from 
experiencing what we have gone through in Newark.
    While water chemistry and treatment play a role in whether 
lead leaches from pipes and fixtures, removing sources of lead 
in contact with water is the best way to reduce lead at the 
tap. Lead service lines are the largest source of lead in tap 
water. EPA has missed an opportunity to address this source of 
lead by requiring full lead service line replacement at all 
regulated water systems. This is an ambitious undertaking, but 
momentum toward full replacement has never been greater.
    Water systems across the country are prioritizing 
replacement and some have committed to fully replacing all lead 
service lines, including Newark. States are taking action to 
support this activity and New Jersey as well. EPA's own 
proposal signals throughout that full lead service line 
replacement is a desirable goal that is achievable. EPA 
proposes that water systems submit lead service line 
replacement plans that include a wide range of details that 
would be involved in setting up a replacement program.
    While EPA's proposal envisions these plans being used in 
the event of elevated lead levels, the requirements suggest 
that EPA has determined that all systems with lead service 
lines are able to develop such plans. Many other aspects of the 
proposal indicate that EPA knows that full lead service line 
replacement is the most obvious way. Clean Water Action is 
calling on EPA to require full lead service line replacement at 
all water systems with a baseline goal of ten years. Had such a 
requirement been in place, perhaps Newark could have been 
spared the crisis that erupted in the wake of Lead Action Level 
exceedances. We need to start now to get the lead out of 
contact with drinking water to prevent elevated lead levels and 
similar crises in other communities in New Jersey and across 
the country.
    As we learned in Newark, full replacement programs are 
impeded when customers are required to pay for replacement of 
the portion of the line on the customer's side. It is more 
equitable and efficient for water systems to cover this cost. 
When Newark's lead service line replacement program started, 
the homeowner was originally going to contribute $1,000 toward 
the cost of the full replacement while less than the cost in 
homes' owners.
    In Newark, over 75 percent of residents are renters who did 
not receive water bills or information about replacement 
programs and other issues. I am a Newark renter who experienced 
this firsthand. We know that there is no safe level of lead. We 
know that there is no safe level of lead. We know that health 
impacts of lead are of particular concern of children under 
six. That is why we are urging EPA to strengthen its proposal 
and urging Congress to support a vision of modernized drinking 
water systems by making bold investments now. Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Gaddy follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you very much.
    Next, we will move to Ms. Licata, please, for 5 minutes 
with your opening statement. Thank you.

                   STATEMENT OF ANGELA LICATA

    Ms. Licata. Chairman Tonko, Ranking Member Shimkus, and 
members of the subcommittee, the Association of Metropolitan 
Water Agencies, or AMWA, appreciates the opportunity to offer 
our thoughts today on EPA's proposed revisions to the Lead and 
Copper Rule. I am Angela Licata, deputy commissioner of the New 
York City Department of Environmental Protection, or DEP. Each 
day, DEP delivers more than one billion gallons of fresh, clean 
water to the taps of millions of customers throughout New York 
State. That is nine million people.
    I also serve as vice president of AMWA's board of 
directors. AMWA is an organization representing the nation's 
largest publicly-owned drinking water systems. AMWA's members 
collectively serve more than 155 million Americans with quality 
drinking water, and the Association has developed detailed 
comments in response to EPA's proposed revisions to the Lead 
and Copper Rule.
    These comments, which will be formally submitted to EPA 
this week, are the basis of the Association's testimony today. 
And please note that I address you as a representative of the 
AMWA board of directors and that tomorrow New York City will 
submit its own written comments to EPA. AMWA's comments outline 
a number of places where we agree with EPA's approach, but 
identify numerous areas where we believe there is room for 
improvement.
    Addressing lead in drinking water is a particularly vexing 
challenge, because unlike most other contaminants, lead is 
typically not present in drinking water sources. Instead, lead 
may be introduced into the drinking water of communities when 
the water reacts with lead in buried service lines and premise 
plumbing in homes.
    Making things even more complicated is the fact that 
homeowners are responsible for their interior plumbing and 
ownership of service lines are typically divided between the 
public water system and the private homeowner. There is no easy 
solution that can quickly eliminate this problem. Even getting 
rid of every lead service line in the nation would not 
eliminate exposure to lead as lead solder in plumbing fixtures 
would remain in millions of homes throughout the country.
    In terms of the proposed Lead and Copper Rule revisions, 
AMWA believes the most effective regulations must be 
achievable, practical, and enforceable. AMWA appreciates that 
the proposal avoids setting mandates such as a deadline for the 
replacement of all service lines nationwide. While removing all 
lead service lines is a worthy aspiration and should be a goal, 
in reality, doing so would take decades, cost billions of 
dollars, and require the cooperation of millions of individual 
homeowners. It would prevent water systems from allocating 
their limited budgets to other initiatives that may deliver 
greater public health benefits such as other emerging 
contaminants such as PFOS and dealing with aging infrastructure 
and resilience to climate change.
    We also support aspects of the rule that require water 
systems to complete an inventory that specifies the composition 
of service lines and that require large systems to post these 
inventories online. Armed with this information, individual 
homeowners will be empowered to direct their water system to 
replace the publicly-owned portion of the lead service line 
when the homeowner simultaneously replaces their privately-
owned lead line.
    AMWA has a number of suggestions to make this process as 
seamless as possible, but we generally agree with the intent. 
AMWA also agrees with steps the proposal takes to discourage 
partial lead service line replacements such as making them 
ineligible to count towards mandated replacement rates. AMWA 
agrees that a total ban on partial replacements would be ill-
advised. For example, emergency water replacement work may 
require a water system to replace the publicly-owned portion of 
the household's lead service line. Because customer consent to 
replace the private portion of the lead service line cannot 
always be quickly obtained, it would be impractical to 
completely ban partial replacements in these circumstances.
    Other parts of the proposed rule require improvement and we 
harbor deep concerns requiring a water system to notify all 
customers within 24 hours of any 90th percentile lead action 
level exceedance. This goes far beyond the mandate set by 
Congress in the 2016 WIIN Act, which only requires this urgent 
notification if the exceedance has the potential for serious 
adverse human health effects as a result of short-term 
exposure. We believe an urgent notification in the absence of 
such health risks could unnecessarily alarm the public.
    We also have strong concerns with aspects of the proposed 
rule that would require water systems to obtain and distribute 
high quantities of pitchers that may not readily be available, 
prompt adjustments to a water system's corrosion control based 
on only a small number of samples showing elevated lead levels, 
and task water systems with compelling school and child care 
centers to give water quality testing in their facilities.
    In closing, AMWA supports achievable, practical, 
enforceable action to reduce public exposure to lead in 
drinking water. This concludes my statement and I will be happy 
to answer any questions you may have.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Licata follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you very much, Ms. Licata.
    And next, we will go to Ms. Tucker-Vogel. You are 
recognized for your opening statement of 5 minutes, please.

                STATEMENT OF CATHY TUCKER-VOGEL

    Ms. Tucker-Vogel. Good morning, Chairman Tonko, Ranking 
Member Shimkus, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for 
inviting me to speak today. I am the president-elect of the 
Association of State Drinking Water Administrators whose 
members include the 50 state drinking water programs, five 
territorial programs, the District of Columbia, and the Navajo 
nation.
    ASDWA members have primary oversight responsibility for 
implementing the Safe Drinking Water Act, and provide technical 
assistance, support, and oversight of drinking water systems 
which is critical to ensuring safe drinking water. I am also 
chief of the Public Water Supply Section within the Kansas 
Department of Health and Environment.
    Today, I will discuss ASDWA's perspective on EPA's proposed 
Lead and Copper Rule revisions and how to strengthen the rule 
to more effectively address lead in drinking water and protect 
public health. I would also like to note that this testimony 
reflects recommendations of ASDWA and may not necessarily 
reflect the position of the Kansas Department of Health and 
Environment.
    Lead in drinking water has long been a concern for 
communities across the nation. Although considerable progress 
has been made in reducing lead in water since implementation of 
the 1991 Lead and Copper Rule, large-scale crises in Flint, 
Michigan and Washington, DC stand as proof that lead continues 
to be a public health concern. States' water systems and the 
public need national leadership to continue making progress in 
reducing exposure to lead through drinking water.
    As was key issues on the LCRR include the following: First, 
it is time to get the lead out. Replacing all lead service 
lines is the long-term solution for reducing exposure to lead 
in drinking water. The first step towards removal is an 
inventory of all service lines. ASDWA supports regulatory 
requirements for water utilities to develop a lead service line 
inventory and replacement plan or demonstrate the absence of 
lead in their distribution systems. EPA must clarify its lead 
service line definition for galvanized lines, goosenecks, and 
pigtails and should include unknown service lines as lead.
    ASDWA also recommends strengthening the rule to require a 
minimum of ten percent lead service line replacement over a 3-
year period for any system with lead service lines, and a 
twenty percent replacement over three years for systems that 
exceed the lead action level. Second, continue to reduce 
exposure from lead in drinking water. To reduce lead exposure, 
ASDWA recommends improved sampling, corrosion control 
treatment, and water quality parameter monitoring to ensure 
appropriate water quality is maintained, particularly when 
water sourcement or treatment processes are changed.
    ASDWA recommends sample site assessments proposed as ``find 
and fix'' be included in the final rule to ensure there is 
appropriate corrosion control throughout the distribution 
system. In addition, ASDWA recommends systems have an ``upon 
request'' rather than a mandatory lead testing program for 
schools and child care facilities. Third, work to increase 
transparency and clarify public notification.
    Public access to lead service line inventories will 
demonstrate transparency and is critical to helping utilities 
be a trusted source of information. Tier 1 public notification 
has historically applied to acute maximum contaminant level 
violations where immediate action is necessary to protect 
public health. The proposed change in the LCRR for action level 
exceedance alters the logic for Tier 1 public notification for 
acute MCL violations.
    And fourth, additional funding for states, EPA, and water 
utilities is essential. The significant increase in the 
complexity of the proposed rule places additional burdens on 
states. EPA proposed several new program requirements with 
significant tracking, review, and approval components. Adding 
to the burden, there is not a data system that exists at the 
state or federal level that supports implementation of the 
rule.
    Without additional funding and a functioning data 
management system, implementing the LCRR will be impossible for 
most states. Increased funding for EPA and for states is vital 
to support the implementation of the LCRR. Finally, funding is 
needed to assist water systems with lead service line 
replacements. State Revolving Fund programs provide loans, but 
there are competing priorities for this subsidy including 
emerging contaminants and aging infrastructure.
    In conclusion, ASDWA thanks the subcommittee for holding 
this hearing on these important topics and commends EPA for 
moving forward with the LCRR. ASDWA looks forward to continuing 
dialogue with Congress and our federal agency partners. I will 
be happy to take questions at the appropriate time. Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Tucker-Vogel follows:]

    Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Ms. Tucker-Vogel.
    Now we will move to Mr. Estes-Smargiassi for 5 minutes for 
your opening statement, please.

              STATEMENT OF STEVE ESTES-SMARGIASSI

    Mr. Estes-Smargiassi. Chairman Tonko, Ranking Member 
Shimkus, and members of the subcommittee, the American Water 
Works Association appreciates the opportunity to offer our 
thoughts on EPA's proposed revisions to the Lead and Copper 
Rule. My name is Steve Estes-Smargiassi. I am director of 
Planning and Sustainability for the Massachusetts Water 
Resource Authority, the regional wholesale water and sewer 
provider to three million people in 61 cities and towns in the 
metro Boston region.
    I have been involved in our region's collaborative efforts 
on lead for over 25 years, serve on EPA's National Drinking 
Water Advisory Council's workgroups on the Lead and Copper 
Rule, and chair AWWA's Lead and Copper Technical Advisory 
Workgroup. The AWWA strongly supports full removal of all lead 
service lines. Indeed, our board of directors voted to endorse 
the 2015 recommendations made by the National Drinking Water 
Advisory Council, NDWAC. I will quote from them.
    ``AWWA supports the NDWAC recommendations to reduce lead in 
drinking water through the complete removal of lead service 
lines while ensuring optimum corrosion control measures. 
Support of the NDWAC recommendations underscores the importance 
of protecting the public from lead exposure through the 
development of collaborative, community-based approaches to 
remove all lead service lines in their entirety. Effective lead 
service line replacement requires solutions that successfully 
address the often-shared ownership of these lines, the 
associated financial burden, and other barriers and risks.''
    EPA's proposed revisions are an important step forward. We 
have offered what we hope are constructive comments on the 
ninety pages of the Federal Register Notice to make the rule 
clear, implementable in the field, and enforceable. We believe 
that the proposed rule requirements for immediate development 
of inventories of all lead service lines, making those 
inventories publicly available, immediate development of plans 
for the full removal of all lead service lines, and no partial 
lead service line replacements except under the narrowest of 
circumstances, and provision of an annual notice to every home 
with a lead service line will go a long way towards the future 
where there aren't lead service lines connecting our water 
mains to our customers' homes.
    Regulatory mandates, though are only one part of solving 
this problem. One obstacle to full lead service line 
replacement is the cost, particularly the cost of the portion 
on private property. My agency has tried to remove that 
obstacle by creating a hundred-million-dollar fund for our 
member communities, but the ability of lower-income families to 
afford even a loan can be an issue. Congress has appointed 45 
million dollars for assistance to low-income homeowners. We 
hope that you will continue to direct substantial funds to this 
critical need.
    Another obstacle is creating and sustaining community 
interest. We all know that a crisis creates short-term 
momentum, but more effort is needed to keep going until that 
last service line is removed. In one of our gateway cities, 
Chelsea, we have been working with our local Clean Water Action 
organizers to do door-to-door canvassing to encourage residents 
to participate in that community's replacement efforts. 
Neighbors speaking the same language become trusted sources of 
information and assistants in navigating the program.
    I mention this to stress that every program will be 
different. A national lead service line removal program is 
actually 50,000 local programs tailored to local circumstance. 
Any regulatory approach needs to account for that. A 
frustration that we all encounter in dealing with lead is the 
siloing of programs. The Department of Housing and Urban 
Development has programs to pay for lead paint removal. When 
they are done, they call the home lead-free without checking 
for or allowing for the removal of any lead service line. That 
cries out for a legislative push towards integration of those 
efforts.
    Until recently, our state's lead poisoning prevention 
program like most others, didn't test the water or check for 
lead service lines. My agency is now providing training and lab 
services to make that happen. Again, these types of structural 
program problems could be solved nationally with coordinated 
efforts by HUD, HHS, and Department of Education.
    A final note on risk communication. Lead is a powerful 
neurotoxin affecting children's development, and thus it is one 
of the most sensitive and alarming of the topics that we talk 
to our customers about. Where and when there is a risk, we need 
to coordinate with trusted partners in the medical and public 
health professions to clearly communicate that risk. Rushing 
that task and failing to do it effectively fails our customers, 
preventing those who need to take action from doing so and 
unnecessarily alarming others.
    I hope that AWWA's written comments and those of my 
colleagues here on the panel have been helpful to the committee 
and I welcome any questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Estes-Smargiassi follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Estes-Smargiassi.
    And we will now move to Commissioner Bobbitt, please, for 5 
minutes with your opening statement, please.

                   STATEMENT OF CINDY BOBBITT

    Ms. Bobbitt. Chairman Tonko, Ranking Member Shimkus, and 
distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for the 
opportunity to testify on this important issue. My name is 
Cindy Bobbitt and I am a county commissioner from Grant County, 
Oklahoma and honored to testify on behalf of the National 
Association of Counties.
    Today, I would like to offer the county perspective for 
your consideration as you assess challenges and opportunities 
around eliminating lead contamination in our drinking water. 
First, while our responsibilities vary from state to state, 
county governments serve as both regulators and regulated 
entities when it comes to the Clean Water Act and work every 
day to ensure the health and safety of our residents. We 
operate jails, hospitals, 9-1-1 emergency systems, build roads 
and bridges, and run elections.
    But one of the most important things we do is maintain and 
operate water systems to provide clean drinking water. We often 
do this through partnerships, especially in rural communities 
like mine. Grant County has a population of 4,500. We have 
eleven water systems and we are responsible to ensure water 
quality standards and meet the needs of all. This includes 
protecting our water systems and water quality during disasters 
and major flooding events when we have them. Counties across 
the country share our federal partners' concerns and are 
committed to do all we can to eliminate lead contamination in 
all of America's drinking water.
    Second, due to limited local resources and mounding 
regulations, counties are challenged to make long-term budget 
investments. Regardless of size, fiscal constraints are the 
reality for most counties and we are mandated to provide a 
growing number of services while operating under greater state 
and federal restrictions on how we generate revenue. In fact, 
45 states limit counties' ability to raise additional revenue.
    According to the EPA, administering the proposed rule is 
estimated to cost local water systems between 130 and 270 
million dollars annually and up to eight billion dollars over 
30 years. There are between six and ten million lead service 
lines in our country and preliminary findings show that the 
average cost to replace a single line is $4,700. Using these 
figures, replacing all lead service lines would cost local 
water systems between 26 and 47 billion dollars, creating an 
enormous, unfunded mandate for local governments.
    Counties support the goal of replacing all lead service 
lines in the U.S., but it is important that our federal 
partners recognize the growing number of federal and state 
requirements on local governments and understand the full 
picture of county public priorities. Communities like mine with 
low-income populations are often more at risk of lead exposure 
due to our older housing infrastructure. These counties are 
really limited in raising additional revenues.
    Raising taxes in my county and placing financial burdens on 
our people who have a median income of $28,000 is not an answer 
to pay for additional federal mandates, so counties are once 
again faced with tough choices. Fund our schools, hospitals, 
justice and emergency management systems, and pave our roads. 
Which of these public services should we cut to provide this? 
At the end of the day, it is not about replacing a red line or 
a blue line. It is about replacing hazardous water lines 
regardless of geographic location and social and economic 
conditions.
    Third, counties need early, consistent, and meaningful 
engagement with our federal partners to help develop clear and 
practical legislation and regulations that we can implement at 
the local level. Water systems across the U.S. are rapidly 
reaching the end of their life spans. It will cost up to a 
trillion dollars by 2030 to upgrade the nation's drinking water 
infrastructure. We encourage Congress and our federal agency 
partners to continue meaningful consultation with states and 
local governments on this rule to reduce the risk of unfunded 
mandates to produce successful strategies for implementing 
federal policies.
    Thank you again for the opportunity to testify and provide 
the county's perspective on this proposed rule. We stand ready 
to work with our federal partners to develop policies to ensure 
every American has access to clean water. I will be happy to 
answer any questions.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Bobbitt follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you very much, Commissioner.
    And finally, Ms. Wu, you are recognized for 5 minutes, 
please, with your opening statement.

                      STATEMENT OF MAE WU

    Ms. Wu. Thank you, Chairman Tonko.
    Mr. Tonko. You are welcome.
    Ms. Wu. Ranking Member Shimkus and members of the 
subcommittee, my name is Mae Wu. I am the senior director of 
Health and Food at the Natural Resources Defense Council. And 
as you have heard there is no safe level of lead and, in fact, 
over the past few years every state in the nation, with the 
exception of Hawaii has had at least one water system that has 
had levels in its water that has exceeded EPA's action level 
and so millions of Americans have been threatened with elevated 
levels of lead in their water.
    About three years ago, while government officials were 
refusing to ensure that Flint residents had access to reliable 
sources of bottled water and properly installed filters, 
Danielle found out that her young son Theo had levels of lead 
in his blood that exceeded the CDC recommendations for children 
under the age of six. She found out also she had no lead paint 
in her home but she did have troubling levels of lead in her 
water, so even though it was expensive for her family, they 
switched to bottled water. So Theo has been diagnosed with 
attention deficit disorder and other health problems and his 
behavioral problems have caused him to be expelled from 
preschool, so as you can imagine, it has been a life-altering 
experience for this family.
    And you might think that Theo is one of the young victims 
of Flint, but in fact, all of this happened in Newark. And the 
Flint babies who were raised on lead-contaminated drinking 
water have now started reaching school age and the city has 
found that the percentage of kids that have qualified for 
special education has doubled in this time.
    So the Lead and Copper Rule and its implementation are 
broken. It has been broken for a long time, at least 20 years, 
when Washington, DC started struggling with its own lead in the 
drinking water crisis. And so, at this point, tweaks aren't 
going to get it done. We need a major overhaul of the Lead and 
Copper Rule. And so, NRDC will be submitting tomorrow detailed 
comments about the revisions, but I wanted to just highlight a 
few of the recommendations that we have today.
    First, EPA should streamline this complicated and confusing 
Lead and Copper Rule. They need to set an enforceable standard 
for lead, like they do for most of the other drinking water 
contaminants. It shouldn't be a treatment technology or 
treatment technique that relies on corrosion control, but 
really just a maximum contaminant level for lead. 
Unfortunately, EPA has doubled down on this existing difficult-
to-implement, difficult-to-enforce nonhealth-based action level 
and has further complicated matters with an unenforceable and 
non-health based trigger level, so that needs to change.
    Second, recently, actually, NRDC received an internal memo 
from Region 5 of EPA that talked about a lot of the problems 
with the Lead and Copper Rule. And one of the things it 
mentions and a lot of the things that you have heard today is 
that EPA's revisions have ignored the elephant in the room, 
which is no matter how well corrosion control is run, unless 
you remove all of the lead service lines, and that means 
including the part that runs on private property, you are going 
to continue to have exposure to lead.
    And so, full lead service line replacements have to be 
required and they have to happen within ten years. We just 
can't wait any longer. And, unfortunately, under EPA's 
revisions, it could take 33 years or more if a system has 
triggered the requirement to even start replacing its lines. 
The other thing they need to do is ban the partials. These are 
partial replacements that are dangerous. They have actually 
been shown to show higher levels of lead than just leaving an 
undisturbed lead service line in place and they need to be 
banned and prohibited.
    And the reason why partial lead service lines happen is 
oftentimes because the homeowners can't afford the thousands of 
dollars up front and on short notice that would be required to 
pay for those lead service line replacements or they are 
renters and their landlords refuse to pay for it. And so, the 
cost cannot be put on individual homeowners because, really, 
what we are doing is exacerbating the already disparate burdens 
that are put on moderate and low-income families. And it really 
is worth the cost because for every dollar that is invested in 
lead service line replacements you get ten dollars of benefits 
back.
    And, finally, the tap water samples that are used in the 
Lead and Copper Rule have to reflect the highest levels of lead 
that are in the water. Data have shown that when you look at a 
series of sequential one-liter samples of water that actually 
it is the later sample, so when you are looking at the fifth 
liter or higher where you see the highest levels of lead.
    And so, you can actually find that those liters will have 
action level exceedances when that first liter didn't exceed 
the action level, but EPA again relies on this less 
contaminated first draw of water and it ends up underestimating 
lead and showing maybe that things are fine when there actually 
is a problem.
    So, thank you for this opportunity and I look forward to 
your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Wu follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Ms. Wu. And thank you to the entire 
panel for your opening statements and for your appearance here 
today. We are going to move to member questions. Before we do, 
we were asked to admit a news release from the Department of 
EPA that would be included in the official record. We will 
admit this press release to the record pursuant to the 
gentleman's request.
    [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
    Mr. Tonko. But I must point out inaccuracies in the 
document. In the release, the EPA claims that my colleagues and 
I deliberately chose to exclude them. That is simply not true. 
We shall have--we would have welcomed EPA's testimony here 
today. The release also suggests that other witnesses on the 
panel, those appearing here today, must have received more 
notice of the hearing date. That is also not true. No witnesses 
received more notice than the EPA. We greatly appreciate the 
efforts that our witnesses today have made to testify here and 
we will again acknowledge working with the EPA on what is a 
very serious issue.
    So now to member questions and I will start by recognizing 
myself for 5 minutes. The area of safe drinking water, which 
obviously is a fundamental right and a fundamental duty of our 
federal government, is our focus here today. The public and 
many of my colleagues may look at the Safe Drinking Water Act 
and assume that it ensures drinking water that is, indeed, 
safe. This is a reasonable assumption but, unfortunately, one 
that is not entirely accurate.
    I am referring to the fact that drinking water standards 
set under the Safe Drinking Water Act are not health-based 
standards, but are actually based on cost. The recent proposed 
revision to the Lead and Copper Rule is no exception. I would 
like to read a short quote from the proposed Rule, and I quote, 
``The EPA established the lead action level in 1991 based on 
feasibility and not based on impact on public health. The 
proposed trigger level was also not a health-based standard.''
    So, Dr. Hanna-Attisha, do you think that we should have a 
health-based standard for lead in drinking water?
    Dr. Hanna-Attisha. Absolutely. That is an excellent 
question. The EPA has actually set something called the 
``maximum contaminant level goal'' for lead and water, which 
recognizes that there is no safe level of lead and that is set 
at zero parts per billion. The FDA, which regulates bottled 
water, has a standard of lead in bottled water of five parts 
per billion.
    The American Academy of Pediatrics recognizes no safe level 
of lead has recommended a maximum level of lead in schools and 
child care facilities and that water at one part per billion. 
We need to be moving towards a health-based standard that 
recognizes the well-known and undisputed science that there is 
no safe level of lead.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you so much, Doctor.
    And, Ms. Gaddy, do you agree?
    Ms. Gaddy. Yes, most definitely. It is crucially important 
that this issue that a lot of our residents face in 
environmental justice communities, it is a health injustice and 
then there are cumulative impacts that we suffer from on a 
daily basis. And just because of the ZIP code that we reside 
in, there are other issues attached with water issues, so we 
definitely need this to be a health-related concern with a 
sense of urgency.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you. And to anyone on the panel, what 
would a Lead and Copper Rule look like if it were based just on 
health protection instead of cost? Anyone?
    Ms. Wu, I think you wanted to respond.
    Ms. Wu. Well, it would look like some of the things we have 
outlined, which is it would take away all the lead service 
lines that are the cause of the problem and it would ensure 
that people's homes, that the water that is coming into their 
homes is safe to drink.
    Mr. Tonko. OK, anyone else? Doctor?
    Dr. Hanna-Attisha. Sure, I would just reiterate that so in 
lead, the public health and pediatric and the medical community 
advocate something called ``primary prevention,'' which is in 
public health means we are never supposed to expose a child to 
lead, so it would be putting in place the recommendations that 
eliminate that exposure. Eliminate lead from our service lines, 
maximize corrosion control so that lead never gets into our 
drinking water and then we never have to wait to find in our 
children.
    Mr. Tonko. Do any of our reps from water organizations want 
to--yes, Ms. Licata?
    Ms. Licata. Yes. I really believe that it would firmly look 
at a more integrated approach. I think you have heard from the 
testimony today that an interdisciplinary approach among 
agencies as well the water providers is really necessary in 
order to address this problem. One of the comments that was 
made earlier is that the utility can't simply assume authority 
based on the rule. There are prohibitions against our 
addressing some of the private sectors, we can't force our way 
into schools, so we would really have to look at this in a more 
holistic manner and really integrate the approach.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you.
    Feasibility is an important consideration in adopting 
regulations, of course, because a regulation that cannot be 
implemented will not improve public health. But we have seen 
across our environmental laws that protective regulations can 
drive innovation, making better technologies feasible for lead 
in drinking water. We have EPA saying that what is feasible in 
2020 is no better than what was feasible in 1991.
    Ms. Wu, do you agree with that or can we do better than 15 
parts per billion?
    Ms. Wu. Yes. I do think we can do a lot better, and I think 
as you look at examples of the cities across the country who 
are starting to do full lead service lines replacements at no 
cost to the homeowners, it shows that it is feasible and it can 
be done and it should be done.
    Mr. Tonko. Do you know what some of the other countries 
might do in regard to lead levels?
    Ms. Wu. Other countries?
    Mr. Tonko. Yeah.
    Ms. Wu. I am not.
    Mr. Tonko. OK.
    Oh, Doctor?
    Dr. Hanna-Attisha. My understanding is that the World 
Health Organization has an action level of ten parts per 
billion.
    Mr. Tonko. OK. Thank you very much.
    I will now recognize Mr. Shimkus, subcommittee ranking 
member, for 5 minutes to ask questions, please.
    Mr. Shimkus. Thank you very much. I am going to go by Dr. 
Mona. And if the World Health Organization says ten parts per 
billion, why not zero? Why aren't they saying zero if everyone 
says there is no safe level?
    Dr. Hanna-Attisha. I completely agree. It should be zero.
    Mr. Shimkus. OK. There must be a reason.
    Let me, I wanted to start with, point out those two young 
children back there in the second row. Can you introduce them, 
because I think they are related to you.
    Dr. Hanna-Attisha. I have my daughter Nina who is an eighth 
grader in Michigan who is studying U.S. History, so we thought 
we would get a hands-on lesson. And my nephew Zachary who lives 
in northern Virginia and wanted to see his aunt testify.
    Mr. Shimkus. Well, let's welcome them here.
    [Applause.]
    Dr. Hanna-Attisha. Thank you.
    Mr. Shimkus. I am a former teacher, so this is like----
    Dr. Hanna-Attisha. I also have a Flint kid with me, 
Jasmine, over here, who works with us at Michigan State 
University.
    Mr. Shimkus. All right, Civics 101 right here.
    Mr. Tonko. A Flint kid. That is OK.
    Mr. Shimkus. So let me thank you for that.
    Let me go to Mr. Estes-Smargiassi. I am a former Army 
Infantry officer and we have the KIS theory, Keep It Simple. 
This is very complex. Could you--you went over a lot of this 
debate and can you kind of explain why it is a difficult 
process, in Infantry language, and then maybe follow up with 
the practicality of an MCL for lead?
    Mr. Estes-Smargiassi. So, let me sort of start off with 
corrosion control and then talk about lead service lines. One 
of the things we worry about in any change in regulation is 
that any change in treatment, any change in source water, 
anything we do in the water system, we have to evaluate all the 
rest of the factors. In fact, a number of the situations where 
we have seen elevated lead it wasn't because, in some cases, it 
was, but in other cases, it was not because folks were 
negligent about thinking about lead. It is that they were very 
active about thinking about another contaminant, whether it be 
disinfection byproducts or giardia, or cryptosporidium, and 
those changes to fix one problem can cause another.
    As much as we would like to think we fully understand 
corrosion in water, EPA's experts and academic experts 
frequently disagree with each other and frequently don't have a 
practical answer for whether a tweak in one thing will cause a 
deficit in something else and we worry about that.
    Mr. Shimkus. And we have seen that too just on power 
utilities where we try to get a cleaner burning to kill the 
particulate matter but nitrous oxide goes up, so it is one 
event affects another and that is why I appreciate that. That 
is difficult.
    So I was going to go back to Mr. Estes-Smargiassi, Ms. 
Tucker-Vogel, and Ms. Licata. Some of my colleagues have 
publicly dismissed this proposed rule. Given the challenges 
from your perspective, do you see the administration's proposal 
as generally addressing the right issues and, if not, at least 
suggesting a serious and workable proposal?
    Let's go to Ms. Licata first.
    Ms. Licata. I think there are a lot to begin to work with 
in this rule and we would really look forward to working with 
the administration on it. Particularly, we like the part of the 
no partial replacements unless you have a significant emergency 
repair. We think that that makes great sense.
    Mr. Shimkus. OK, let me go to Ms. Tucker-Vogel real quick; 
same question. Anything good, you know, about the rule?
    Ms. Tucker-Vogel. In the proposed rule?
    Mr. Shimkus. Right.
    Ms. Tucker-Vogel. Yes. I think requiring the lead service 
line inventories is a good first step and I think, you know, it 
is fundamental to the rest of the rule. If you don't know where 
the lead is, you can't fix anything else.
    Mr. Shimkus. OK, thank you. Let me go to Mr.----
    Mr. Estes-Smargiassi?
    Mr. Estes-Smargiassi. Inventories, plans to remove them, 
and letting every homeowner know that they have a lead service 
line if they have one and encouraging them to replace it. 
Information is power.
    Mr. Shimkus. Yes, time is short. So let me go--who has 
submitted formal comments for the rule yet? Raise your hand if 
you have submitted formal comments.
    Is that a yeah? So you have not submitted them yet? 
Tonight?
    And you have, Ms. Gaddy? OK.
    Ms.--so some of you here are testifying, haven't submitted 
to the rule. NRDC is going to, I guess, so, and it is due, so 
if you are going to do it, you better get it in.
    Is a rule better than, a revised rule better than no rule? 
In other words, you know when the last rule was written, or 
promulgated, 1991. I was here during the Obama administration, 
came in 2009, and left in 2017. Did they promulgate a new Lead 
and Copper Rule? The answer is no; they did not. So cut the 
administration a little slack for trying to do something versus 
nothing. And I yield back my time.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes Chairman Pallone for 5 minutes to ask questions, 
please.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Many of you state in your testimony and I saw serious 
concerns about EPA's long overdue proposal for the Lead and 
Copper Rule, so I wanted to highlight a few of these concerns 
that we can work with EPA to address them in the final rule. 
And the first concern is that this proposal does not do enough 
to prevent lead contamination, so let me try to run through 
this quickly.
    Dr. Hanna-Attisha, why is prevention so important when it 
comes to lead exposure?
    Dr. Hanna-Attisha. Sure. That is a great question and it is 
really fundamental to why we are all here. Why is lead bad? It 
is like we have mentioned, a potent, irreversible neurotoxin, 
so what that means it attacks the developing brains of 
children. It impacts cognition, lower IQ levels, it impacts 
behavior, causes things like developmental delays, attention 
problems, focusing problems, hearing loss, and growth problems; 
it has been linked to impulsivity and criminality.
    We also now know it has multigenerational impacts. There is 
a recent book out on lead that called lead a multi-headed hydra 
because wherever you turn, there is like a new research study 
that says there is something bad, another bad thing.
    Mr. Pallone. When you say ``multigenerational,'' you mean 
it can hand it down from one parent to their children?
    Dr. Hanna-Attisha. Absolutely. Research from Detroit shows 
the epigenetic impact of lead. Grandmothers exposed to lead, 
you can see those DNA changes----
    Mr. Pallone. OK.
    Dr. Hanna-Attisha [continue]. In their grandchildren. We 
also know that children exposed to lead as adults can manifest 
with high blood pressure, kidney disease, early dementia, gout, 
and have other life-altering consequences.
    Mr. Pallone. Sounds pretty bad. I mean, I obviously don't 
think this proposal does enough to remove lead service lines. 
What should we do to prevent exposure through drinking water?
    Dr. Hanna-Attisha. I think once again the many things we 
have talked about, we should find where the lead is and we 
should get it out. We should get rid of our lead in our service 
lines. It is going to be very difficult to get rid of the lead 
in our home fixtures and faucets, but we can minimize that risk 
with better corrosion control treatment, with better public 
education; people can use filters if they choose, if they are 
concerned. Better testing, better transparency.
    So like many of the things here, we need to--this rule 
should be based on the concept of primary prevention, public 
health, not on feasibility and what saves money.
    Mr. Pallone. Now let me ask Ms. Gaddy. Do you think a 
community can solve lead contamination without removing lead 
service lines?
    Ms. Gaddy. No. We must start first with removing all the 
lead service lines and making sure that individuals are 
informed that where they exist and then provide the necessary 
finances for them to be removed.
    Mr. Pallone. Now, of course, I am thinking of Newark and 
our state which is undertaking this aggressive replacement of 
all lead service lines, and I think we can see in coming years 
that that decisive action would offer robust protection for 
public health. Yet, this LCR proposal maintains a structure of 
the old rule where action is only required after a problem is 
found and I think we would have to do everything we can to 
prevent lead contamination, not just remedy it.
    So let me ask Ms. Wu. When should lead service lines be 
replaced? Does it make sense to wait until monitoring shows 
that there are leaching and, you know, do you think that EPA 
should adopt a proactive lead service line replacement 
requirement instead of this reactive approach?
    Ms. Wu. Absolutely. I think we need to start pulling them 
out of the ground now. And as we have seen the monitoring and 
waiting for monitoring, as all the flaws in that mean that we 
might think there is no problem because it is not showing up in 
the liter that we are looking at, where actually you do have a 
big problem. So this wait and see is the worst way to do it. We 
have to be proactive about it.
    Mr. Pallone. I am going to run out of time, but I want to 
ask about this trigger level below the action level. The 
proposal takes a small step by introducing a trigger level 
below the action level, but it seems kind of confusing to me.
    So let me go back to you, Ms. Wu. Do you think the EPA 
should require corrective action for lead levels below 15 parts 
per billion?
    Ms. Wu. Yes. I mean, as we know----
    Mr. Pallone. Basically, I am asking whether you think the 
trigger level is enough or should the action level be lower?
    Ms. Wu. No, it needs to be lower. It needs to go as low as 
possible. Five would be way better. Zero would be great.
    Mr. Pallone. All right.
    Ms. Wu. But yes, it needs to be lower.
    Mr. Pallone. Let me just ask in the 30 seconds, Dr. Hanna-
Attisha, do you agree with what she said and, Ms. Gaddy, do you 
agree?
    Dr. Hanna-Attisha. Yes.
    Mr. Pallone. Ms. Gaddy?
    Ms. Gaddy. Yes.
    Mr. Pallone. OK, so that is it. I mean, I think that we all 
agree that EPA should lower the action level and require 
proactive lead service line replacement. I don't think we can 
undo the effects of lead exposure, so we have to do everything 
we can to prevent it. And as costly as lead service line 
replacements are, the alternative is far more costly for 
impacted communities.
    And I just want to thank you, you know, for your testimony. 
I yield back, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes Representative McKinley for 5 minutes, please.
    Mr. McKinley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Several of you have come close but then you stopped. We 
have been doing research to try to find out how many homes were 
built that still exist since prior to 1986, because in 1986, we 
had the ban on lead pipes and solder and the like, lead solder 
in our homes. But I can't get a number of homes that are still 
out there that where families are at risk, and so if you can 
get that.
    But, Ms. Wu, I thought you came close a little bit to it, 
too. Do we have a number? What are the metrics on the 
projection, because there would be tens of millions of homes? 
If we have about a hundred million homes out there, I am going 
to say maybe 40 or 50 of them; we could figure out that. That 
is what I am trying to find out. How many homes out there have 
exposure?
    So what is the projection to remove the lead-based pipes, 
fixtures, and solder in a residential home? Does any of you 
have that number or is this just something we just whine about?
    Ms. Wu. Well.
    Mr. McKinley. I guess none of you--one of you just take a 
shot at this.
    Mr. Estes-Smargiassi. Yes. The best estimate we had for 
lead service lines is between six and ten million homes have 
lead service lines. That number obviously could be improved if 
we narrow up the range. In addition to that----
    Mr. McKinley. You are saying service lines that are coming 
into the house. I want to know how many are in the house that, 
physically, homes built prior to 1986 would have. We would have 
a lot of homes in there would not have copper necessarily in 
it.
    Mr. Estes-Smargiassi. Many tens of millions.
    Mr. McKinley. Yes, tens of millions.
    Mr. Estes-Smargiassi. Many tens of millions more.
    Mr. McKinley. Tens of millions. So I am trying to find out 
what is the projected cost? Is it five thousand dollars a 
house, ten thousand dollars a house? I don't know what that--I 
know what it would be for mine because I have had the estimate 
on it.
    But I would like to know for--so, here is what I am going 
for. We give, and we have been talking about this for years. I 
am an engineer, a licensed engineer, and we have been dealing 
with this in homes and apartments all over in our project. Why 
aren't we offering a tax credit? Why aren't we offering a tax 
credit for people to be able to remove these, or grants?
    Now one question came up, it was a question what are other 
countries doing? I believe it is Ireland, is offering grants to 
remove lead pipelines in homes, so in America, why aren't we 
doing this? Look, we give tax credits for residential energy 
tax credits that deals with high-efficiency boilers, furnaces, 
and solar panels. We would have historic preservation tax 
credits. We have tax credits for mortgages, state, and local 
income taxes. We have tax credits for home office deductions. 
But we don't offer one to remove lead-based pipe, which is far 
more dangerous to people.
    Now, Ms. Wu, you said it was a 10:1 ratio. Maybe it is. I 
don't know what that is. That might be able to support, and 
give us some strength if we were to go for that to be able to 
promote something that it will pay for itself if we were to use 
a tax credit.
    So I want to also want to engage you, because I think if we 
can get to that--and many of you referred to it as the elephant 
in the room. To me, the elephant in the room is the homeowner 
and his pipeline. You get him engaged, him or her, engaged in 
this debate by cleaning theirs up and then saying, but it is 
you, communities--I am sorry, Ms. Bobbitt-- the counties to do 
it; I think we can get more pressure put on the counties and 
everyone to do this.
    But if we put pressure on the counties to do it, then it is 
going to put pressure on, and they are going to resist it 
because, for whatever reason, they can't afford to do it in 
their homes. So I want to give them--if we offer all these tax 
credits for everything else, why in God's name aren't we doing 
the same thing for lead-based pipe in our homes, and we ought 
to be able to do that. So, is there any thoughts on that?
    Ms. Gaddy. Well, I just wanted to add, I know in the city 
of Newark the average cost is $7,000 to replace a lead service 
line. We have 18,000 lines that are being replaced that will 
cost about $126 million.
    Mr. McKinley. That is a service line. I am talking about 
inside the house, which is going to be more expensive. You 
might have to rip out some walls. You are going to have some 
problems in there. So, some other comments?
    Dr. Hanna?
    Dr. Hanna-Attisha. So, service lines were restricted in 
1986. Most communities weren't actively putting them in, except 
for Chicago, which mandated using lead service lines to deliver 
drinking water. However, our home fixtures were allowed to have 
lead in them until 2014. So lead was allowed in brass fixtures 
until 2014. It is going to be very difficult to rip all of that 
out and that is why in addition to lead service line 
replacement, we need that optimal corrosion control and other 
preventive measures.
    Mr. McKinley. OK, my time has expired. But I didn't see any 
of you saying I like the idea of tax credits. Sorry. I yield 
back.
    Mr. Tonko. Does anybody want to talk about that tax credit, 
just say yes or no before we go to our next----
    Ms. Bobbitt. I think a tax credit would be very good.
    Mr. Tonko. OK, thank you.
    There you go, so we got one.
    Mr. McKinley. Thank you for your cooperation.
    Mr. Tonko. So we have made Representative McKinley somewhat 
happy, so OK. The Chair now recognizes the vice chair of the 
full committee, Representative Yvette Clarke, for 5 minutes, 
please.
    Ms. Clarke. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I thank 
our ranking member, Mr. Shimkus, for convening this timely 
hearing on the EPA's recently proposed revisions to the Lead 
and Copper Rule. Thank you as well to all of our witnesses for 
being here today.
    Brooklyn, New York, which is where I hail from, is very 
fortunate to have some of the cleanest drinking water in the 
nation, thanks in no small part to the work of our Department 
of Environmental Protection and our upstate partners. But even 
in Brooklyn, we are not exempt from this national crisis that 
has called our drinking water system into question, 
particularly in our public schools where drinking fountains 
have had to have been shut off to prevent our children from 
lead exposure. Much of our infrastructure is very old and many 
of our buildings were constructed during the time period when 
lead was used in service lines without even a second thought.
    So I wanted to raise a couple of questions, but let me 
start by letting the committee know that I received an internal 
memo from my colleague, Congresswoman Diana DeGette, and it is 
a 2017, EPA memorandum that discusses lessons learned in 
implementing the Lead and Copper Rule in the older industrial 
cities of the upper Midwest, lessons that I am afraid that have 
gone unheeded by the EPA in drafting this new particular 
proposal. Copies of this memo was provided to the Democratic 
and Republican offices of this committee last night, and I ask 
that the memo be entered into the record.
    Mr. Tonko. Without objection.
    [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
    Ms. Clarke. According to the memo, sampling just the first 
liter of water to come out of the tap rather than the fifth or 
tenth liter, missed the peak lead values 100 percent of the 
time. So, Ms. Wu, could you elaborate on this and tell us 
whether this problem has been solved in this upcoming proposal?
    Ms. Wu. Yeah, unfortunately, it hasn't been solved and EPA 
continues to rely on the first liter. Whereas, you know, the 
studies have shown that the water that comes out from, say, the 
fifth liter and on is actually closer to the lead service line 
and more reflective of what is happening in the lead service 
lines.
    Ms. Clarke. OK. The memo points out that neither the states 
nor small or medium water systems have the expertise to 
establish optimal water quality parameters that will ensure 
lead levels are well controlled.
    Ms. Wu, is this problem addressed in the EPA's proposal?
    Ms. Wu. No. That is also not addressed.
    Ms. Clarke. The memo points out that a lot of water systems 
don't know where their lead service lines are and thus may be 
missing high lead levels when they go out to sample.
    Ms. Wu, is this problem addressed in the EPA's proposal?
    Ms. Wu. It is not fully or well addressed in the revisions.
    Ms. Clarke. So this memo ways even the best-centralized 
treatment used by a public water system may not prevent the 
release of lead particles, particles that can be up to 97 
percent lead.
    Ms. Wu, is this problem addressed in the EPA proposal?
    Ms. Wu. No. That problem is not fixed in the proposal.
    Ms. Clarke. The memo points out there may be elevated lead 
levels in homes even if the overall system has not had an 
action level exceedance. So, even though Chicago's water 
overall is above the action level, there may be more than 4,000 
homes drinking water containing 15 parts per billion of lead, 
which is the action level, and one thousand homes drinking 
water with more than 100 parts per billion of lead.
    Ms. Wu, is this problem addressed in the EPA's proposal?
    Ms. Wu. No. That problem has not been addressed.
    Ms. Clarke. So this report came out in 2017. None of this 
has been included in this upcoming proposal. These are things 
we already know.
    So, Mr. Chairman, we have had a tragic history in this 
country with lead and drinking water. Unfortunately, it seems 
as though the EPA does not seem to have learned from that 
history. Mr. Chairman, I would like to again make sure that 
this put into the record, and I would like to thank all of our 
witnesses for being here and lending the expertise.
    With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentle lady yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the ranking member of the full committee, Mr. 
Walden, for 5 minutes, please.
    Mr. Walden. Thank you, Mr. Tonko, I appreciate that.
    And again, thanks to the panel.
    Mr. Estes-Smargiassi, do the proposed revisions to the Lead 
and Copper Rule create a more deliberative process regarding 
corrosion control and system management that currently exists 
under the Lead and Copper Rule?
    Mr. Estes-Smargiassi. The proposed rules add a fair amount 
of additional detail on how systems ought to think about this. 
They have focused on medium size and smaller systems rather 
than just large systems, so there is additional focus on 
corrosion control as one of the, if you will, the legs of the 
stool that we need here along with lead service line 
replacement and public education. It adds a lot of complexity 
which does concern us, but I think the thrust of encouraging 
corrosion control makes sense.
    Mr. Walden. OK, let's see. Commissioner Bobbitt, according 
to your testimony, it appears that counties have many 
responsibilities and roles within your communities regarding 
public health protections. I think we all know that. Would you 
please explain what some of these are though?
    Ms. Bobbitt. Yes. Thank you for that question. We are 
responsible for about anything that touches our counties, our 
people, so we take care of 9-1-1, roads and bridges; we run 
elections, we do so many things and it is important. We are 
also very smart and we work in partnership, and that is why it 
is real important for us is to work in partnership with our 
federal, state, and local governments, because as counties, we 
all need to be at the table to figure out what we need to do 
for our clean water.
    Mr. Walden. Again, back to Mr. Estes-Smargiassi and Ms. 
Tucker-Vogel. What are your views as to what will help 
accelerate line replacement and will encourage replacements of 
customer-owned lines? I talked about some of this in my opening 
comments.
    Mr. Estes-Smargiassi. So one thing that will help 
accelerate it is knowledge, so the requirements for inventory 
and public education and notice to homeowners is going to make 
it more likely that folks who have a lead service line are 
encouraged to remove it. There has been a fair amount of 
conversation here about funding. That is probably the big gap 
in all of this. My numbers say if we are just thinking about 
lead service lines, we are talking about 30 to 80 billion 
dollars across the country.
    Mr. Walden. Wow.
    Mr. Estes-Smargiassi. This proposal also adds in the 
galvanized lead service lines preceded by lead gooseneck. In my 
region, there is about twice as--that adds, doubles the number. 
So if we look at it that way here, we might be talking about 
something on the order of $160 billion to deal with this. The 
places where we have had real success have been where there has 
been external money applied.
    Mr. Walden. Sure.
    Mr. Estes-Smargiassi. Flint did a great job.
    Mr. Walden. Yes.
    Mr. Estes-Smargiassi. With a lot of money from this 
organization here.
    Mr. Walden. Yes.
    Mr. Estes-Smargiassi. If somebody gave us a couple hundred 
million dollars, we would be able to move a lot faster in doing 
ours.
    Mr. Walden. Mr. Tonko has the checkbook. Ask him. He is 
happy to do that, I am sure.
    So you may have covered this. I was out of the room at the 
other hearing. But what do you tell the average homeowner? What 
is my responsibility as a homeowner? How do I know whether that 
service line coming in or not is something I should replace? Is 
it my responsibility? At what point do I start, when the water 
gets to my house or there to the street? Who can take that on?
    Ms. Tucker-Vogel. So, I think it varies from utility to 
utility.
    Mr. Walden. OK.
    Ms. Tucker-Vogel. And also from state to state. But in 
general terms, the responsibility for the service line from the 
meter to the foundation of the house typically lies with the 
homeowner.
    Mr. Walden. Got it.
    Ms. Tucker-Vogel. Now sometimes, the meter might be in the 
house, so then there again, it is just whatever the policy of 
the water utility might be at that point. But to go back to 
your question of how do we communicate with and educate people 
about what their materials are, the inventories are the first 
and fundamental part of that both on the utility-owned side of 
the meter and the privately-owned.
    Mr. Walden. But how does a homeowner know? How do I know in 
my home?
    Ms. Tucker-Vogel. Well, it is going to take an educational 
effort that has got to be part of the rule.
    Mr. Walden. Is there a simple test? I mean if you are 
painting there, you can scrape some of the paint and you can, 
you know, do the lead test. I have done that. But you can't do 
that----
    Ms. Tucker-Vogel. Well, keep in mind the lines are buried.
    Mr. Walden. Right. No, I know.
    Ms. Tucker-Vogel. So sometimes, depending on how the lines 
are connected to the meter, sometimes you can tell there at the 
meter set and you can do a little scratch test and see whether 
it is lead or not.
    Mr. Walden. Oh, all right.
    Ms. Tucker-Vogel. But there again, it is going to vary 
depending upon how it is constructed.
    Mr. Walden. And on copper lines, I know they used to use 
lead solder, right? Is that an issue people should be worried 
about as well?
    Ms. Tucker-Vogel. It could be. There again it depends. They 
don't use lead solder anymore.
    Mr. Walden. Yes, good.
    Ms. Tucker-Vogel. So as long their water is not really 
corrosive it is probably OK.
    Mr. Walden. That is the issue----
    Ms. Tucker-Vogel. I have lead solder on my copper pipes in 
my house, so it is, but, you know, they are old and my utility 
uses corrosion control.
    Mr. Walden. Got it. OK, thank you. Thank you all. And thank 
you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it.
    Mr. Tonko. You are welcome. The gentleman yields back. The 
Chair now recognizes Representative Blunt Rochester for 5 
minutes, please.
    Ms. Blunt Rochester. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank 
you, Ranking Member and to the panel. I am sorry I have been 
running back and forth up and down the stairs. I am on at the 
same time in another hearing.
    So I would love to, I might have to submit some questions 
for the record, but I want to first thank you and just express 
that yesterday we know the President released his fiscal year 
2021 budget. And a budget, it really a representation of your 
values and your priorities.
    The proposed budget would lead people to believe that we 
don't value our environment as much as we do or our health, and 
based on the last three years, this is not really a surprise. 
The administration has rolled back or is in the process of 
rolling back nearly 100 safeguards for our air, water, and 
health. And for the 4th year in a row, the Trump administration 
has proposed deep, draconian cuts to EPA's overall budget, this 
year reducing it by nearly 27 percent.
    Since EPA was created in 1970 under a Republican 
administration, our health and our environment are not partisan 
issues. It has made our air and our water cleaner, prevented 
millions of asthma attacks and hospitalizations and avoided 
hundreds of thousands of premature deaths. So when looking at 
this Lead and Copper Rule proposal, it goes against the very 
essence of what the EPA is supposed to do, protect our 
environment and protect our health.
    And, unfortunately, when the EPA fails to do its jobs, 
those impacts fall disproportionately on the poor and 
communities of color. What happened in Flint is, sadly, just 
one example of what is happening all over this country, 
including the state of Delaware. We know how horrible lead is 
for our health, even at low-level exposures.
    Children and pregnant women are especially vulnerable and 
this new rule fails to protect the millions of Americans who 
drink their water from systems with lead and copper pipes, and 
that is unacceptable. It also fails to require adequate 
procedures for notifying a community of a contamination which 
is a fundamental right and especially important for 
environmental justice communities.
    Ms. Gaddy, in your testimony, you highlight that Newark, 
New Jersey had difficulty communicating health risks and 
technical information concerning lead levels to the public. We 
hear a lot about the concern for creating a panic if in 
revealing lead level exceedances too quickly. Do you think that 
the people impacted by contamination in Newark should have been 
notified sooner? And in your experience in Newark, does panic 
arise from too much information or too little?
    Ms. Gaddy. Yes. Well, thank you for that question. And I do 
think that too many of our residents were not informed of the 
situation early enough and then when information came out, it 
was too much to comprehend at one time so then there was a 
sense of panic. In order for individuals to fully engage and 
understand what is happening and how serious this is to their 
health, you had to first kind of explain what the problem was. 
It was 15,000 service lines at first, it wasn't everybody in 
the city.
    So when you begin to say, well, only these groups of 
individuals can receive a filter or are in jeopardy, their 
health is jeopardized by a potential lead, so now the other 
50,000 in that particular ward or 75 in another ward is like 
why not me? And so then it created this whole confusion. But 
there was a lack of transparency up front as well. I do believe 
that there were missteps along the way. There was a lack of 
communication between the administration and the health 
department.
    Ms. Blunt Rochester. Right.
    Ms. Gaddy. Because this was a health issue that should have 
been addressed from the health department as well as with the 
water department and because there were disconnects along the 
way individuals didn't connect that this is something that is 
poisoning my family.
    Ms. Blunt Rochester. Thank you. Thank you.
    And I am going to shift to Dr. Hanna-Attisha. Following 
along those same lines, do you agree that it is important to 
inform residents? And also, what is the difference that a 
timely notice can make in exposure to lead to children and to 
the harm that could be done?
    Dr. Hanna-Attisha. Absolutely. We definitely need more 
transparency, and more communication. After Flint happened, in 
a bipartisan manner, Congress passed the EPA notification bill, 
which says that if there is lead in the water, people should be 
informed of it. It is kind of crazy that we needed a bill for 
that to happen, but this is a step in the right direction. 
People need to know if there is a concern so that they can take 
the proper measures to protect themselves.
    Ms. Blunt Rochester. And I am going to ask Dr. Wu, does 
this proposal ensure that EPA will notify people impacted by 
lead contamination as soon as possible?
    Ms. Wu. No, it could do a lot more to make sure they get 
notification in time.
    Ms. Blunt Rochester. And in your testimony you highlight 
that sampling requirements are weak and that repeated sampling 
frequently identifies lead levels that were not identified in 
previous sampling efforts. You propose that sampling should be 
taken from every tap in schools and child care facilities twice 
a year. What is your recommendation for frequency of sampling 
done outside of schools and child care facilities?
    Ms. Wu. Well, for the frequent--first and foremost, the 
most important part is to take the samples that are from the 
liter that shows what is happening in the thing, or in the lead 
service line, right, and so that is most important. And then 
the frequency of sampling is, you know, more frequent is always 
going to be better.
    Ms. Blunt Rochester. Thank you. My time has expired and I 
yield back.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentlewoman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentleman from Missouri, Representative Long, 
for 5 minutes, please.
    Mr. Long. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Thank you all for being here on this important subject. 
And, Ms. Tucker-Vogel, unfunded and underfunded mandates have 
always been a concern for states and proposed revisions to the 
Lead and Copper Rule offer no additional funding for states' 
implementation of federal requirements. What impact would this 
rule have on the state finances for drinking water programs and 
enforcement?
    Ms. Tucker-Vogel. Well, it will have a significant impact. 
I think if you look at the full testimony that we submitted and 
also our comments that as were submitted, with the Lead and 
Copper Rule you will find that the increase is significant, and 
without additional funding from EPA I am not sure how we will 
be able to fully implement the rule. Also, replacement of the 
lead service lines both on the public and private sides, there 
will be additional funding required for that as well.
    Mr. Long. Assuming that the public water system's 
supervision grants are fully funded at $150 million per year, 
would states be able to fully implement the proposed rule as 
well as all of the other items that are required to do part of 
their primary enforcement responsibilities?
    Ms. Tucker-Vogel. So I would like to reiterate that states 
will not be able to implement this rule at all if we don't have 
a functioning data management system, which we currently do not 
have either at the federal or state level. Our safe drinking 
water information system, otherwise known as SDWIS, currently 
does not have the capability for us to track all of the new 
requirements that are in the proposed regulations. So that is a 
significant issue for states.
    Mr. Long. OK, thank you.
    And, Commissioner Bobbitt, according to your testimony, it 
appears that counties have many responsibilities and roles 
within your communities regarding the public health 
protections. And I know that Chairman Walden earlier, Ranking 
Member Walden on this committee, I guess, but Ranking Member 
Walden asked you a little bit about this. But with competing 
demands, how do you prioritize all the services in your 
community?
    Ms. Bobbitt. Thank you for that question. That is a great 
question because it is a very difficult task. But like 
everybody else, we have to balance our budget the same as you 
do in your home and at your budget and the same as a federal 
government has to balance their budget and our state has to 
balance their budget, so do counties, so we have to prioritize. 
Obviously, we look at safety first and we are always very 
proactive about looking at what is impacting our environment. 
So we have to prioritize, but we do look at safety first.
    Mr. Long. OK, thank you.
    And, Ms. Tucker-Vogel and Ms. Licata, both of you raised 
concerns about the proposed regulatory revisions regarding 
making public water systems responsible for testing drinking 
water at school and child care facilities, which we all want, 
of course. Ms. Licata, what technical coordination and/or 
funding challenges might this approach pose for water system 
operators?
    Ms. Licata. Yes, so we as a utility for New York City, are 
greatly interested in supporting the schools and daycare 
centers to the best of our abilities with testing and the 
knowledge of what may exist within their facilities and where 
they may have their lines. We think that there could be 
additional funding for those types of facilities. We do know 
that the Congress in 2016, through the WIIN Act created a grant 
program. There is about $45 million that may have been provided 
at this point, but we do need EPA to stand up a program that 
could administer the funding. We have heard it is a drop in the 
bucket, but the very next step is to stand up a program that 
would allow for potentially grants to be administered.
    Mr. Long. OK, thank you.
    And, Ms. Tucker-Vogel, why should state education 
departments and child care licensing agencies be responsible 
for drinking water matters when they are in the schools?
    Ms. Tucker-Vogel. So state education departments and 
schools are responsible for the safety of the children that are 
in their care, both in the schools and in child care 
facilities. I think it is important to note that drinking water 
operators at water utilities don't have the expertise that it 
takes to look at premise plumbing. So once you start looking at 
premise plumbing within large institutional buildings, it is a 
very different expertise that is required than what is required 
to operate a drinking water system. And I don't think our 
operators at this point have that level of expertise to address 
premise plumbing issues.
    Mr. Long. OK. And with that I yield back 5 seconds. Thank 
you all.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you. The gentleman yields back. The Chair 
now recognizes the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Soto, for 5 
minutes, please.
    Mr. Soto. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. You know, 
getting lead out of our water is pretty fundamental. It has 
been a challenge for thousands of years for humanity. I was 
reading the other day that the fall of the Roman Empire was 
even contributed in part because there was lead in their pipes 
that drove people insane. And then we had lead in our piping 
until the 1920s in a lot of cities, but until the 1980s--I 
couldn't believe that. Until the 1980s and national plumbing 
codes, there was lead.
    We know this is a hard issue. We have had issues like 
asbestos that we are working on and PFAS and even getting lead 
out of gasoline in the '70s and '80s, but we can't avoid it 
because it is hard. I worry about my own state, where 80 
percent of the children with lead poisoning were not tested by 
the local health departments, according to Pediatrics medical 
journal. And then I just met with my Florida rural water folks 
last week and they are volunteering to help out schools and 
daycares because there is no state money to be able to test our 
many of thousands of schools in Florida.
    So, first, I wanted to ask for everybody's response. We saw 
the President's budget this week, a 26 percent cut to EPA. 
Those 50 programs that are targeted for cuts are radon, clean 
water, and the lead program. So it would be great to hear what 
that would mean to each of your communities if we had a 26 
percent cut to the existing lead programs that we already are 
funding in the 2020 budget.
    And we will start from left to right with you, Ms. Hanna-
Attisha.
    Dr. Hanna-Attisha. So the lead programs, the safety net 
programs, all these programs that are critical for the health 
and development of our children and of our families, they are 
already underfunded. If you look at our lead program, the 
Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Program with the CDC, they 
got some of their funding restored with some of the Flint 
dollars that came in. But that is still not at what it needs to 
be to properly identify the children that are exposed, but 
really to focus our work on primary prevention not only getting 
the lead out of our homes, but getting the lead out of our 
plumbing.
    We talk a lot about cost. The cost has come up many times 
today and we are not talking about the cost of doing nothing. 
We well know the cost of inaction. There have been studies from 
the Pew and Robert Johnson Foundation and even studies in 
Michigan that tell us the burden of not eliminating lead 
exposure. It costs us about 80 billion dollars a year when we 
look at decreased economic productivity, special education 
costs, criminal justice costs, healthcare costs, and behavioral 
healthcare costs. That is the cost of continuing to kick the 
can and continuing not to eliminate these kinds of exposures.
    Mr. Soto. Sure.
    Ms. Gaddy, what would a 26 percent cut to the lead program 
mean for places like Newark that you have been talking about 
today?
    Ms. Gaddy. Well, there would be a lot of services that 
residents would not receive and again, I concur with Dr. Hanna 
as well. Not only the lead in our drinking water, but lead 
paint chips, dust, all of those things and those programs need 
proper funding from EPA. It also means that individuals over 
their lifetime, children will be exposed to more illnesses 
based on the lack of safe and affordable drinking water, the 
lack of individual air issues that is also associated with it.
    I mean, one in four children in Newark have asthma. We have 
cumulative impacts of just total, so many toxins, the air we 
breathe, the water we drink, the food we eat, so a 26 percent 
cut would hurt us tremendously in our community and the damages 
will be irreversible. So children will have a lifelong of 
health effects from an early age until they are adults.
    Mr. Soto. Sure.
    Ms. Licata, what would it mean for New York City to have 
that kind of cut to the lead program?
    Ms. Licata. We would be very concerned about deep cuts to 
EPA, but I would, frankly, be most concerned about deep cuts to 
the SRF programs for the states because my utility relies 
greatly on that source of financing which really allows us to 
access the markets at a very good rate. And, frankly, I think 
with respect to budget cuts there, I think we are hearing today 
that we do need some out-of-the-box opportunities to address 
the costs associated with removing lead from homes, and I hope 
that we can talk about that some more.
    Mr. Soto. Sure.
    Ms. Tucker-Vogel, what would it mean for Kansas if we had a 
26 percent cut to the lead program for EPA?
    Ms. Tucker-Vogel. So, well, first, I am here representing 
ASDWA, but the lead program is not in the drinking water 
program in the state of Kansas and I doubt that that is the 
case in most of the state drinking water programs, that that 
lead program located in another part of an agency.
    So I would echo the concern though, about cuts to both the 
public water supply supervision grant and the SRF programs 
which do directly impact the state drinking water programs and 
allow us to work towards reducing lead in drinking water.
    Mr. Soto. Thanks. My time has expired.
     Mr. Tonko. And perhaps the other witnesses can respond in 
writing to answer, acknowledge Representative Soto's question, 
which was very good. The gentleman yields back.
    Next, the Chair will recognize the gentlewoman from 
Michigan, Representative Dingell, for 5 minutes, please.
    Mrs. Dingell. Thank you, Chairman Tonko.
    And I am sorry to all the panel. There are two hearings 
that are equally important, especially for Michigan because it 
is autonomous vehicles downstairs, but we have all been 
bouncing up and down because we care deeply about both issues, 
but I thank the chairman for holding this hearing.
    And as you have heard all morning and as you know, this 
really matters in Michigan. And I would reinforce again, it is 
on each one of us here in Congress and the government to ensure 
that no city in America ever experiences what Flint 
experienced. Again, we have witnessed it. I have seen the 
children. I am following the children.
    It matters on the adults too, but as I talked about earlier 
when I introduced Dr. Mona, I will never forget those kids when 
I first--and the desperation of those parents. And it is really 
clear that government at all levels failed the people of Flint. 
Now we have a moral obligation to fix it, and I have felt that 
from the very day that I first went to Flint and the ACLU, 
before it ever became public, started talking to me about what 
happened. And that is why a strong, proactive, and clear 
federal Lead and Copper Rule is needed for the long term to 
protect Americans all across the country.
    I am going to address my first set of questions to Dr. 
Mona. I call her Dr. Mona because the kids call her Dr. Mona, 
and I should maybe be more respectful, but I trust kids more 
than I trust adults some days. Sorry. But in your testimony, 
you stated that EPA's proposed revisions to the Lead and Copper 
Rule are minimalistic and insufficient, which I agree with. 
Given your expertise and your experience in Michigan, I want to 
direct a series of questions to you. First, can you describe 
for the committee why there is no safe level of lead?
    Dr. Hanna-Attisha. Yeah, we talked about that briefly 
before. It is a neurotoxin. It impacts cognition and 
development and behavior and has life-altering, 
multigenerational, multisystem consequences. Very clear 
science, which we have known for hundreds of years back when 
the Romans used lead, now tells us there is no safe level.
    Mrs. Dingell. So having said that and we have talked a 
little about it and we keep dancing it, but we have got to stay 
on it. What do we do to protect our most vulnerable, which is 
our children and pregnant women?
    Dr. Hanna-Attisha. Right.
    Mrs. Dingell. What is the most direct thing we do?
    Dr. Hanna-Attisha. That is a great question and that is how 
this rule really should be focused on and that should be that 
focus on primary prevention, doing everything we can to not 
expose children. Not only does it make health sense and 
development sense, we also know it makes economic sense.
    Mrs. Dingell. So what makes lead in drinking water 
different than, say, lead from a lead pencil or from paint?
    Dr. Hanna-Attisha. That is a great question and that is 
something that I had to learn as a pediatrician despite caring 
for hundreds of children with lead poisoning both in Flint, and 
in Detroit prior. Lead is different. Lead in water is different 
than other traditional sources of lead. Lead paint and lead 
dust, kids are highest risk of exposure to those household 
sources when they are crawling and walking, usually when they 
are toddlers. They walk around, they crawl, they find a paint 
chip they put in their mouth and paint chips are actually sweet 
and so they continue to eat them.
    Lead in water impacts a different age groups. It impacts 
the unborn, and has well-known maternal fetal impacts including 
miscarriage, fetal death, prematurity, and small birth weight, 
and it most impacts babies on formula. We have so many babies 
in Flint who are formula-fed. We have low breastfeeding rates 
and they were using this lead-tainted water to mix their 
formula, which is a powder.
    So the age group of exposure is different than the other 
sources of lead, and also, unlike the other sources, lead in 
water is in a vehicle meant for us to ingest. Like, we are not 
meant to eat dust and paint, kids do it, but we are meant to 
drink water. It is a medical and public health necessity for us 
to consume water and when lead is in it, we can't see it, we 
can't taste it, and we don't know it is in there.
    Mrs. Dingell. So now let's take it to another step. So what 
is the difference between lead exposure in schools and in 
daycare versus exposure in homes, and what do we need to make 
sure the kids are getting safe drinking water in schools?
    Dr. Hanna-Attisha. Sure. That is a great question. So lead 
in schools and child care facilities are a little bit different 
than lead in homes. Usually, there is not lead service lines to 
these bigger buildings, the lead is coming from fixtures and 
faucets. Lead in schools usually is increased because there are 
long periods of water non-use, for example, weekends, 
overnight, and breaks, which concentrate the exposure of lead 
so that first kid that comes in on a Monday morning and turns 
on the drinking faucet, they are going to get a gush of lead in 
their water. So that is what makes it a little different. And 
we have poorly invested in the infrastructure of our schools, 
and this is another reiteration reminder of why we need more 
capital investment in our schools to get them caught up.
    Mrs. Dingell. Thank you. I yield back, but I will have some 
questions for the record, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to all of 
you. Thank you.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentlewoman yields back and the Chair now 
recognizes the gentleman from California, Dr. Ruiz. 
Representative Ruiz for 5 minutes, please.
    Mr. Ruiz. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for holding 
this hearing on such an incredibly important topic. Thank you 
all for being here and for your advocacies and your voice in 
this public health dilemma. The health and safety of our 
children is the most important aspect of keeping lead out of 
drinking water, the health and safety of our children.
    OK, the health and safety of our children should be our 
objective, not some cost-benefit equation and feasibility and 
for an agency. Lead is a potent toxin, a known threat to public 
health with serious impacts on cognitive development in 
children and there is a broad consensus that no level of lead 
is safe. No level of lead is safe. As a parent of twin 4-year-
olds, would I consider a certain level safe for my children to 
drink? Would I accept a certain amount of lead for my children 
to drink if the medical community is saying no level of lead is 
safe to drink? I would definitely not.
    I am a physician, so I am going to ask Dr. Hanna-Attisha; 
you are a pediatrician, correct? Can you tell us what health 
impacts you found in your patients during the Flint lead 
crisis? What led you to even test for this?
    Dr. Hanna-Attisha. That is a great question, and it is part 
of the nuances of lead. So I shared kind of the consequences of 
lead exposure, but those don't present right away. Kids don't 
come into the clinic with those acute symptoms. I wish they 
did. I wish a kid who was exposed to lead had like purple glow-
in-the-dark spots, but they don't, and in pediatrics, we call 
it a silent pediatric epidemic. It is pernicious. It is 
invisible.
    We don't acutely see symptoms of exposure, which is why, 
unfortunately, we are then left to screen children at the ages 
of one and two because that is when they are most at risk for 
household lead exposure for lead in their blood, but when we do 
that it is too late. And when we do that, we are literally 
using our children as detectors of environmental contamination. 
We should be screening the water and their environment.
    Mr. Ruiz. Is that a mandatory screening or is that your 
practice or is that a state mandate?
    Dr. Hanna-Attisha. It is different in every state, but it 
is a Medicaid mandate that if a child is on Medicaid, they have 
to be screened at the ages of one and two. Some states still do 
universal screening, but it is based on risk.
    Mr. Ruiz. OK, and so how do these patients on lead present? 
What are the symptoms of lead, acute lead toxicity?
    Dr. Hanna-Attisha. So acute lead toxicity, which we rarely 
see anymore, this was something that was much more common when 
we had lead in gasoline and a lot of lead in our paint, are 
symptoms of seizures and tremors and acute neurological 
symptoms and often death. But now what we see is what we don't 
see. It is this kind of silent, invisible consequences and they 
present later on in life with problems focusing, problems 
paying attention, problems in school, learning disabilities, 
growth issues, and hearing issues, so these are the 
consequences of exposure. And when we do diagnose them it is 
often years after the exposure and which makes it then very 
difficult to do anything about it, but also very difficult to 
prove causation.
    Mr. Ruiz. Are those reversible?
    Dr. Hanna-Attisha. They are not.
    Mr. Ruiz. OK. So they are permanent?
    Dr. Hanna-Attisha. Yes. Lead is a permanent, irreversible 
neurotoxin, which is why we are never supposed to expose 
children to it. Not all children who are exposed will have 
consequences and it depends on a lot of other risk factors, 
including nutrition.
     Mr. Ruiz. And so that is why prevention is so important--
--
    Dr. Hanna-Attisha. Yes, prevention.
    Mr. Ruiz [continue]. When it comes to lead and not 
reactionary policies of once you see there is a lot of lead 
then we are going to act, after a child consumes the amount of 
lead for a certain period of time.
    In my district, the Coachella Valley Water District does 
not have any lead service lines, and even so they work with 
schools and daycare facilities to proactively test for lead in 
their water pipes and drinking fountains to ensure the safety 
of children. I want to talk about the cumulative impacts. So as 
a pediatrician, can you tell us what happens to a child who is 
exposed to lead both through contaminated drinking water and 
through paint in their home?
    Dr. Hanna-Attisha. Yeah. That is a great question. The 
burden of lead exposure does not fall equally on our nation's 
children as we have heard. It is a form of environmental 
injustice or environmental racism. Predominantly poor and 
minority children are exposed to lead just like many other 
contaminants, and it is not just lead in their water. It is 
also lead in their deteriorating homes. It is lead in the soil 
because of industrial legacy uses of lead. So there are 
cumulative exposures that are all synergistic and additive and 
that impact the child. This is one.
    Mr. Ruiz. Synergistic and additive. Do you think it is 
important the EPA considers these cumulative impacts when 
setting action levels and requirements for lead in drinking 
water?
    Dr. Hanna-Attisha. Absolutely. And I think the EPA should 
also take the opportunity to lower the standards for all 
sources of lead exposure, not just water.
    Mr. Ruiz. OK. So I think it is clear that a drinking water 
standard that fails to protect low-income children or children 
of color is not good enough.
    Ms. Gaddy, do you agree?
    Ms. Gaddy. Yes, I agree. And cumulative impacts are 
something that most individuals who live in certain ZIP codes 
suffer from that environmental degradation on a daily basis and 
it needs to be addressed.
    Mr. Ruiz. So today is the anniversary on the executive 
order on environmental justice, and the steps laid out in that 
executive order are as important as ever and the example of 
lead exposure shows why. I have legislation that I have 
introduced to codify the executive order and I appreciate that 
the chairman of this committee and this subcommittee included 
many of these provisions in the Clean Future Act and also, it 
also looks at cumulative impacts.
    So, Ms. Gaddy, do you support codifying the requirements of 
the environmental justice executive order?
    Ms. Gaddy. Yes. And I am going to be at that hearing. It 
started at 12:30 today. I am late, but I definitely support it.
    Mr. Ruiz. Excellent. So I thank the witnesses for traveling 
to be here today and I thank the chairman for calling this 
important hearing and I look forward to working with all of you 
to move important environmental justice legislation forward.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back and the Chair now 
recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina, Representative 
Duncan, for 5 minutes, please.
    Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield as much time 
to the gentleman from Illinois as he needs.
    Mr. Shimkus. I thank my colleague.
    A couple of points that we need in clarification. My 
colleagues from Delaware and Florida mentioned the importance 
of a budget and that it does set priorities and you all 
answered appropriately. More money is better; less money is 
not. But it is instructive that as of yesterday, my Democratic 
colleagues have said on the House that they are not going to 
submit a budget. So that would be pretty disappointing too, 
don't you think, if there is not even a budget submitted by the 
legislative branch of the House?
    I am not going to draw you into the politics of this, but 
you can see how that is, if you are going to throw a punch, you 
have got to be willing to take a punch and it is not--budgets 
are important. They are not going to submit one, so it is 
difficult for me to accept the premise of attacking an 
executive budget that at least has presented one.
    Dr. Mona, appreciated the comments last time. You mentioned 
the unborn child. They are exponentially challenged by lead, 
would you say?
    Dr. Hanna-Attisha. Yes.
    Mr. Shimkus. And you would claim them to be a vulnerable 
population in themselves?
    Dr. Hanna-Attisha. yes.
    Mr. Shimkus. And should they be protected?
    Dr. Hanna-Attisha. They should be protected with strong 
lead in water regulations.
    Mr. Shimkus. Thank you very much and I appreciate that. It 
just--I am glad my colleague, Cathy McMorris Rodgers, is here 
because she offered a motion to recommit on the floor a couple 
of weeks ago. We were debating another exciting issue, which 
was PFAS, and she wanted to enact into the law a protection for 
the unborn children under the PFAS standard. It was rejected on 
the floor, but it is important. I appreciate that testimony.
    Who of you here have people in your government entity that 
does not have water connected to any system?
    Oh, Ms. Bobbitt, OK. So what do they do for water?
    Ms. Bobbitt. They have water wells, and private water wells 
at their homes.
    Mr. Shimkus. Private water, and are they tested?
    Ms. Bobbitt. We work in partnership with the Oklahoma Water 
Resources Board and our health department and they are 
available to be tested----
    Mr. Shimkus. Available, but they don't have to be tested.
    Ms. Bobbitt. No, they are not mandated.
    Mr. Shimkus. That is correct. So, but of course all the 
people in your district are rich, right? We wouldn't classify 
them as low income.
    Ms. Bobbitt. Right, we have a median of $28,000. I don't 
know that----
    Mr. Shimkus. I would say you have a lot of low-income 
people.
    Ms. Bobbitt. Yes.
    Mr. Shimkus. So not all low-income people live in 
metropolitan areas, do they?
    Ms. Bobbitt. No.
    Mr. Shimkus. So if you have to make a decision, and I do 
this all the time. I have a rural area, 33 counties. Driving 
north to south would probably take you six hours, a lot of 
parts of rural America. If you have to make these tough 
decisions, as you highlighted earlier, right, you have got to 
make decisions of hospitals, EMT, all this other stuff. Is it 
more important for you to try to connect people on safe 
drinking water or rip out service lines that aren't above the 
lead limits?
    What would be--if you are going to make a decision as to 
what you need to do to service your constituents and you had to 
prioritize, is it better to rip out these lines that aren't 
higher in lead or is it better to connect to these people who 
don't have safe drinking water?
    Ms. Bobbitt. We would work in partnership. So, obviously, 
we are not going to go in there and mandate any lines be ripped 
out. We are going to work in partnership. We need to come to 
the table together to figure out what works best to serve 
everybody.
    Mr. Shimkus. OK. Here is my--let me rephrase this question. 
You are given a limited pot of money and the government says, 
OK, this money is to rip out lines, service lines to homes that 
are maybe still even under ten parts per billion, or you could 
connect with the same money people who don't have connection in 
rural America. What do you think you would do?
    Ms. Bobbitt. We would connect.
    Mr. Shimkus. Absolutely. And we do have programs that help 
do that. Rural development, I work with them closely. And for 
you city dwellers, we have communities that aren't connected to 
water. And so when we address this issue of more money to do, 
and we want to get it safe but we want to make sure that we can 
still connect everybody so that then you have at least a 
baseline.
    And that is what the rural people are going to be concerned 
about is that we are going to put in more rules, more 
regulations and they are not going to be able to fulfill the 
promise of safe drinking water to all Americans. My time has 
expired and I yield back.
    Mr. Duncan. I yield back.
    Mr. Tonko. And the gentleman from South Carolina yields 
back. The Chair now recognizes the gentlewoman from California, 
Representative Barragan, for 5 minutes, please.
    Ms. Barragan. Thank you. I want to thank the Chair for 
holding this critically important hearing on the EPA Lead and 
Copper Rule proposal, which I believe falls short, very short 
of protecting public health from lead poisoning. And I want to 
thank the panelists for being here, all of you who have been 
working on this issue.
    I don't quite understand why we debate the health and 
safety of our children and whether it reaches a certain level 
and it is bad enough now, we can do something about it, when we 
know the medical community is saying that lead, any amount of 
lead, is bad for their development and bad for their health. 
The fight for clean and affordable water is personal.
    I happen to represent a district in south Los Angeles where 
there are only four districts poorer than mine. A couple of 
years ago, we had brown water coming out of the faucets in 
Compton. And I remember somebody saying, ``Well, it is only 
impacting 500 people. Why do you care about this, 
Congresswoman?'' I said one person who gets brown water is too 
many and we shouldn't be putting these value sets on people and 
based on where they live and how many people it impacts. 
Everybody deserves clean water. Now, fortunately, the water did 
not test positive for lead, it was other issues that we had. 
And it just reminds me of sometimes the attitude when we should 
be saying that we are not going to put up with unhealthy or 
unsafe water for our kids and our vulnerable populations.
    I remember being at an event about a year ago, maybe less 
than that and had a teacher come up to me and she was with a 
group of students, and said, ``The lead in our school is 
testing just a tick under where action is required and we are 
worried about this.'' And it was pretty high and it felt so 
helpless to not be able to say anything on what could be done. 
But it is unacceptable and we are failing and need to do 
something about it, and so for communities of color and low-
income communities, they are certainly bearing the brunt of 
this.
    Ms. Gaddy, I want to start with you on the EPA's rule 
required, rather, the EPA's required environmental justice 
analysis of its Lead and Copper Rule finds that household-level 
service line replacements that depends on their ability to pay 
will leave low-income households with disproportionately higher 
health risks. Given that I represent a poor district, this is 
of my concern. There is also the issue of small water systems 
that can't afford service line replacement which was the case 
in my district with my water issue. It had to be taken over by 
the county. It was the first time that was ever done in the 
history of the state.
    Can you please talk about this disparity and how Congress 
can work with water systems to ensure that small water systems 
and low-income households get the same full-service line 
replacements as wealthier households?
    Ms. Gaddy. Yes. I mean just for example, in Newark, 
originally the residents were supposed to pay a thousand 
dollars towards the replacement of the lead service line and 
that was a huge burden, so a lot of individuals was opting out 
of the program because now that is taking money away that they 
need to provide for their family. And then fortunately enough, 
our mayor and the city council was able to secure the proper 
funding.
    We all agree, especially in EJ communities that water is a 
human right and that everyone deserves a right to safe, 
affordable, quality drinking water and EPA should be doing more 
to ensure that quality drinking water is afforded to everyone 
throughout this country. And for those individuals who have the 
smaller systems, it is not an either/or. If you don't have 
money, you shouldn't have to buy bottled water which we know is 
not regulated, right, and/or protected, and you shouldn't have 
to pay for a lead service line.
    What you want is to be able to turn on the tap water and 
receive quality, safe drinking water that will help your family 
and that is not happening in EJ communities and communities of 
low-income people. So it is definitely something that is 
causing a disparity and it is a health injustice that we have 
to correct. And so, the money needs to be found today, and 
action needs to be taken today to ensure that all these 
individuals are protected and that that burden is not unfairly 
put on individuals who don't have the financial means to 
support the right to quality, safe drinking water.
    Ms. Barragan. Great.
    Ms. Wu, I want to--the NRDC's threat on taps report in 2017 
talked about the enforcement and the challenges around 
enforcement. Can you speak to the enforcement challenges with 
the rule including from how environmental justice perspective 
and how we can do better?
    Ms. Wu. Yes, so we found that for the most part, there is a 
very low, low percentage of formal enforcements that are 
happening with drinking water violations in general. And we 
also did a report called ``Watered Down Justice'' that showed 
that there were violations happen more in minority communities 
and low-income communities. So the disproportionate burden is 
shown by the amount of violations and how long the violations 
stay in violation. So enforcement is a huge part of it and it 
is not happening in the communities that need it the most and 
so it is an important part of making sure that the Lead and 
Copper Rule, whatever it looks like, is actually properly 
implemented and enforced.
    Ms. Barragan. Great. Thank you. I yield back.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentlewoman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentlewoman from the state of Washington, 
Representative Rodgers, for 5 minutes, please.
    Mrs. McMorris Rodgers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am here 
to yield to the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Shimkus.
    Mr. Shimkus. I thank my colleague for showing up and 
helping.
    So let me go with this, Ms. Gaddy. I appreciate your 
statement. And you mentioned, I think, and you did it just 
recently too, about service lines being replaced under the 
state of New Jersey has got a plan to do that, correct? And you 
mentioned at no cost. I wanted to just flesh out, there is 
really no free lunch. You would agree with that, right? Someone 
is paying for this.
    Ms. Gaddy. Right.
    Mr. Shimkus. So in New Jersey, who would be paying for the 
replacement of these lines in this grant program you are 
referring to?
    Ms. Gaddy. Well, the bill, the individuals, the homeowners 
and those who--yes.
    Mr. Shimkus. But it is a grant program, so the state of New 
Jersey, if I am right, would offer money to the homeowner for 
the service line.
    Ms. Gaddy. Correct.
    Mr. Shimkus. Because I don't know. I am just asking. I 
don't know the answer.
    Ms. Gaddy. Well, it is a variation.
    Mr. Shimkus. OK.
    Ms. Gaddy. There are programs that the State came in----
    Mr. Shimkus. So if the State is doing it, they are getting 
their money how? How would the State----
    Ms. Gaddy. Through taxes.
    Mr. Shimkus. OK, thank you. So let me go to the, you know, 
Ms. Tucker-Vogel, Mr. Estes-Smargiassi, and let's talk about 
the payer in these issues, right? Who is paying for water? How 
is it paid for?
    Ms. Tucker-Vogel. So the----
    Mr. Shimkus. If you don't want to answer, I will just go to 
the next one. So I don't have much time, you have to answer 
quickly.
    Ms. Tucker-Vogel. So the ratepayers.
    Mr. Shimkus. The ratepayers pay.
    Ms. Tucker-Vogel. Yes.
    Mr. Shimkus. So who are the ratepayers?
    Ms. Tucker-Vogel. So the water system customers, the 
utility customers.
    Mr. Shimkus. So we are either going to have the taxpayers 
pay and the ratepayers pay. Someone is going to pay to do this.
    Ms. Tucker-Vogel. Correct, and then the case of revolving 
loan funds, you know, the State provides those loans. But there 
again, they have to be paid back. They are not grants. And so, 
it is the ratepayers that are paying back those loans as well.
    Mr. Shimkus. OK. Let me go to--I want to ask Ms. Licata a 
question. You mentioned earlier, way long ago, about service 
lines going into schools and that you could not force the 
schools to--can you talk about that real quick?
    Ms. Licata. Yeah. The EPA, neither the EPA or the DEP have 
the authority to force the schools to do the testing, right, so 
we would need Congress to grant EPA authority----
    Mr. Shimkus. What about, do you have the force to be able 
to replace the school----
    Ms. Licata. No, we do not.
    Mr. Shimkus. Do you have the force to be able to force a 
private homeowner to do this?
    Ms. Licata. No, we do not.
    Mr. Shimkus. Do you have the force to able to force an 
apartment complex to replace all their lead lines in an 
apartment complex?
    Ms. Licata. No, we don't.
    Mr. Shimkus. That is good. Thank you. And I want to finish 
with this. A lot of this revolves--and thank you again, Dr. 
Mona. I am going to use that too, because you helped identify 
this problem in Flint from day one, so you get all the credit 
for raising this issue to our attention. Ms. Dingell was right. 
It was a failure at all levels. I think the people evaluated 
this.
    I just want to put this on the record so that we kind of 
know what really happened. And I have been on the chairman, or 
ranking member for nine years. My understanding of Flint is 
that there were horrible decisions and actions made by federal, 
state, and local officials. Flint happened because of money and 
politics. Flint wanted off Detroit water because they felt 
gouged on rates. The city council set an artificial political 
deadline that didn't meet engineering needs for water 
chemistry.
    The State cut the city slack; because they were in 
receivership, they didn't go after enforcement and then tried 
to minimize it. EPA was aware of the high-level readings, but 
minimized their impact to avoid causing a panic. EPA also slow-
walked a legal reading of the responses. That took several 
months. And the biggest problem was no one told the public and 
that is what you lived through this experience. So we have 
local, state, and EPA all failed the residents of Flint.
    So I would--part of what you all do if you are a 
nongovernment organization, a public interest group, or you are 
a utility or with an association, we all have got to stand up 
to protect the residents of our communities and we can't let 
another level of government entity gets in the way of 
protecting our constituents and our consumers. So I applaud you 
for being here and with that I will yield back to the gentle 
lady from Washington State.
    Mrs. McMorris Rodgers. I yield back.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentlewoman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Representative Flores, for 
5 minutes, please.
    Mr. Flores. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield my time to Mr. 
Shimkus.
    Mr. Shimkus. All right. I am almost done.
    So let me go back to Mr. Estes-Smargiassi. Under the 
proposed rule, public water systems would need to access funds 
quickly to cover the costs of replacing its portion of a lead 
service line replacement with the 45-day schedule. Estimates of 
lead service lines vary, ranging from 2,500 to 5,500 per line, 
with some industries estimate at $8,700 per line. What 
budgeting and financing challenges would public water systems 
operators face to replace lead service lines within 45 days? 
And this is really part of that intro to the last set of 
questions.
    Mr. Estes-Smargiassi. So the proposed rule suggests that if 
a homeowner replaces their portion of the line that the water 
system needs to replace their portion within 45 days. 
Certainly, financing for some utilities that where this might 
be an unexpected expense could be an issue. More importantly, 
the timing itself could be an issue. For those of us who live 
in the North, we don't typically open up the streets anywhere 
between early in November and March because the folks who plow 
aren't really enthused about big potholes from patches in the 
street.
    So need to have sort of--one of the things we ask for as I 
think about rules is practicality. We need to have rules that 
work, they work under all circumstances, and where the 
enforcement makes sense. I wouldn't want a water system to be 
in violation of the rule because they couldn't do something 
practical even though that was their intent. We would want to 
see coordination between the homeowner and the city.
    Mr. Shimkus. So we are debating a proposed rule that has 
been proposed by the administration in October of last year and 
the deadline is tomorrow, don't forget. And it is better to be 
debating a proposed rule versus not talking about any rule that 
hasn't come down the pike in 20 years. So let me follow up with 
you, same panelist. Do you anticipate that the 45-day 
requirement would lead to a change in the frequency or types of 
customer requests for lead service line replacement?
    Mr. Estes-Smargiassi. What I think we are seeing from the 
rule will be that with inventories and letters that more people 
will be interested in this and there will be a demand in some 
cases for the homeowner to replace their piece of the line when 
the city is not currently ready. It is not necessarily 
efficient. Systems will need to figure out how to make this 
work if that is the rule because we want to satisfy our 
customers' demands.
    If a customer wants to remove a lead service line, we are 
going to have to figure out how to manage that. But we would 
like to be able to create a system where if we are doing lead 
service lines in a neighborhood, we get all of them done and we 
do it efficiently and with the least disruption to the streets 
and so on.
    Mr. Shimkus. If the homeowner ultimately fails to replace 
their portion as intended, what might be the consequences for 
the homeowner and/or the public water operator?
    Mr. Estes-Smargiassi. So this has been the crux of the 
issue around lead service line replacement. Even if, and in 
fact, I can offer concrete examples. Even where a water system 
is prepared to pay for a hundred percent of the lead service 
line replacement all the way from the main to the person's 
home, we don't get a hundred percent participation. We have 
homeowners who aren't interested in having the city come and 
dig up their front yard or go down in their basement for 
whatever reason and pull that lead service line out.
    So we are seeing, even in communities in my area where our 
funding enables the communities to put together a program that 
covers the whole cost that they are getting around 90 percent. 
They are not getting that last ten percent. Some homeowners 
just aren't interested. And we don't have the authority to be 
able to make them remove that last piece of pipe.
    Mr. Shimkus. Yes, and let me ask with this. And I only have 
a minute left. So no one here at the panel is proposing forcing 
government trench-diggers to pull out lead pipes on private 
property, are they? Does anyone say we want to authorize the 
Federal Government to protect the individual who lives in this 
home that we are going to mobilize an eminent domain personal 
property to remove their lead pipe? Is anyone proposing that?
    Ms. Wu?
    No, thank you very much and I yield back my time.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back. Several documents 
have been requested to be entered into the record of this 
proceeding. Let me just list what we have that has been 
approved. A letter from the United States Conference of Mayors 
and the National League of Cities; a letter from National Rural 
Water Association; a letter from American Public Water Works 
Association to EPA; a letter from American Public Water Works 
Association to the Energy and Commerce Committee; a press 
release issued earlier today by EPA with acknowledgment of some 
inaccuracies.
    And, finally, I would like to thank all of our witnesses 
for providing not only tremendous information, but I think 
establishing for us priorities. You know, that is what budgets 
are; they are priorities. We can either do a relief for those 
most wealthy and bloat our deficit or we can prioritize our 
children and their health.
    I remind Members that pursuant to committee rules, they 
have ten business days to submit additional questions for the 
record to be answered by our witnesses. I would ask that each 
witness respond promptly to any such questions that you may 
receive. I believe a few of you didn't get to respond to 
Representative Soto, so if you could do that also. And at this 
time, the subcommittee is adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 12:51:10 p.m., the subcommittee was 
adjourned.]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                            [all]