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


                     THERE'S SOMETHING IN THE WATER: REFORMING 
                       OUR NATION'S DRINKING WATER STANDARDS

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

                            VIRTUAL 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

                               __________

                             JULY 28, 2020

                               __________

                           Serial No. 116-122
                           
[GRAPHICS 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                    
55-867 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....................................     2
    Prepared statement...........................................     3
Hon. John Shimkus, a Representative in Congress from the State of 
  Illinois, opening statement....................................     4
    Prepared statement...........................................     6
Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the 
  State of New Jersey, opening statement.........................     7
    Prepared statement...........................................     8
Hon. Greg Walden, a Representative in Congress from the State of 
  Oregon, prepared statement.....................................     9
    Prepared statement...........................................    11

                               Witnesses

Mae Wu, Senior Director, Health and Food, Healthy People Natural 
  Resources Defense Council......................................    12
    Prepared statement...........................................    15
    Answers to submitted questions...............................   131
Shellie R. Chard, President, Association of State Drinking Water 
  Administrators, Director, Water Quality Division, Oklahoma 
  Department of Environmental Quality, on Behalf of Association 
  of State Drinking Water Administrators.........................    29
    Prepared statement...........................................    31
    Answers to submitted questions...............................   142
Diane VanDe Hei, Chief Executive Officer, Association of 
  Metropolitan Water Agencies....................................    53
    Prepared statement...........................................    55
    Answers to submitted questions...............................   161

                           Submitted Material

Report ``Clean Water and Reproductive Justice: Lack of Access 
  Harms Women of Color,'' National Partnerships, submitted by Mr. 
  Tonko..........................................................    97
Letter of July 28, 2020, to Mr. Tonko and Mr. Shimkus, from G. 
  Tracy Mehan III, Executive Director, Government Affairs, 
  American Water Works Association, submitted by Mr. Tonko.......   120
Letter of July 24, 2020, to Mr. Tonko, from Gary A Brown, City of 
  Detroit Water and Sewerage Department, submitted by Mr. Tonko..   123
Letter of July 27, 2020, to Mr. Tonko, from Steven J. Bonafonte, 
  Assistant District Counsel, Metropolitan District of Hartford, 
  CT, submitted by Mr. Tonko.....................................   124
Letter July 27, 2020, to Mr. Tonko and Mr. Shimkus, from Luke 
  Duncan, Chairman, UTE Indian Tribe Business Committee, 
  submitted by Mr. Tonko                                            125

 
 THERE'S SOMETHING IN THE WATER: REFORMING OUR NATION'S DRINKING WATER 
                               STANDARDS

                              ----------                              


                         TUESDAY, JULY 28, 2020

                  House of Representatives,
    Subcommittee on Environment and Climate Change,
                          Committee on Energy and Commerce,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 11:05 a.m., via 
Cisco Webex online video conferencing, Hon. Paul Tonko 
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
    Members present: Representatives Tonko, Clarke, Peters, 
Barragan, McEachin, Blunt Rochester, Soto, DeGette, Schakowsky, 
Matsui, McNerney, Ruiz, Dingell, Pallone (ex officio), Shimkus 
(subcommittee ranking member), Rodgers, McKinley, Johnson, 
Mullin, Carter, Duncan, and Walden (ex officio).
    Also present: Representative Walberg
    Staff present: Jeffrey C. Carroll, Staff Director; 
Jacqueline Cohen, Chief Environment Counsel; Adam Fischer, 
Policy Analyst; Waverly Gordon, Deputy Chief Counsel; Anthony 
Gutierrez, Professional Staff Member; Rick Kessler, Senior 
Advisor and Staff Director, Energy and Environment; Brendan 
Larkin, Policy Coordinator; Elysa Montfort, Press Secretary; 
Joe Orlando, Staff Assistant; Tim Robinson, Chief Counsel; 
Nikki Roy, Policy Coordinator; Rebecca Tomilchik, Staff 
Assistant; Mike Bloomquist, Minority Staff Director; William 
Clutterbuck, Minority Staff Assistant; Jerry Couri, Minority 
Deputy Chief Counsel, Environment and Climate Change; Theresa 
Gambo, Minority Human Resources/Office Administrator; Tyler 
Greenberg, Minority Staff Assistant; Peter Kielty, Minority 
General Counsel; Ryan Long, Minority Deputy Staff Director; 
Mary Martin, Minority Chief Counsel, Energy and Environment and 
Climate Change; Brannon Rains, Minority Legislative Clerk; and 
Peter Spencer, Minority Senior Professional Staff Member, 
Environment and Climate Change.
    Mr. Tonko. Good morning. The Subcommittee on Environment 
and Climate Change will now come to order.
    Today the subcommittee is holding a hearing entitled: 
``There's Something in the Water: Reforming Our Nation's 
Drinking Water Standards.''
    Due to the COVID-19 public health emergency, today's 
hearing is being held remotely. All Members and witnesses will 
be participating via videoconferencing. As part of our hearing, 
microphones will be set on mute, for purposes of eliminating 
inadvertent background noise. Members and witnesses, you will 
need to unmute your microphone each time you wish to speak.
    Documents for the record can be sent to Adam Fischer at the 
email address we have provided to staff. All documents will be 
entered into the record at the conclusion of the hearing.
    I now recognize myself for 5 minutes with an opening 
statement.

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

    The Safe Drinking Water Act is one of our Nation's most 
important environmental laws, and I am pleased that in recent 
years we have been able to enact meaningful bipartisan reforms 
to strengthen provisions on infrastructure and other forms of 
assistance. However, SDWA's remaining deficiencies are as 
apparent as ever, and Congress has not done a serious 
examination of how the law can better meet the needs of States, 
of utilities, and, most importantly, of the public.
    Today's hearing is an opportunity to begin to review SDWA's 
standard-setting process. SDWA requires EPA to set standards 
for contaminants in the Nation's public water supply, but many 
would acknowledge the process established by the 1996 
amendments has not worked.
    The statute lays out a long and complicated process, from 
the contaminant candidate list to unregulated contaminant 
monitoring rule to a regulatory determination and, finally, a 
rulemaking that, even if working properly, would take years to 
set a standard. At each step, there are several barriers that 
may prevent a standard from moving forward, some of which I 
expect to be discussed today, and this is hardly the only 
issue.
    The revision process has also proven to be difficult. Since 
1996, all regulatory determinations have been negative except 
for perchlorate, which EPA has now reversed. This means that 
there has not been a single new standard set in 24 years that 
wasn't explicitly required by Congress.
    Perchlorate, a contaminant that was found in the water of 
millions of Americans, is a perfect example of the regulatory 
regime's problems. Despite knowing its dangers for decades, we 
are still a long way from a finalized national standard. And 
this could very much be the path for PFAS.
    Drinking water systems serving millions of people have 
detected PFOA and PFOS at levels above EPA's health advisory 
levels, and many millions more have PFAS contaminations that 
fall below the advisory but are likely still a threat to human 
health.
    EPA's limited progress on setting a PFAS standard exposes 
SDWA issues. For one, EPA has relied on nonenforceable health 
advisory levels. I think many people believe that if EPA has 
enough evidence to establish a health advisory, they should 
move to establish a standard. And while health advisories have 
flaws, EPA has not even been using this tool to its fullest.
    EPA may not want to issue an advisory, perhaps for fear 
that there becomes an expectation that more will need to be 
done. I believe this is the case for GenX, where there does not 
seem to be an intention to issue an advisory.
    Second, the lack of a PFAS standard demonstrates what 
happens in the absence of Federal action. States have been 
forced to step up to protect their residents, but we are 
witnessing a wide range of State standards. This can create 
poor risk communication and a crisis of confidence by the 
public, who have diminished trust in their State's standards 
when it fails to align with a neighboring State.
    Today, we hope to better understand why Federal standards 
have consistently failed to be developed. And while there may 
be disagreements amongst the various stakeholders about just 
how to best improve the existing process, I believe most of us 
agree that EPA should set standards in a reasonable timeframe.
    And I believe that Congress can play a larger role in 
addressing systems, infrastructure, and affordability 
challenges and preventing contaminations from happening in the 
first place by putting a greater emphasis on source water 
protection.
    Congress can also provide more resources to support the 
development of testing methods, innovative treatment 
technologies, and data collection that can ensure the standard-
setting process is based on sound science.
    But ultimately, we need national standards, standards that 
are protective of the health of all Americans, including the 
most vulnerable to risks: Pregnant women, infants, children and 
other susceptible populations. Today, standards are not 
guaranteed to be protective of human health.
    So, while I certainly support Congress providing more 
resources and other reforms to improve our drinking water, I 
firmly believe fixing the standard-setting process is an 
important part of that effort. As we move forward and consider 
the needs of utilities and the Americans they serve, especially 
in light of COVID-related challenges, I hope that we can have a 
productive dialogue on just how to best ensure people have 
access to the safe water they need and deserve.
    So, with that, I thank you again for joining us today.
    Mr. Tonko. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Shimkus, ranking 
member of the Subcommittee on Environment and Climate Change, 
for 5 minutes for his opening statement. John, please.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Tonko follows:]

                 Prepared Statement of Hon. Paul Tonko

    The Safe Drinking Water Act is one of our nation's most 
important environmental laws, and I am pleased that in recent 
years we've been able to enact meaningful, bipartisan reforms 
to strengthen provisions on infrastructure and other forms of 
assistance. However, SDWA's remaining deficiencies are as 
apparent as ever, and Congress has not done a serious 
examination of how the law can better meet the needs of states, 
utilities, and most importantly, the public.
    Today's hearing is an opportunity to begin to review SDWA's 
standard setting process.SDWA requires EPA to set standards for 
contaminants in the nation's public water supply, but many 
would acknowledge the process, established by the 1996 
amendments, has not worked.
    The statute lays out a long and complicated process from 
the Contaminant Candidate List to Unregulated Contaminant 
Monitoring Rule to a regulatory determination and finally a 
rulemaking that--even if working properly--would take years to 
set a standard.
    At each step, there are several barriers that may prevent a 
standard from moving forward, some of which I expect to be 
discussed today.
    And this is hardly the only issue. The revision process has 
also proven to be difficult.Since 1996, all regulatory 
determinations have been negative, except for perchlorate, 
which EPA has now reversed.
    This means there has not been a single new standard set in 
24 years that wasn't explicitly required by Congress.
    Perchlorate, a contaminant that was found in the water of 
millions of Americans, is a perfect example of the regulatory 
regime's problems. Despite knowing its dangers for decades, we 
are still a long way from a finalized national standard.
    And this could very much be the path for PFAS.
    Drinking water systems serving millions of people have 
detected PFOA and PFOS at levels above EPA's health advisory 
levels, and many millions more have PFAS contaminations that 
fall below the advisories but are likely still a threat to 
human health.EPA's limited progress on setting a PFAS standard 
exposes SDWA issues.
    For one, EPA has relied on non-enforceable health advisory 
levels. I think many people believe that if EPA has enough 
evidence to establish a health advisory, they should move to 
establish a standard.
    And while health advisories have flaws, EPA has not even 
been using this tool to its fullest.
    EPA may not want to issue an advisory, perhaps for fear 
that there becomes an expectation that more will need to be 
done.
    I believe this is the case for Gen X, where there does not 
seem to be an intention to issue an advisory.
    Second, the lack of a PFAS standard demonstrates what 
happens in the absence of Federal action. States have been 
forced to step up to protect their residents.
    But we are witnessing a wide range of state standards.
    This can create poor risk communication and a crisis of 
confidence by the public, who have diminished trust in their 
state's standards when it fails to align with a neighboring 
state.
    Today, we hope to better understand why Federal standards 
have consistently failed to be developed and while there may be 
disagreements among the various stakeholders about how to best 
improve the existing process, I believe most of us agree that 
EPA should set standards in a reasonable timeframe.
    And I believe Congress can play a larger role in addressing 
systems' infrastructure and affordability challenges and 
preventing contaminations from happening in the first place by 
putting a greater emphasis on source water protection.
    Congress can also provide more resources to support the 
development of testing methods, innovative treatment 
technologies, and data collection that can ensure the standard 
setting process is based on sound science.
    But ultimately, we need national standards that are 
protective of the health of all Americans, including the most 
vulnerable to risks- pregnant women, infants, children, and 
other susceptible populations.
    Today, standards are not guaranteed to be protective of 
human health. So while I certainly support Congress providing 
more resources and other reforms to improve our drinking water, 
I firmly believe fixing the standard setting process is an 
important part of that effort.
    As we move forward and consider the needs of utilities and 
the Americans they serve-especially in light of COVID-related 
challenges- I hope we can have a productive dialogue on how to 
best ensure people have access to the safe water they need and 
deserve.

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

    Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is great to be 
with you. And I guess I will see you all back in D.C. for me 
tonight, and you all the rest tomorrow.
    Let me just start by saying, Mr. Chairman, you got my 
attention when you said a PFAS standard, and then you mentioned 
PFOS, P-F-O-S, and then you mentioned P-F-O-A. As I have been 
trying to remind people, there are 5,887 known PFAS chemicals. 
We can only test for 29 in drinking water.
    I think it would be helpful if we would focus on the ones 
that we know are bad, the PFOA and PFOS, and not link them with 
the 5,887 other short-chain PFAS. I mean, that is going to be a 
continuing debate.
    I think we can get to safety on the ones we know that are a 
concern, but that is part of this hearing anyway, because 35 
years ago Congress decided that EPA was not regulating enough 
contaminants in drinking water. As a result, it amended the 
Safe Drinking Water Act to require the EPA to issue regulations 
for 83 specific contaminants within three years.
    It also required EPA to issue regulations for at least 25 
additional contaminants every three years thereafter, as well 
as filtration and disinfectant and underground injection rules. 
Ten years later, those changes had led to a huge backlog, as 
EPA struggled to satisfy the act's arbitrary goals.
    This committee has repeatedly heard how the act's mandate 
imposed significant burdens at the local, State, and Federal 
levels and called into question whether the most significant 
public health risks were being addressed.
    Former Clinton and Obama EPA official Bob Perciasepe 
testified that the mandate for 25 new rules every three years 
needs to be replaced with a scientifically defensible risk-
based approach, conceding that this regulatory number game 
dilutes limited resources on lower priority contaminants and, 
as a consequence, may hinder more rapid progress on high-
priority contaminants.
    States were also complaining that they were unable to 
effectively implement core elements of the program, much less 
the new and more stringent requirements of the act. Water 
systems complained that compliance costs may triple for new 
regulations with dubious scientific merit, including 
contaminant issues that were not in their State, significantly 
affecting small water systems.
    In 1996, Congress stepped in to stop the chaos that the 
Safe Drinking Water Act was causing. Those reforms to the act 
are now the current statute. Like Mr. Perciasepe, Congress 
declared that quantity was not the true measure of whether EPA 
was doing its job, but, rather, the quality of the work it was 
doing.
    Congress removed the quota and instead required EPA to 
prioritize contaminants it examined for regulation, based upon 
public health concerns. Congress then required EPA to decide 
whether those contaminants may have an adverse health effect, 
are substantially likely to occur in drinking water systems, 
and if regulation presented a meaningful opportunity for health 
risk reduction. If so, EPA must regulate. If not, the States 
could regulate, or EPA could provide information to concerned 
persons on that contaminant.
    Finally, Congress demanded the use of high-quality science 
and made the EPA set a protective level goal, but to allow for 
technical and economic feasibility considerations so long as 
there is an adequate safety margin in the final number.
    This seemed like a reasonable way to protect public health, 
by prioritizing the biggest threats while ensuring that 
quality, science, and practicality played a role in the 
regulations that would be issued.
    No one expected there would not yet be a single regulation 
that went from start to finish under the regime instituted in 
the Safe Drinking Water Act in 1996. What they expected was 
thoughtful consideration and action where public health 
benefits were clear.
    Since 1996, EPA has been regulating contaminants in 
drinking water. EPA has regulated arsenic, revised its total 
coliform rule, issued new rules on stage 2 disinfection 
byproducts, surface water treatment, and filter backwash, and 
is angling to finish the lead and copper rule this year. EPA 
has reviewed eight contaminants and decided they do not merit 
regulation and issued public health advisories on several 
contaminants.
    These aren't small jobs. These are real actions that 
advance public health protection, and they should not be 
discounted. No system is perfect, but why would we give up an 
evidence-driven, science-based objective with practical 
systems, only to revert to a system driven by the notion that 
quantity makes quality.
    It is always useful to examine laws to see if something can 
be done better, and there may well be a few improvements to be 
made here and there. However, before we get carried away in the 
rhetoric, let's consider the lessons of history so we don't go 
back and make the same mistakes twice.
    I want to thank our witnesses for making the time to be 
with us.
    And, Mr. Chairman, with that, I yield back my time.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Shimkus follows:]

                Prepared Statement of Hon. John Shimkus

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for recognizing me at today's 
hearing on the regulatory standard setting provisions in the 
Safe Drinking Water Act.
    Thirty-five years ago, Congress decided EPA was not 
regulating enough contaminants in drinking water. As a result, 
it amended the Safe Drinking Water Act to require EPA to issue 
regulations for 83 specific contaminants within three years. It 
also required EPA to issue regulations for at least 25 
additional contaminants every three years thereafter, as well 
as filtration and disinfection and underground injection rules.
    Ten years later, those changes had led to huge backlog as 
EPA struggled to satisfy the Act's arbitrary goals. This 
Committee repeatedly heard how the Act's mandates imposed 
significant burdens at the local, state and federal levels, and 
called into question whether the most significant public health 
risks were being addressed.
    Former Clinton and Obama EPA official Bob Perciasepe [PER-
CHA-SEP-EE] testified that the mandate for 25 new rules every 
three years ``needs to be replaced with a scientifically 
defensible, risk-based approach''--conceding that this 
regulatorynumbers game ``dilutes limited resources on lower 
priority contaminants, and as a consequence may hinder more 
rapid progress on high priority contaminants.''
    States were also complaining they were unable to 
effectively implement core elements of their programs, much 
less the new and more stringent requirements of the Act.
    Water systems complained that compliance costs may triple 
for new regulations with dubious scientific merits - including 
contaminant issues that were not in their state, significantly 
affecting small water systems.
    In 1996, Congress stepped in to stop the chaos that the 
Safe Drinking Water Act was causing. Those reforms to the Act 
are now the current statute.
    Like Mr. Perciasepe [PER-CHA-SEP-EE], Congress declared 
that quantity was not the true measure of whether EPA was doing 
its job, but rather the quality of the work it was doing.
    Congress removed the quota and instead required EPA to 
prioritize contaminants it examined for regulation based on 
public health concern.
    Congress then required EPA to decide whether those 
contaminants may have an adverse health effect, are 
substantially likely to occur in drinking water systems, and if 
regulation presented a meaningful opportunity for health risk 
reduction. If so, EPA must regulate. If not, the states could 
regulate, or EPA could provide information to concerned persons 
on that contaminant.
    Finally, Congress demanded the use of high-quality science 
and made EPA set a protective level goal, but to allow for 
technical and economic feasibility considerations so long as 
there is an adequate safety margin in the final number.
    This seemed like a reasonable way to protect public health 
by prioritizing the biggest threats while ensuring that quality 
science and practicality played a role in the regulations that 
would be issued.
    No one expected there would not yet be a single regulation 
that went from start to finish under the regime instituted in 
the Safe Drinking Water Act in 1996. What they expected was 
thoughtful consideration and action where public health 
benefits were clear.
    Since 1996, EPA has been regulating contaminants in 
drinking water. EPA has regulated Arsenic, revised its Total 
Coliform Rule, issued new rules on Stage 2 Disinfection By-
Products, Surface Water Treatment, and Filter Backwash; and is 
angling to finish the Lead and Copper Rule this year. EPA has 
reviewed eight contaminants and decided they do not merit 
regulation; and issued public health advisories on several 
contaminants. These aren't small jobs; these are real actions 
that advance public health protection and they should not be 
discounted.
    No system is perfect, but why would we give up an evidence-
driven, science-based, objective, and practical system--only to 
go revert to a system driven by the notion that quantity makes 
quality?
    It's always useful to examine laws to see if something can 
be done better, and there may well be a few improvements to be 
made here and there. However, before we get carried away in the 
rhetoric, let's consider the lessons of history so we don't go 
back and make the same mistakes twice.
    I want to thank our witnesses for making time to be with 
us, and I yield back.

    Mr. Tonko. Thank you. The gentleman yields back.

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

    The Chair now recognizes Mr. Pallone, chairman of the full 
committee, for 5 minutes for his opening statement.
    Chairman Pallone, please.
    Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Chairman Tonko.
    Safe drinking water obviously is essential to our Nation's 
public health, and never has that been more clear than during 
this pandemic. And right now families are struggling to keep 
the water turned on so they can wash their hands to stay safe. 
And in too many communities, families are also worrying that 
contaminants in their water, including forever chemicals like 
PFAS, have weakened their immune systems and made them more 
susceptible to COVID-19, and this simply should not be 
happening.
    Every American should be able to turn on their tap 
confident that the water coming out is safe and healthy. This 
should be true for all communities, including environmental 
justice communities. Where you live should not play a factor in 
whether or not your tap water is clean and safe. And that 
should be true for the most vulnerable among us too, including 
pregnant women, infants, children, the elderly and those with 
underlying conditions.
    Unfortunately, there are fundamental weaknesses in both the 
design and implementation of the Safe Drinking Water Act that 
leave us all at risk. And the first fundamental problem is that 
the current water standard-setting process, which was developed 
in 1996 through changes to the law, simply does not work.
    Right now, there are 90 drinking water standards in place, 
covering contaminants or groups of contaminants, and all but 
six of those standards were established before the 1996 
changes. The six standards put in place since then were all 
established under special statutory procedures. So in the last 
24 years, the EPA has not been able to set a drinking water 
standard under the general process.
    Another fundamental problem is that the Safe Drinking Water 
Act is not designed to produce health-based standards. Four 
years ago, this committee worked together in a strong 
bipartisan fashion to revise the Toxic Substances Control Act 
from a regulatory system based on cost-benefit analysis to one 
based on health protections. And I think we need to do it again 
now for the Safe Drinking Water Act.
    And a third fundamental problem with the Safe Drinking 
Water Act is that it leaves far too much discretion to the EPA. 
The Trump EPA has used and, in my view, abused this discretion 
to move us in the wrong direction on drinking water safety. It 
has squandered the opportunity to strengthen our drinking water 
standard for lead. It has slow-walked efforts to set a standard 
for PFAS instead of using its authority to set interim 
standards, and it has abandoned the effort to set a standard 
for perchlorate after more than a decade of agency effort.
    So for nearly a quarter century, we have depended on the 
protections of drinking water standards put in place before the 
1996 amendments, as well as State standards and voluntary 
efforts by water utilities who want to do the right thing, but 
these efforts can only get us so far. We have to strengthen the 
Safe Drinking Water Act to ensure that everyone has access to 
drinking water that is safe and healthy.
    And this important hearing continues the work of the 
subcommittee to explore how the Safe Drinking Water Act should 
be reformed.
    I want to thank Chairman Tonko for his leadership in this 
effort and also today's witnesses.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]

             Prepared Statement of Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr.

    Safe drinking water is essential to our nation's public 
health, and never has that been more clear than during this 
pandemic. Right now families are struggling to keep the water 
turned on so they can wash their hands to stay safe. And in too 
many communities, families are also worrying that contaminants 
in their water, including forever chemicals like PFAS, have 
weakened their immune systems and made them more susceptible to 
Covid-19. This simply should not be happening.
    Every American should be able to turn on their tap, 
confident that the water coming out is safe and healthy. This 
should be true for all communities, including environmental 
justice communities. Where you live should not play a factor in 
whether or not your tap water is clean and safe.
    And that should be true for the most vulnerable among us, 
including pregnant women, infants, children, the elderly, and 
those with underlying conditions. Unfortunately, there are 
fundamental weaknesses in both the design and the 
implementation of the Safe Drinking Water Act that leave us all 
at risk.
    The first fundamental problem is that the current water 
standard setting process, developed in 1996 through changes to 
the law, simply does not work. Right now, there are 90 drinking 
water standards in place covering contaminants or groups of 
contaminants, and all but six of those standards were 
established before the 1996 changes. The six standards put in 
place since then were all established under special statutory 
procedures. So, in the last 24 years, the Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA) has not been able to set a drinking 
water standard under the general process.
    Another fundamental problem is that the Safe Drinking Water 
Act is not designed to produce health-based standards. Four 
years ago, this Committee worked together in a strong, 
bipartisan fashion to revise the Toxic Substances Control Act 
from a regulatory system based on cost/benefit analysis to one 
based on health protection. We need to do it again now for the 
Safe Drinking Water Act.
    And a third fundamental problem with the Safe Drinking 
Water Act is that it leaves far too much discretion to the EPA. 
The Trump EPA has used and, in my view, abused this discretion 
to move us in the wrong direction on drinking water safety. It 
has squandered the opportunity to strengthen our drinking water 
standard for lead. It has slow walked efforts to set a standard 
for PFAS, instead of using its authority to set interim 
standards. And it has abandoned the effort to set a standard 
for perchlorate after more than a decade of agency effort.
    Some of these actions will be challenged in court. And some 
will likely be reversed by future EPA administrators. But in 
the meantime, the public will be exposed to harm.
    For nearly a quarter century, we have depended on the 
protections of drinking water standards put in place before the 
1996 amendments, as well as state standards and voluntary 
efforts by water utilities who want to do the right thing. But 
these efforts can only get us so far. We must strengthen the 
Safe Drinking Water Act to ensure that everyone has access to 
drinking water that is safe and healthy.
    This important hearing continues the work of this 
Subcommittee to explore how the Safe Drinking Water Act should 
be reformed. I thank Chairman Tonko for his leadership in this 
effort, and I thank today's witnesses for their testimony.

    Mr. Pallone. And I yield back. I don't know how much time 
is left, but I yield it to Ms. Dingell.
    Ms. Dingell. Thank you, Chairman Pallone, for yielding. And 
thank you, Chairman Tonko, for holding this important hearing 
today.
    As we know, we have needed reforms for a long time to this 
law so that we are protecting future generations. Access to 
clean and safe drinking water is a fundamental human right, and 
this has become even clearer in the middle of the COVID-19 
pandemic.
    At its core, the Safe Drinking Water Act was designed to 
ensure everyone is afforded that human right. But over recent 
years, it has become evident that the standard-setting process 
isn't working, and this includes for mitigating new, harmful, 
emerging contaminants like PFAS. We know that PFAS is a forever 
chemical. We know it causes damage, and when it goes in your 
body, it doesn't come out.
    It is time we improve the standard-setting process to one 
that works efficiently and in a timely manner and that is 
health-based and covers vulnerable populations.
    Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I yield back.
    Mr. Pallone. And I yield back, Mr. Tonko.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentle lady yields back. To Mr. Pallone.
    Mr. Pallone yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes Mr. Walden, ranking member of the 
full committee, for 5 minutes for his opening statement, 
please. Mr. Walden.

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

    Mr. Walden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Almost two years ago, Congress capped off for the first 
time in 25 years the comprehensive reauthorization of the Safe 
Drinking Water Act. Driven by this committee, the act had 
overwhelming bipartisan support and focused on improving 
utility compliance, aiding State efforts to help drinking water 
systems, bringing innovation and resilience to the drinking 
water sector, bettering management of utility assets and 
greatly improving poor performing water systems. The 
legislation continues to make a difference today, and I am glad 
that we can be part of that, Mr. Chairman.
    Today's hearing, though, is focused on perhaps a more 
contentious aspect of the Safe Drinking Water Act, efforts to 
make substantial changes to the regulatory process for 
contaminants under the Safe Drinking Water Act.
    In my experience, any significant change to a core 
environmental law requires overwhelming bipartisan support. 
Knowing this issue is quite important to you and to members in 
your caucus, I wanted to lay out some areas of importance to me 
and my fellow Republican Members.
    First, we believe objective science should guide decisions. 
The Safe Drinking Water Act currently requires that science be 
at the forefront of decision-making processes, and we believe 
this must remain the case to protect public health. Facts and 
science matter.
    Second, we are concerned about efforts to eliminate risk 
from the act. Specifically, some have called for the removal of 
the current statutory criteria focused on, ``meaningful health 
risk reduction,'' or that the contaminant's occurrence be ``at 
a frequency and at levels of public concern.''
    This would almost certainly result in community water 
systems spending significant resources on the reduction of 
contaminants that may not present a significant threat to 
public health. It also would require EPA to promulgate 
regulations that there would be little or no meaningful public 
health benefit from.
    Issuing numerous drinking water regulations for 
contaminants that don't occur at levels of health concern will 
actually divert limited resources from more important actions 
to assure safe drinking water, like lead service line removals. 
We must ensure that finite public resources are focused on 
those contaminants for which public health risks are real and 
can be reduced.
    Additionally, we must be mindful of the burden reforms 
would have on States, particularly because they would need to 
keep up with their responsibilities as the primary enforcers of 
Federal regulations. The States are already stretched thin. It 
is not smart to overregulate them to the point they are forced 
to return operations of their drinking water programs to the 
Federal Government because of underfunded mandates ill-
conceived reforms would place on them.
    Third, we are concerned about waking the ghosts of the 1986 
amendments by placing EPA on an accelerated treadmill of 
regulatory decision-making quotas and increasing the rolling 3-
year cycle of regulatory determinations. They are apprehensive 
about the impact this would have on the scientific community's 
ability to provide the health effects research and high-quality 
peer-review risk assessments needed to establish regulatory 
goals for the increased number of contaminants that the EPA 
would be required to regulate.
    Again, Mr. Chairman, Republicans believe science and facts 
matter. We understand that some people would like to see the 
Federal Government act more frequently to regulate. However, 
the quality of the work is much more important than the 
quantity of the pages in the Federal Register.
    Fourth, we believe the cost and benefit provision should 
remain part of the Safe Drinking Water Act. One unfortunate 
impact of its removal is that it could require EPA to establish 
stringent regulatory standards based only on feasibility of 
large water systems.
    That could leave small water systems with no affordable 
options and force States into a burdensome administrative 
process. So, its smaller systems could potentially use 
technology that less effectively removes the contaminant. This 
is an especially punitive no-win sanction on rural and small 
communities and State governments.
    Mr. Chairman, I do appreciate your ambition in tackling 
this topic. I wonder whether some of the concerns you have are 
better remedied with implementation improvements rather than 
statutory overhauls, and I hope our witnesses can help us 
better understand that and other questions.
    So, I appreciate their willingness to testify and I welcome 
our witnesses.
    And I yield back the balance of my time.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Walden follows:]

                 Prepared Statement of Hon. Greg Walden

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.Almost two years ago, Congress 
capped off--for the first time in 25 years--the comprehensive 
reauthorization of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). Driven 
by this Committee, the Act had overwhelming bipartisan support 
and focused on improving utility compliance, aiding state 
efforts to help drinking water systems, bringing innovation and 
resilience to the drinking water sector, bettering management 
of utility assets and greatly improving poor performing water 
systems. The legislation continues to make a difference today 
and I am glad that we can be a part of that, Mr. Chairman.
    Today's hearing, though, is focused on perhaps a more 
contentious aspect of SDWA: efforts to make substantial changes 
to the regulatory process for contaminants under the Safe 
Drinking Water Act.
    In my experience, any significant change to a core 
environmental law requires overwhelming bipartisan support. 
Knowing this issue is quite important to you and the members in 
your Caucus, I wanted to lay out some areas of importance to me 
and my fellow Republican members.
    First, we believe objective science should guide decisions. 
The Safe Drinking Water Act currently requires that science be 
at the forefront of decision-making process and we believe this 
must remain the case to protect public health. Facts and 
science matter.
    Second, we are concerned about efforts to eliminate risk 
from the Act. Specifically, some have called for the removal of 
the current statutory criteria focused on `meaningful health 
risk reduction' or that the contaminant's occurrence be `at a 
frequency and at levels of public concern.' This would almost 
certainly result in community water systems spending 
significant resources on the reduction of contaminants that may 
not present a significant threat to public health. It also 
would require EPA to promulgate regulations when there would be 
little or no meaningful public health benefit.
    Issuing numerous drinking water regulations for 
contaminants that don't occur at levels of health concern will 
divert limited resources from more important actions to assure 
safe drinking water, like lead service line removals. We must 
ensure that finite public resources are focused on those 
contaminants for which public health risks are real and can be 
reduced.
    Additionally, we must be mindful of the burden reforms 
would have on states, particularly because they would need to 
keep up with their responsibilities as the primary enforcers of 
federal regulations. The states are already stretched thin. 
It's not smart to over-regulate them to the point they are 
forced to return operation of their drinking water programs to 
the federal government because of the underfunded mandates ill-
conceived reforms would place on them.
    Third, we're concerned about waking the ghosts of the 1986 
Amendments by placing EPA on an accelerated treadmill of 
regulatory decision-making quotas and increasing the rolling 
three-year cycle for regulatory determinations. We are 
apprehensive about the impact this would have on the scientific 
community's ability to provide the health effects research and 
high-quality peer-reviewed risk assessments needed to establish 
regulatory goals for the increased number of contaminants that 
EPA would be required to regulate. Again, Mr. Chairman, 
Republicans believe science and facts matter.
    We understand that some people would like to see the 
federal government act more frequently to regulate. However, 
the quality of the work is much more important than the 
quantity of pages in the Federal Register.
    Fourth, we believe the costs and benefits provisions should 
remain part of the Safe Drinking Water Act. One unfortunate 
impact of its removal is that it could require EPA to establish 
stringent regulatory standards--based only on feasibility for 
large water systems. That could leave small water systems with 
no affordable options and force states into a burdensome 
administrative process, so its smaller systems could 
potentially use technology that less effectively removes the 
contaminant. This is an especially punitive, no-win sanction on 
rural and small communities and state governments.
    Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your ambition in tackling this 
topic. I wonder whether some of the concerns you have are 
better remedied with implementation improvements rather than 
statutory overhauls. I hope our witnesses can help us better 
understand that and other questions. I appreciate their 
willingness to testify and want to welcome them.
    I yield back the balance of my time.

    Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Walden. The gentleman yields 
back.
    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 now will introduce the witnesses for today's hearing. We 
begin with Ms. Mae Wu, senior director of Health and Food, 
Healthy People and Thriving Communities Program with the 
Natural Resources Defense Council.
    Next, we have Ms. Shellie Chard, director of the Water 
Quality Division and Oklahoma Department of Environmental 
Quality, on behalf of the Association of State Drinking Water 
Administrators.
    And then we have Ms. Diane VanDe Hei, chief executive 
officer, Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies.
    I now recognize Ms. Wu for 5 minutes to provide an opening 
statement.

STATEMENTS OF MAE WU, SENIOR DIRECTOR, HEALTH AND FOOD, HEALTHY 
   PEOPLE AND THRIVING COMMUNITIES PROGRAM NATURAL RESOURCES 
   DEFENSE COUNCIL (NRDC); SHELLIE R. CHARD. DIRECTOR, WATER 
QUALITY DIVISION, OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, 
ON BEHALF OF ASSOCIATION OF STATE DRINKING WATER ADMINISTRATORS 
    (ASDWA); AND DIANE VANDE HEI, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, 
       ASSOCIATION OF METROPOLITAN WATER AGENCIES (AMWA)

                      STATEMENT OF MAE WU

    Ms. Wu. Thank you, Chairman Tonko.
    Good morning, chairman, Ranking Member Shimkus, and members 
of the subcommittee.
    My name is Mae Wu. I am the senior director for Health and 
Food at the Natural Resources Defense Council, and thank you 
for this opportunity.
    I still remember vividly my friend Gary, which isn't his 
real name, returning home from the hospital after his colon had 
ripped open and he almost died. He had ulcerative colitis and 
had his colon removed. And I saw a guy who used to bike eight 
miles a day barely be able to walk around the block. He had 
dropped 50 pounds in six weeks. He can't eat fresh vegetables. 
He can't be away from a toilet now for more than a few hours at 
a time. He can't go camping with his 5-year-old daughter. He is 
missing dance recitals. And he and his wife have to recalibrate 
what their future will look like.
    I bring up Gary's story to highlight the cost of disease 
beyond the final total on the medical bill. EPA can exploit its 
inability to quantify these intangibles to set weaker drinking 
water standards. This and other problems in the Safe Drinking 
Water Act have left EPA unable and perhaps unwilling to set 
health protective standards despite science that demands 
otherwise.
    The 1996 amendments created a new process to regulate 
contaminants, but it is broken. Take perchlorate, for example. 
By the 1990s, science showed that perchlorate exposure to 
pregnant women could significantly interfere with developing 
brains of fetuses and infants, with significant lifetime 
consequences, and it was found contaminating the drinking water 
of millions of Americans.
    In 2011, EPA finally announced that it would regulate it, 
which triggered important statutory deadlines. But those 
deadlines came and went with no perchlorate standard. And now 
the Trump administration is trying to defy a court order 
requiring EPA to act on the 2011 finding. And I should note 
that NRDC has challenged that delay in court and is now 
challenging this most recent action.
    History may soon repeat itself. EPA recently made a 
preliminary decision to regulate PFOA and PFOS, and a massive 
study shows a link between PFOA-contaminated water and 
ulcerative colitis, kidney and testicular cancer, and other 
harmful effects. And it is found in the drinking water of 
millions of Americans. But without important changes to the 
Safe Drinking Water Act, we may not see PFOA and PFOS standards 
that protect the most vulnerable populations.
    So here are five things that could fix the statute: First, 
fix the legal standard. EPA should regulate a contaminant when, 
one, it may have an adverse effect on human health; and, two, 
it occurs in water at levels of public health concern. The 
third element in the current law requiring the administrator to 
find that there is a, quote, meaningful opportunity to reduce 
risk is unnecessary when the first two are already in place.
    Second, we should stop allowing EPA to cherry-pick 
contaminants not to regulate. Over the past 17 years, EPA has 
made final decisions about 25 unregulated contaminants and 
decided not to regulate 24 of them. The 25th is perchlorate, 
which remains unregulated.
    The statute should push EPA to act. For example, finding a 
contaminant in the water of a lot of people at levels above a 
scientifically derived value should automatically trigger a 
regulation. And EPA should be required to regulate certain 
high-hazard contaminants that have language that is unregulated 
for far too long.
    Third, to get rid of the extra cost-benefit analysis. EPA 
is required to set drinking water standards based on 
feasibility, meaning using the best technology available and 
taking cost into consideration. But then EPA can make the 
standard weaker than is feasible if it finds the benefits do 
not justify the costs.
    The problem is that while costs of regulation are fairly 
straightforward to quantify, the benefits are often 
undercounted. For perchlorate, EPA didn't consider many 
benefits, like reduced likelihood of ADHD and autism in 
children or people's willingness to pay for better water or 
calculate the co-benefits of reducing other contaminants when 
treating for perchlorate.
    When it is developing the PFOA and PFOS regulation, will 
EPA quantify the intangible impacts of disease like Gary's when 
calculating the benefits of a regulation? If not, it could end 
up ineffectively weak.
    Fourth, standards need to be as stringent as feasible and 
not just consider but protect pregnant women, infants, 
children, and other vulnerable populations.
    And finally, EPA needs to move beyond the whack-a-mole 
approach toward a class-based approach. PFOA and PFOS are but 
two of more than 7,000 chemicals in that class. And while U.S. 
manufacturers recently phased out PFOA and PFOS production, 
their replacements are showing similar adverse health and 
environmental effects. Going one by one or even two by two will 
leave drinking water contaminated with toxic forever chemicals 
for hundreds of years.
    EPA needs to take a class-based approach to regulating 
drinking water. Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Wu follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Ms. Wu.
    And now we will move to Ms. Chard. You are recognized for 5 
minutes for your opening statement, please. Please unmute if 
you haven't.

                   STATEMENT OF SHELLIE CHARD

    Ms. Chard. Sir, I am having a little connectivity issue 
this morning. I apologize.
    Mr. Tonko. We can hear you.
    Ms. Chard. Good morning, Subcommittee Chairman Tonko and 
Ranking Member Shimkus, members of the subcommittee.
    Thank you for this opportunity to speak with you on how we 
can best address the protection of public health through 
collaborative partnerships among the States, Tribes, 
territories, and the Federal Government in implementing the 
Safe Drinking Water Act.
    My name is Shellie Chard. I am the president 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 Navaho 
Nation.
    ASDWA members have primary responsibility for implementing 
the Safe Drinking Water Act. Our members and our staff provide 
technical assistance, support and oversight of drinking water 
programs, which is critical to ensuring safe drinking water.
    I am also the water quality director for Oklahoma DEQ, 
where I oversee drinking water, wastewater, and operators' 
training and certification programs. Today I will discuss 
ASDWA'S perspective on Safe Drinking Water Act, Section 1412, 
and the drinking water standard-setting process.
    Over time, there has been a shift away from the methodical 
process of developing regulations based on the best available 
peer-reviewed science and in collaboration with the States to 
an approach based more on litigation and the highly publicized 
events. This shift has contributed to the fragmentation of 
regulatory development and is not fulfilling the needs of 
regulators, the regulated community, or the public.
    We would like to highlight six key points today: First, EPA 
must set standards in a reasonable timeframe and using sound 
science and collaboration with the States. The timeline to 
develop a new standard must be reasonable. The process must 
strike a balance between being too long that we lose confidence 
in the process and being too short where EPA fails to properly 
engage the States or to consider best available science and 
cost of regulations, which are both essential to the standard-
setting process.
    Second, we believe that EPA must consider the availability 
of and help develop appropriate testing methods, laboratory 
capacity, treatment technologies and Federal and State data 
systems. While establishing maximum contaminant levels is the 
goal of the Safe Drinking Water Act standard-setting process, 
it is useless unless there are appropriate analytical test 
methods and laboratory capacity to conduct the analysis as well 
as affordable, effective treatment technologies.
    Finally, data systems must exist for both EPA and the 
States in order to properly track and report compliance. EPA 
must consider the differences in water system characteristics, 
based on geography, population served, affordability and source 
water.
    In order to ensure compliance with Federal standards, it is 
important to consider the site-specific characteristics of the 
water system. One size does not fit all in terms of water 
sources, population, geographic separation, local economic 
conditions and other factors that should be appropriately 
considered.
    Fourth, EPA must be clear in its regulatory framework. It 
is critically important that the standards set and the 
compliance determination specified in the rulemaking be clear 
and understandable for regulators, the regulated community, and 
the public. The differences in immediate health impact versus 
potential long-term impacts have been distorted over time. 
Health advisories are not an appropriate long-term solution for 
contaminants and should not be used as de facto standards.
    Fifth, EPA must consider the need for workforce training 
and assist the water sector in achieving a sustainable 
workforce. As new standards are established, public water 
supply operators and laboratory staff must understand the 
various technologies and testing that is required.
    As experienced operators retire, it will be vital to the 
protection of public health that new operators are recruited 
and are trained to implement Safe Drinking Water Act 
requirements.
    Finally, EPA must consider the need for funding and 
Congress must assist EPA and the States to have increased 
funding. Safe drinking water programs have received an increase 
of four percent funding in 2020. However, the total funding gap 
for State drinking water programs has increased by $197 million 
since 2011.
    Without adequate funding for EPA to fulfill their 
obligations and for States to meet their responsibilities, 
protection of public health through drinking water programs is 
much more challenging.
    In conclusion, ASDWA applauds Congress for hosting this 
hearing to gain insight on potential policy changes to 
strengthen the Safe Drinking Water Act. We believe that there 
are opportunities to optimize and improve existing standard-
setting and implementation of new standards. It is the 
implementation of the standard that protects public health, not 
the standard itself.
    With the global pandemic continuing, all citizens need 
access to safe drinking water for handwashing, personal 
hygiene, and for drinking.
    ASDWA looks forward to continuing this dialogue with you 
and with EPA, and we are happy to answer any questions. Thank 
you.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Chard follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Ms. Chard. Thank you very much.
    And finally, we will hear from Ms. VanDe Hei. You are 
recognized, please, for 5 minutes.

                  STATEMENT OF DIANE VANDE HEI

    Ms. VanDe Hei. 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 the best approach to regulating drinking 
water contaminants under Section 1412 of the Safe Drinking 
Water Act.
    I am Diane VanDe Hei, AMWA's chief executive officer. AMWA 
is an organization representing the Nation's largest publicly 
owned drinking water systems, and our members collectively 
serve more than 155 million people.
    As municipal public entities, our owners are our 
ratepayers. We report to no investors and collect no profits. 
Any expenses incurred by publicly owned drinking water systems 
are ultimately paid for by the community, the residents of a 
given community through their water rates or other municipal 
investments. This is why our members strive to be careful with 
each ratepayer dollar. We appreciate the subcommittee for 
undertaking the hearing virtually, in light of the COVID-19--in 
light of COVID-19.
    It is also important to remember that professionals who 
operate community water systems nationwide do not have the 
luxury of telework. They remain on duty in the field operating 
pumps, making emergency repairs, and monitoring water quality.
    But the economic fallout of the pandemic will still hit 
water systems and their customers hard, even as many water 
systems have halted water service shutoffs for nonpayment 
during the public health emergency.
    As Congress continues its response to COVID-19, emergency 
revenue assistance for community water systems and funding to 
prevent low-income households from falling behind on their 
water bills must be part of the equation.
    On the topic of today's hearing, AMWA has submitted an 
extensive statement for the record, but we have a simple 
message. Everyone agrees that Federal drinking water standards 
should call for safe, clean water that is free of contaminants 
that pose public health threats.
    But we also must remember that treating water to high 
standards requires significant investments in chemicals, 
equipment, and professional staff. All of these carry a cost 
which is ultimately borne by the ratepayers. It is, therefore, 
appropriate that any law that guides the standard-setting 
process must consider both cost and public health benefits.
    AMWA was proud to participate in the development of the 
1996 SDWA amendments, which wisely took the local cost of 
regulatory compliance into account.
    This was a critical improvement over the previous 1986 
iteration of the act, which had directed EPA to promulgate 
dozens of new regulations within a set timeframe.
    This meant that success was measured by the number of new 
regulations enacted, thus forcing the agency to attempt to set 
standards for many contaminants, regardless of whether they 
were likely to be found in the Nation's water supplies at 
levels of concern.
    Communities were then forced to divert resources towards 
screening for this growing list of substances, rather than 
focusing their investment on specific substances that may pose 
a greater risk to public health.
    These additional compliance costs were paid for by the 
members of the public, some of whom were, just like today, 
already struggling with their affordability challenges.
    The 1996 amendments, as many have said today, implemented a 
three-part test for EPA to follow in determining whether a new 
regulation is warranted: Whether the contaminant may harm 
public health, whether there is a substantial likelihood that 
the contaminant will occur in public water supplies at a 
frequency and at levels of public health concern, and whether a 
regulation presents a meaningful opportunity for health risk 
reduction among individuals served by the public water system.
    My written statement provides more details, but AMWA 
believes that each of these criteria are critical to focusing 
attention and limited resources on contaminants that pose the 
biggest threat.
    When EPA does move forward with a new drinking water 
regulation, the 1996 amendments require transparency and focus 
on the valid scientific data to guide the results. EPA must 
also consider the effects of the contaminant on the general 
population as well as vulnerable subpopulations who may be at 
greater risk. Ultimately, all these factors are transparently 
weighed and used to justify a new regulation.
    This is difficult work, and there can be legitimate 
differences of opinion on how stringent a regulation should be, 
but that is why it is important for the act to clearly outline 
the factors EPA must consider and require the ultimate decision 
to be made with input from the public.
    In our view, the best regulatory approach balances science-
based public health protection and water service affordability 
priorities. AMWA believes that the 1996 amendments do this well 
and should remain the basis for their Safe Drinking Water Act 
regulatory framework.
    Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I will be 
happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you very 
much.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. VanDe Hei follows:]
   [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Tonko. You are most welcome and thank you, Ms. VanDe 
Hei.
    And to all of our witnesses, thank you for bringing your 
experience and your expertise to the table and enabling us to 
move forward with the best public policy.
    We will now move to member questions, and I will start by 
recognizing myself for 5 minutes.
    Americans should be able to turn on the tap in any 
community across our country with confidence that the water 
coming out is safe and the water is healthy.
    That is what the Safe Drinking Water Act should ensure. But 
Hoosick Falls near my congressional district is just one of too 
many communities across our country that have learned the hard 
way that our drinking water law is not working.
    Communities impacted by lead, by PFOS, by chromium, by 
cyanotoxins and more are turning to State laws, local bond 
measures, and voluntary efforts by water systems to make the 
water safe. The Federal Government has not done enough to help 
these partners or to guarantee safe drinking water for all.
    So, Ms. Chard, how are States leading the way in addressing 
drinking water safety?
    Ms. Chard. Sir, that is a very important point. We expect 
and should have safe drinking water available to all of our 
citizens. And States do have various authorities. We are seeing 
some States that are setting very specific regulatory limits.
    Congress envisioned this could be a possibility, not only 
in the Safe Drinking Water Act but also the Clean Water Act, in 
giving States some autonomy to set limits above and beyond what 
EPA may choose to do.
    We are seeing States that, based on their local issues, 
their local concerns, they are taking money that would go to 
technical assistance or some other work and spending that on 
those standard-setting processes.
    We see addressing, you mentioned cyanotoxins. Harmful algal 
blooms are a particular big deal. It impacts not only drinking 
water but also recreation. We see States working across 
programs much more so than sometimes we see at the Federal 
level. So employing some Clean Water Act tools to help protect 
our drinking water source water.
    So it is very much a State-specific approach. And we also 
see communities may go above and beyond even what their State 
requires where they have the resources, the need, and identify 
approaches.
    We also see the use of innovative technologies or old 
technologies used in new ways in order to address some of those 
emerging contaminants of concern.
    Mr. Tonko. OK. I appreciate that. I just wanted to get to 
some of our other questions here.
    Ms. VanDe Hei, what are water utilities doing to address 
PFOS even without a Federal standard?
    Please unmute.
    Ms. VanDe Hei. I think I am unmuted.
    Mr. Tonko. OK. We can hear you.
    Ms. VanDe Hei. OK. PFOS to me, even when EPA came out with 
its health advisory, was a surprise. It was not out in the 
open. I learned about it from someone in California, so it was 
a surprise.
    But today, you have water systems, including Cape Fear, 
including Ann Arbor, and I am sure there are others, who are 
treating the water for PFOS, primarily using granular activated 
carbon. That is the one I am most familiar with.
    So it is water systems who have it. And the public fear 
that it has ignited has forced them to go ahead with treatment 
without a standard in place. And the treatment that is needed 
for PFOA or PFOS is not cheap. It is not cheap. It is granular 
activated carbon, for the most part. It needs to be found. It 
needs to be developed as a treatment technique. It needs to be 
regenerated. When it is of no use then it needs to be disposed 
of. And that becomes a real question about, well, how is it 
disposed and what are the innate challenges with that.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you.
    And, Ms. Wu, should our public health and the safety of our 
drinking water depend on voluntary efforts by water utilities 
and State-by-State standards?
    Ms. Wu. No. I mean, we want to make sure that everybody is 
protected, not just those people that happen to be lucky enough 
to live in States that want to take the right action or, you 
know, living with the right water systems that want to take the 
right action.
    Mr. Tonko. Exactly. Now, do you believe that SDWA needs to 
be reformed? And, if so, what are the most important steps 
Congress must take to strengthen SDWA and ensure that safe 
drinking water is there for all?
    Ms. Wu. Yes, I mean, absolutely. I think it is quite broken 
and there are things that we should do, including fixing that 
legal standard, making sure that we don't have to do an extra 
layer of cost-benefit analysis, the feasibility requirement 
already includes taking cost into consideration, that we should 
make sure that it is protecting the most vulnerable populations 
and that the, you know, science is important.
    So we also have to make sure that we don't have outsized, 
industrial, you know, interference in developing that science, 
that really it is looking at public health and how do we 
protect people as best we can.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you.
    I agree that the Safe Drinking Water Act needs to be 
reformed, that the time to act is now. I certainly thank the 
witnesses for their testimony and look forward to continuing to 
work with you as we move forward to reform the Safe Drinking 
Water Act.
    With that, the Chair recognizes Mr. Shimkus, subcommittee 
ranking member, for 5 minutes to ask questions, please.
    Mr. Shimkus. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Let me go to Ms. VanDe Hei. And let's just stay on PFAS, P-
F-A-S, the class of chemicals. Ms. Wu said 7,000. EPA says 
5,887. There are only 29 that we can detect in water.
    How would a local water utility test for all 5,887 and what 
would that cost be, or could they even do it?
    Ms. VanDe Hei. Ranking Member Shimkus, I do not believe the 
capability is there at this time for every water system to test 
for 5,000 forever chemicals, as they have become known, to test 
for.
    They need those techniques. They need the testing methods. 
They need EPA in particular to make the determination on which 
of those contaminants present the most significant threat to 
public health. And it is those contaminants that water systems 
will comply with.
    Mr. Shimkus. Let me follow up too, because another debate 
we will have probably is on the problem with Flint. And Flint 
was a problem of cost. Flint was a problem because they took 
over their own water system and then they tried to cut corners 
and they didn't treat properly per the rules and regulations. 
Is that correct?
    Ms. VanDe Hei. That is correct.
    Mr. Shimkus. So, to keep cost out of this debate is 
ridiculous, because it does cost money to meet these standards, 
and when you try to cheap out, you hurt the very people that 
you are supposed to locally protect.
    And, again, there are, according to EPA, 5,887 chemicals. 
Who is to say that that one chemical formulation of PFAS that 
goes into a heart stent is not a life-saving element for that 
person who needs it? Or who is to say that that one PFAS 
formulation that goes into a coron occluder (ph) that plugs the 
heart of a newborn child?
    It is critical that if we are going to spend money to make 
sure our water is safe, we use science and we don't use 
emotion. Would you agree?
    Ms. VanDe Hei. I totally agree.
    Mr. Shimkus. And in the 1986 amendments to the Safe 
Drinking Water Act, you know, Congress was frustrated, so it 
said, do this amount and then every certain number of years do 
this amount. And what was the effect of that?
    Ms. VanDe Hei. The effect of that was that water systems 
were left with standards of contaminants that rarely occurred 
in their water supply, but that doesn't mean that they did not 
have to monitor for, test for, report on. They had to put 
resources into those contaminants.
    I have to tell you something, Congressman. I went back into 
the archives at EPA today, trying to find an EPA press release 
that I had found years ago. I could not find it because the 
archives are no longer being maintained.
    But in the archives at EPA--and you can find today--the 
headline on one of them from May 19, 1992, and the headline is, 
EPA press release: ``EPA sets standards for 23 contaminants.''
    How did they do that with taking science into account, 
taking occurrence into account, taking those things that really 
drove the development of the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1996? 
Those things did not exist. EPA was able to develop a multitude 
of standards which I don't believe cost them a lot in the long 
run, but that lived with water systems that did have to pay the 
cost for things that didn't occur in their water.
    Mr. Shimkus. Yes, let me finish up with this. Ms. VanDe Hei 
and Ms. Chard, would your organizations support Federal 
legislation that would likely result in EPA being forced to 
regulate numerous contaminants that are present in low 
concentrations, irrespective of whether such regulation offers 
meaningful public health protection?
    Ms. VanDe Hei?
    Ms. VanDe Hei. We would not.
    Mr. Shimkus. Ms. Chard?
    Ms. Chard. We would not.
    Mr. Shimkus. All right. Thank you very much.
    With that, Mr. Chairman, 18 seconds, I will yield back. I 
could ask another question, but I would be taking time.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you for yielding back.
    The Chair now recognizes Mr. Pallone, full committee chair, 
for 5 minutes to ask questions, please. Mr. Chair.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Chairman Tonko.
    I think it would surprise a lot of people to learn that our 
landmark law on safe drinking water is designed to set 
standards based on cost-benefit analysis instead of health 
protection, because the structure of the statute requires the 
EPA to set a maximum contaminant level goal based on health 
risk, but a goal is not a standard. And instead, the statute 
directs EPA to set standards that are weaker than the goal, 
based on cost-benefit analysis.
    So I wanted to ask Ms. Wu: Right now the statute double 
counts, in my opinion, cost considerations. First, it limits 
standards of what is feasible, a term that, by definition, 
means that there is some amount of cost taken into 
consideration, but then the statute layers on top of 
feasibility this cost-benefit analysis, which further weakens 
protections, based on price calculation.
    So, you know, I guess my question, Ms. Wu, do you think 
that our drinking water standards should be set based on health 
risks? I mean, should we get rid of this cost-benefit analysis? 
Should we still keep the feasible standard? What is your 
opinion so that we get to this health risk goal and not put so 
much emphasis on cost consideration?
    Ms. Wu. Yes, I agree. The feasibility part of the standard 
does require that costs be taken into consideration already. So 
really, the cost-benefit analysis, like you said, is an extra 
added layer. And there are so many problems with how you do 
cost-benefit analysis, especially the fact that you can often 
undercount the benefits.
    So the benefits with it often are outweighed by the costs 
when you do that analysis. So then it just gives EPA that much 
more reason to further weaken the standards. So really just 
focusing on feasibility, which already account for costs, is 
enough.
    The Chairman. OK. Then let me go to another question I 
wanted to ask. Maybe I will ask everybody this one.
    There is an important concern under the Safe Drinking Water 
Act, in my opinion, with regard to the protection of vulnerable 
populations, which includes infants, children, pregnant women 
and the elderly. So can I ask the witnesses maybe just yes or 
no. Let me just ask yes or no if the witnesses agree that 
infants, children, pregnant women and other vulnerable 
populations should be able to safely drink their tap water?
    Ms. Wu, yes or no?
    Ms. Wu. Yes, absolutely.
    The Chairman. Ms. VanDe Hei?
    Ms. VanDe Hei. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. And finally, Ms. Chard, yes or no?
    Ms. Chard. Yes.
    The Chairman. OK. Then let me ask, let me go back to Ms. Wu 
along the same lines, but if you could elaborate. In your view, 
does the Safe Drinking Water Act currently protect vulnerable 
populations and, if not, what more needs to be done, in your 
opinion?
    Ms. Wu. Right now, I don't think it does. And what needs to 
happen is beyond just saying that the EPA should consider 
vulnerable populations when it is looking at doing the 
standards, they should be more explicit, that EPA actually 
needs to set regulations that actually protect vulnerable 
populations.
    I think that explicit level needs to be added to it, 
because EPA hasn't been doing a good job about accounting for 
and then protecting those populations.
    The Chairman. And then I know four years ago this committee 
came together and agreed that chemical substances are not safe 
if they aren't safe for vulnerable populations. And so I am 
hoping that we can all agree that the same be true for our 
drinking water, because, you know, we can't really say that our 
drinking water is safe unless it is safe for all.
    Ms. Wu, are you familiar with what we did with the chemical 
substances with regard to vulnerable populations? Are you 
familiar with what we did with that?
    Ms. Wu?
    Ms. Wu. Unfortunately, I am not as familiar with the TSCA 
as I am with the Safe Drinking Water Act.
    The Chairman. Well, I know Mr. Shimkus and Mr. Tonko are 
familiar with TSCA. And I would say that we should try to use 
the same example, but that is for another day.
    Thank you very much.
    Thank you, Chairman Tonko.
    Mr. Tonko. You are welcome. And the gentleman yields back.
    And I understand, Mr. Shimkus, that Mr. Walden had to step 
out.
    Mr. Shimkus. Correct.
    Mr. Tonko. I believe we will go next to----
    Mr. Shimkus. McMorris Rogers.
    Mr. Tonko. Representative Rogers. Representative Rogers, 
you are represented for 5 minutes, please, for questions.
    Please unmute.
    Mrs. Rodgers. There I go.
    Mr. Tonko. How are you?
    Mrs. Rodgers. OK. It took me a little bit there. Sorry.
    Mr. Tonko. That is OK.
    Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    We all agree on the importance of ensuring safe and 
reliable drinking water for our communities. It is not a 
partisan issue and we should be working together on bipartisan 
solutions. For example, last year I worked with Congresswoman 
Blunt Rochester on the Safe Drinking Water Assistance Act of 
2019, which was included in fiscal year 2020 NDAA and will help 
communities mitigate the risk posed by emerging contaminants 
such as PFAS.
    In addition to working across the aisle, it is also 
critical that we work within the realm of the best available 
science. In 2016, the Obama EPA imposed unattainable water 
quality standards on Washington State under the Clean Water 
Act. These regulations were not based on science, but 
aspirational goals. Despite hundreds of millions of dollars 
spent by cities and businesses in eastern Washington, these 
standards were not attainable by any kind of technology, and 
there is no evidence that they were even necessary for public 
health.
    Thankfully, the current EPA revised these standards earlier 
this year. And while we are discussing the Safe Drinking Water 
Act here, I think the same lessons apply. As water testing 
methods improve, we are able to detect substances in our 
drinking water on a much more granular level, in parts per 
trillion or even quadrillion.
    However, our ability to test a more granular presence of a 
substance does not mean we should impose burdensome standards 
that have no evidence of improving public health and are, 
frankly, not attainable.
    Ms. VanDe Hei, I am concerned that people may be focusing 
too much on contaminant detection in order to regulate rather 
than establishing a safe level at which adverse health effects 
are expected. Is it true that there are many contaminants that 
may be present in drinking water but at levels below 
concentrations that have risk of adverse health effects?
    Ms. Wu. Congresswoman, I think that is exactly right. I 
think we tend to confuse the ability to detect with an impact 
on public health. Chemists make their living lowering the 
detection level, and we have seen that over time, over time, 
over time. We used to measure in parts per million, parts per 
billion, parts per trillion, and it won't be long where we will 
be able to detect even lower than that.
    But it is not safe to assume that as we detect lower and 
lower that that influences public health protection. That is 
where the science needs to come in.
    And I believe, and I hear people talk about, oh, this can 
be detected at such and such a level and so you should treat to 
that, where in many cases we cannot. And we shouldn't follow 
that road.
    Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you.
    Just as a followup, there is an argument that the lack of 
EPA regulations is because of the focus on meaningful health 
risk reduction and contaminant occurrence frequency at levels 
of public health concern rather than the mere presence of any 
level of contaminant.
    Would you be concerned if regulations without these 
criteria forced water systems to spend significant amounts of 
funding to reduce contaminants when there will be little or no 
public health benefit?
    Ms. VanDe Hei. I would be very concerned. I think that that 
is a discussion that we should all have, but a meaningful 
benefit I think is essential to making sure that we are 
prioritizing those contaminants that are of greatest risk to 
public health.
    When you add something like may or something a little less 
meaningful, I don't understand why may is better than 
meaningful when I know when something is meaningful. And yes, 
that is interpretable, but so is may.
    So I think the current standard-setting structure is good, 
but I would also like to say that we are open to discussion 
with this committee, any member of the committee, about the 
statute.
    Mrs. Rodgers. Well, what impact would there be on a 
municipality or a utility's ability to possibly address other 
public health threats too, just in the time remaining?
    Ms. VanDe Hei. Well, every time they are spending resources 
on contaminants that are not of public health concern, you are 
still spending resources. So you need to take the funds that 
you do have and spend it on those things. Because, you know, 
the definition of vulnerable subpopulations has grown since it 
was first put into the statute. We now look broader at 
vulnerable populations. We see that in COVID-19. There are many 
more people who are vulnerable to disease, to be infected that 
are vulnerable populations.
    And so we need to be able to consider what the impact of 
that has on our ability to have the resources to do these 
things in a manner that we want to. We want everybody to have 
quality--high-quality drinking water, but that needs resources 
in order to do that.
    Mrs. Rodgers. Super. Thank you very much.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentle lady yields back.
    We now move to the vice chair of the full committee, 
Representative Clarke, for 5 minutes for questions, please.
    Ms. Clarke. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and to our 
ranking member, for holding today's hearing on the Safe 
Drinking Water Act. And thank you to our three witnesses for 
joining us and offering your testimony.
    Our Nation's drinking water standards are in need of 
serious reform. And as we examine this topic, I believe it is 
critical that we ensure the most vulnerable among us are being 
protected both now and in the future.
    Just two weeks ago, a group of organizations comprised of 
the National Partnership for Women & Families, In Our Own 
Voice, the National Asian Pacific American Women's Forum, and 
the Sierra Club released a report titled, ``Clean Water and 
Reproductive Justice,'' detailing how the lack of access to 
clean drinking water across our Nation is particularly severe 
for women of color and their reproductive health.
    Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit this report for the 
record.
    The report notes----
    Mr. Tonko. Without objection.
    Ms. Clarke. The report notes--Mr. Chairman?
    Mr. Tonko. Yes. I said without objection. Thank you.
    [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
    Ms. Clarke. Thank you, thank you.
    The report states that, quote, the impact of lack of access 
to clean water is significant from disrupting people's daily 
lives to forcing untenable choices between paying for water or 
rent, to causing a wide range of health problems. One serious 
consequence of contaminated drinking water is harm to 
reproductive health, a cost that is borne disproportionately by 
women of color and their families, end of quote.
    Ms. Wu, do you think that drinking water standards should 
be safe for women of color?
    Ms. Wu. Yes, they should be.
    Ms. Clarke. Do you think that our current drinking water 
standards sufficiently protect women of color?
    Ms. Wu. I don't think they do, even the existing ones, but 
I also think that there are a lot that are missing that could 
protect women of color.
    Ms. Clarke. Do you think that our current drinking water 
standards sufficiently regulate contaminants that impact 
reproductive health?
    Ms. Wu. No, I don't think they do.
    Ms. Clarke. Clearly, this is an issue that urgently needs 
to be addressed. In fact, in 2019, a collaborative of leading 
reproductive justice organizations known as Intersection of Our 
Lives released a groundbreaking nationwide pole which found 
that 62 percent of women of color consider clean drinking water 
to be an extremely important issue for Congress to swiftly act 
upon, right along with healthcare and racial discrimination.
    Ms. Wu, can you discuss what actions Congress should take 
to assure that safe drinking water regulations protect 
vulnerable populations such as women of color and their 
families?
    Ms. Wu. So the Safe Drinking Water Act needs to be more 
explicit, that when it is setting the standards for drinking 
water contaminants, that these standards actually protect 
vulnerable populations, not that they have to consider them, 
but that they are actually protected. That is what is important 
to make sure we have.
    Ms. Clarke. Lastly, I think it is also important to 
recognize this issue in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, 
which has shed light on the deep and long-standing racial 
disparities in our Nation's healthcare system.
    Ms. Wu, how is access to clean drinking water a social 
determinant of health? And why is it important when we consider 
the disproportionate impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on 
communities of color?
    Ms. Wu. Well, more broadly, you know, environmental justice 
communities are struggling with a disproportionate burden from 
a lot of pollution sources, and we have found that when you 
look on a county level, as you see increasing numbers of 
communities of color or low-income communities or nonnative 
speakers, that you have higher rates of drinking water 
violations, that you have slower enforcement. So all of these 
things are a part of the lack and the less access to safe and 
affordable drinking water that communities that are already 
suffering just layer on top of them. And so, you know, access 
to running water is important under this crisis right now. And 
a lot of communities have had their water shut off, and that is 
unacceptable.
    Ms. Clarke. Do you think that stronger drinking water 
standards, including those that best protect women of color, 
could have helped to mitigate the severity and lower the 
disproportionate health impacts that we have experienced with 
the COVID-19 pandemic?
    Ms. Wu. Yes. Stronger standards would definitely help.
    Ms. Clarke. Well, I thank you for your testimony here 
today.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentle lady yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes Representative McKinley for 5 
minutes for questions. Sir, your 5 minutes start now.
    Mr. McKinley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    In reference back to that last questioning, I would like to 
have it if someone would provide the names of the water 
distribution companies or utilities that have actually shut off 
someone's water supply. So I would like to have that.
    But, Paul, I really--I want to talk more--my line of 
questioning is more to you than it is our panelists, because 
having designed water systems in my career, I was looking 
forward to working on this drinking water issue in a bipartisan 
fashion. You and I have worked together on numbers of pieces of 
legislation before. And you have the reputation of being, on 
the Lugar Bipartisan Ranking Index, the 48th, 48th best, most 
bipartisan Member of Congress. So I thought we were going to be 
able to work together on this in a bipartisan fashion. But as 
of this morning, as of this morning, by 11 o'clock, our 
Republican committee had not been approached by one person in a 
way to work together as we develop this drinking water bill. 
Not one person. So it makes me suspicious that this is going to 
become another partisan legislation, partisan bill that is 
going to go nowhere.
    Now, it is not the first time that this happened in this 
Congress. People are given hope that something is going to 
happen, but then--on a variety of subjects, Paul. But then they 
get loaded down with parts and divisive policies, and the bills 
get stuck in the Senate, going nowhere.
    Think about it, Mr. Chairman. H.R. 1. One of the primary 
things we wanted to get done was get campaign finance reform. 
It died in the Senate, not one Republican voted for it on the 
House floor. There was no cooperation, no bipartisanship on it.
    Infrastructure legislation. We hear people time and time 
again wanting to have infrastructure legislation, but we don't 
pass it because it is part of the way it is put in, partisan. 
We only had three Republican votes on it.
    Drug pricing bill, Paul. We all wanted to have drug pricing 
bills, but the only bill that got passed down on a partisan 
fashion only had two Republican votes.
    And then we talked about earlier today, Mr. Chairman, the 
PFAS legislation, PFAS, and drinking water. We could have done 
something together in a bipartisan fashion, but instead of 
working in that cooperation, your leadership put poison pills 
to discourage Republican support. As a result, that legislation 
is stuck in the Senate, and people are still exposed to a 
contaminant that they shouldn't be exposed to, because people 
want to play politics here in Washington.
    Paul, it doesn't have to be this way. You are seeing my 
frustration with this. It doesn't have to be this way. The 
Energy and Commerce Committee has a track record of being very 
cooperative, very bipartisan on a lot of matters. And just 
think about it, just think of some that I have rattled off. On 
reforms to TSCA that you and John Shimkus were involved with, 
done. The Brownfields legislation, bipartisan, done. 2lst 
Century Cures, bipartisan, accomplished. Opioid legislation, 
major pieces of legislation, they were all done in a bipartisan 
fashion.
    But, apparently, you are under tremendous pressure from the 
Democratic leadership that seems to be more interested in 
dividing rather than consolidating, unifying this country. This 
drinking water bill seems to be more of something that you want 
to score ugly political points on rather than get something 
accomplished.
    But, Paul, we can work together. You and I can work 
together. But I have got to tell you that the cost-benefit 
analysis is going to be one of those key things early on that 
is going to cause us a problem with it. It is a nonstarter.
    Let's just hold for a second. Your Democrat staff has 
implied that over the next six months--and this is very 
touching--over the next six months, they have no need for 
bipartisan action and support, because six months from now, you 
all may actually control the President, the White House--or 
excuse me, the White House, the Senate, and the House. And so 
they are seemingly coming across to us in a way that says we 
are just going to wait it out, and then we don't need 
bipartisan support; we will just do whatever we want to do.
    So we are seeing over the next six months, as a result of 
that attitude, you are not going to see a campaign finance 
report. We are not going to see infrastructure work. We are not 
going to see drug pricing, and we are still going to be 
drinking foul, contaminated water.
    So, Paul, my question primarily would be back to you, Mr. 
Chairman. What can we do to work together to get a drinking 
water bill that actually can be passed into law, signed, and 
help everybody, or are we just waiting until the next election?
    Mr. Tonko. Yes. I can tell you the--can you hear me?
    Mr. McKinley. Yes.
    Mr. Tonko. I can tell you the issue is of importance so 
that we want to get something done. And you are right, you 
cited a bipartisan track record that you and I and other 
members, Chairman Shimkus at the time, and I had over the 
course of time.
    I say let's take the information we garner here at this 
hearing and go to work at making certain that we can move 
forward with the protections that the general public deserve 
and require. Drinking water standards are essential for us to 
make certain that we are protecting people from contaminants 
and that those most susceptible to the impacts of contaminants 
will not have to undergo those impacts.
    So, look, I stand ready to work with both sides to get 
something done here.
    Mr. McKinley. I guess we just have to wait and see, see how 
it works out.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you, sir.
    Mr. McKinley. Thank you.
    Mr. Tonko. OK. With that, the gentleman yields back.
    We now go to Representative Peters from California for 5 
minutes of questions, please.
    Representative Peters?
    You need to unmute.
    Mr. Peters. Got it, thank you.
    I wanted also to endorse the comments of my two colleagues, 
Mr. McKinley and Chairman Tonko, about the need for 
bipartisanship. I mean, I think this idea of waiting till the 
next election to see what happens is not the most constructive 
for the country, and I certainly think that if it is not 
bipartisan, it generally doesn't pass, and if it is not 
bipartisan, it certainly doesn't last. So I would like to join 
that course.
    I wanted to focus my questions today on the disconnect, 
though, in this statute between the setting of maximum 
contaminant level goals and what it might take to make those 
goals a reality. Many of the landmark environmental laws set 
ambitious goals, and they get there step by step, but it isn't 
clear to me that the Safe Drinking Water Act is doing that. And 
the example I want to take is lead, which is certainly one of 
the most dangerous contaminants, one we know that there is no 
safe level for.
    But this year, the EPA proposed a new Lead and Copper Rule 
that keeps the same action level that has been in place since 
1991. In other words, on lead, nearly 30 years later, we 
haven't made progress in getting our standard closer to our 
goal. And we have seen in places like Flint the enormous damage 
that lead and heavy metals does to constituents, particularly 
children.
    So, Ms. Wu, what do you think about the example of the Lead 
and Copper Rule and the need for--whether that shows the need 
for reform of the Safe Drinking Water Act in particular?
    Ms. Wu. Yes. I mean, lead is also a great example of where 
we haven't had good, strong, protective standards. And, you 
know, you could have EPA--you know, an action level that isn't 
even a health-based standard. It is just an action level at 
which action has to be taken. And so the fact that there is not 
even a set kind of health-based number is kind of telling that 
we can't regulate how much lead is in people's water.
    Mr. Peters. Is there a particular way you would like to see 
the statute strengthened so that we could make progress toward 
safety goals, maybe on these most dangerous contaminants?
    Ms. Wu. Yes. I mean, I think in addition to, you know, some 
of the fixing of the legal standard itself, there are some 
contaminants that we do know, like lead, have a lot of both 
public health impacts, have adverse impacts, and are also 
showing up in people's water. PFAS is an example. Perchlorate 
as an example. We have legionella. We have hexavalent chromium.
    So these are ones that we know are high hazard anyway, and 
so we can also say in the statute, like EPA had to have done in 
the past, say it is time to set standards for these. We don't 
have to go through all of the other rigmarole, but really say, 
like, set some standards for these high-hazard contaminants.
    Mr. Peters. Right. And there is some contaminants for which 
there is really--that those response ratio--or relationship is 
really almost irrelevant because they are so toxic. And I think 
lead is one of those, as I think is chromium and so forth.
    Ms. VanDe Hei, one of the things you mentioned in your 
testimony was new technologies. I think you mentioned reverse 
osmosis, but maybe there is others, that are cutting-edge water 
treatment technologies, the advantages they offer. What would 
you like to see the Federal Government do to make the use of 
those technologies more appealing for water systems around the 
country?
    Ms. VanDe Hei. That is a very good question. RO is a 
membrane technology, and we have had membrane technologies for 
years now. And they are used in, I think, primarily large water 
systems for particular contaminants because they are so 
expensive to purchase, number one, and to use. And so when they 
are not in need, they are not used. And so if there is a way to 
bring these kinds of technologies within the price range, then 
that would probably help a lot.
    The other thing that I think we saw in--I am sorry, go back 
to the 1996 amendment, is that one time the baseline technology 
was GAC, and that didn't make it into the statute, because it 
is much more complicated, depending on how the treatment 
process is set up. And I know some of you said that they were 
familiar with how that is done, that the quality of the water 
they are using, what impact that has on a particular treatment 
technology. And if there was a magic bullet that would take out 
everything in the water, I think people would find that just 
great. But I don't think----
    Mr. Peters. Well, I appreciate that.
    My time has expired. I thank the witnesses for being here 
today, and I hope you will continue to engage with the 
committee as we move forward to improve this important law.
    And I yield back.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back.
    We now go to the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Johnson, 
Representative Johnson, for 5 minutes, please.
    Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to our 
witnesses that are here with us today. You know, your real-
world expertise on this important issue is critical, so I 
really appreciate all of you sharing your thoughts with us.
    I think we all agree that our constituents expect and 
deserve clean, safe drinking water for their families in every 
American community, regardless of location. And, again, I think 
we all agree on this. However, it is evident from the testimony 
today that we are having to make a choice. On one hand, the 
Federal Government can try a top-down, one-size-fits-all 
approach, coupled with additional unfunded mandates, or we can 
take an approach that lets States and localities tailor and 
prioritize their water treatment and distribution to the most 
pressing needs of their citizens.
    One-size-fits-all Federal approaches simply don't work very 
well in anything, in my experience. But in this particular 
case, contrast, for example, a big metropolitan city and a 
small rural community in Appalachia, Ohio, where I represent. 
The threats to the safety of the drinking water are different, 
and they also have different technologies, infrastructures and, 
not to mention, financial resources. So, clearly, a balance 
needs to be struck.
    So, Ms. Chard, I would like to start with you. Do you think 
the public's investment in public health protection is best 
served as it relates to drinking water if contaminant 
regulations are required in a particular area, regardless of 
whether a contaminant would be present in the drinking water 
there, at a level that would cause a public health concern?
    Ms. Chard. I think that where they are smaller water 
systems, they really have to prioritize. They have very limited 
funding, and we want them to make the best use of that funding. 
And if there is a contaminant that is very common in a 
particular State or in urban areas, why is a rural community 
spending their limited resources to look for something that is 
not there. I think we just have to be mindful, and small 
communities are not well served and ratepayers are not well 
served when they are spending their resources looking for 
something that doesn't exist.
    Mr. Johnson. I think you almost answered this next question 
too, but if you want to go into any detail, what is the 
practical impact from dealing with other higher level public 
health concerns when a community is faced with finite resources 
that are dedicated to solving problems that will result in 
little to no meaningful public health benefit?
    Ms. Chard. I think we have to--we start with the standard 
setting process, and that is great and we need standards, but 
it is implementing those standards that protect public health. 
And when we are looking at communities that have very, very 
limited resources, very limited ratepayer base, they are 
located significant distance so they cannot regionalize and 
consolidate with another system, they are taking that limited 
budget and they are picking and choosing what are they going to 
sample, what upgrades are they going to make. And they are 
choosing, we hope, those immediate public health threats, such 
as bacteria in the drinking water. We don't want our drinking 
water contaminated with bacteria that is going to make people 
sick today. We would like to protect for those longer term 
health effects, but if you have to choose, small systems are 
choosing those immediate, acute health effects just as a matter 
that they only have so much money.
    Mr. Johnson. Yes. OK. Shifting gears just a little bit--
thank you for that answer, by the way.
    And as we have heard here today, some would like to see the 
cost-benefit analysis requirement removed from the Safe 
Drinking Water Act. Do you believe that cost-benefit analysis 
should be removed?
    Ms. Chard. I do not. You can set all the standards you 
want, but if a water system cannot implement effective 
treatment, it doesn't do you any good. So I think including the 
cost-benefit analysis allows some reasonable expectations to 
come into the conversation. That is not saying you just throw 
up your hands and walk away, but you know going in there are 
going to be particular systems that are going to struggle more 
than others and then maybe we can target resources, we can do 
other things----
    Mr. Johnson. OK.
    Ms. Chard [continue]. Because it is part of reality.
    Mr. Johnson. OK. Well, great. Well, my time is expired. 
Thank you, ma'am.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentle lady from California. 
Representative Barragan, you are recognized for 5 minutes, 
please.
    Ms. Barragan. Thank you, Chair Tonko, for holding this 
critical hearing on the Safe Drinking Water Act.
    The fight for clean and affordable water is very personal. 
How do you put a price tag on health? How do you put a price 
tag on a child getting sick from drinking water?
    I represent a district in south Los Angeles where just a 
couple of years ago, we had brown water coming out of the 
faucets in Compton. The local water district had to be taken 
over by the county, and that was the only way to get somebody 
to seriously take a look at the brown water and say we are 
going to do something about it. One person who gets brown water 
is too many. Clean, safe, affordable drinking water should be 
available to everyone.
    And some of my colleagues today have focused on problems in 
the Safe Drinking Water Act statute understandably because 
there is serious problems there, but there have also been 
serious issues in how this administration has implemented the 
Safe Drinking Water Act, and I want to focus on that for a 
moment.
    Ms. Wu, you mentioned the problem of perchlorate, a 
chemical and rocket fuel, that threatens the brain development 
of young infants. It was the Trump EPA that recently decided 
not to set a drinking water standard for perchlorate after 
decades of work. Is that correct?
    Ms. Wu. Yes. But I will also mention that we are currently 
challenging that decision in court as well.
    Ms. Barragan. Well, thank you.
    And, Ms. Wu, it was this administration that issued the 
dangerously weak Lead and Copper Rule proposal this year. Is 
that correct?
    Ms. Wu. That is also true, yes.
    Ms. Barragan. And this administration has refused to use 
the authority in the Safe Drinking Water Act to set interim 
standards to address the dangerous chemical, PFOS, insisting on 
going through a lengthy regulatory determination process 
instead. Is that also correct?
    Ms. Wu. Yes, it is.
    Ms. Barragan. Well, thank you.
    I want to make these points because I think it is important 
to recognize that this EPA has failed communities across the 
country that are struggling with drinking water contamination.
    So, Ms. Wu, how can we limit the discretion available to 
the EPA Administrator under the statute so that communities and 
public health come first?
    Ms. Wu. Well, the legal standard right now requires three 
things. The third is really in the sole discretion of the 
Administrator, but the first two, that the contaminant has 
adverse health impacts and that it is showing up at levels that 
is a public health concern, those two alone are enough to say 
that we need to set a drinking water standard for that. So that 
third level where you need that sole judgment of the 
Administrator is unnecessary. We can protect public health with 
just the first two elements.
    Ms. Barragan. Is there anything you want to add? I know you 
were great in your opening testimony on what we can do. Is 
there anything that you want to add that Congress should be 
considering as we legislate on safe drinking water? It is so 
critical, I think, that we get it right so that we can put the 
health of our communities first and that we are implementing 
legislation to help those vulnerable communities who may live 
in a different ZIP Code, may get different water, which 
shouldn't be the case.
    Ms. Wu. Yes. I mean, we shouldn't have a two-tier system 
where those who can afford it have better water than those who 
can't. But I also want to add that I think outside of just the 
standard setting provision, it is really important to have 
source water protection. Like, we should not let polluters get 
away with polluting our water and then put the burden on our 
drinking water utilities, on the customers, on the people who 
are drinking it. The burden shouldn't be on us to pay to get 
that pollution out of the water. It should be on the polluters 
who put it there in the first place.
    And so I think stronger source water protection and holding 
the polluters liable for destroying our water is an important 
component to making sure we have safe, affordable drinking 
water.
    Ms. Barragan. Well, thank you, Ms. Wu, for all the work you 
are doing and your organization is doing. Sometimes it takes a 
legal challenge.
    I remember when I had my situation in my district where 
there was brown water coming out of the faucets, I will never 
forget having somebody in an elected office tell me, Why are 
you focusing on this? It only impacts a few hundred people. And 
I was so outraged by the response and saying this is the 
problem, because one person who gets brown water is too many, 
and we need to continue this fight for clean water for 
environmental justice, because we know across this country 
there are injustices.
    So I want to thank you, Chairman Tonko, for calling this 
hearing, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to 
reform this important statute.
    And with that, I yield back.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentle lady yields back.
    And now, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma. 
Representative Mullin, you are recognized for 5 minutes, 
please.
    Mr. Mullin. Thank you, Chairman, and thank you for holding 
this important hearing.
    I just want to make a quick point. You know, there are many 
people on this panel and on this committee that have never been 
in a water treatment plant, that don't know how to even treat 
the water. I, for one, still hold an operator's license. I have 
had an operator license for actually many years, and a lot of 
things that people are talking about is--I am just going to be 
quite frank--is out of ignorance.
    When we start talking about one person getting brown water 
coming out of their faucet, understand that that isn't from the 
water treatment facility; that is coming from the plumbing 
infrastructure system. A lot of times it will come from a 
simple connection that is connected to that one single faucet. 
A lot of the lead contaminations that this committee has 
focused on today doesn't come from the water treatment plant; 
it comes from the infrastructure that the water is carried to 
and from the places of business or to the house. If you really 
want to be serious about this, about the coloration of the 
water that is going to people's houses, why don't you look at 
the infrastructure, and it is not always the treatment plants 
that are doing that.
    I find it odd that we are holding a committee hearing, and 
yet a lot of people on this committee haven't even done their 
research, but yet we want to talk as experts. We want to blame 
the committee or the President, this administration, who has 
been in office for 3-\1/2\ years, for all the drinking standard 
problems. Yet there is many on this committee that have been on 
this committee for a decade or decades. Don't forget the Obama 
administration had control of the EPA for eight years, and they 
still haven't addressed all of these issues. But, you know, who 
wants to be right or wrong; it is about blaming someone else.
    With that being said, I will end my rant and welcome Madam 
Director from Oklahoma. It is not always we get to have 
somebody from Oklahoma here, and it is an honor to have you. As 
you know, my company and myself has worked with the Department 
of Environmental Quality, DEQ, for years, and I will go as far 
as saying decades. I have worked with DEQ for almost 25 years. 
We have worked together on many water treatment plants. We have 
worked together on many infrastructure needs out there. And I 
want to welcome you. Thank you so much for being here.
    Ms. Chard. Thank you, Congressman. It is my pleasure.
    Mr. Mullin. Let me ask you something. Is it better to treat 
water in a natural filtration system or to have standards so 
high that you have to interject a chemical into it to make it 
to those certain standards? Which one is better for the public 
to drink?
    Ms. Chard. I think both can be appropriate. It depends on 
the contaminant that you are trying to address.
    Mr. Mullin. Sure.
    Ms. Chard. I think in many cases, certainly in Oklahoma and 
other places, we are fortunate to get by and meet drinking 
water standards with filtration and disinfection. However, as 
standards get set lower and we start seeing new contaminants of 
concern, we are definitely moving in a direction of more and 
more advanced treatment processes, which many times do involve 
chemicals.
    Mr. Mullin. Right. Underneath the--would you talk a little 
bit about what DEQ has done underneath the Safe Drinking Water 
Act when it comes to especially rural parts of the country? As 
you know, Oklahoma is mainly rural, and I represent almost all 
rural areas.
    Explain to me a little bit how DEQ works. Because I will 
tell you, from a professional perspective, I would rather work 
with DEQ any day of the week than work with the EPA at all, not 
that we don't have to occasionally, but--I used to complain 
about you guys. I don't do that anymore.
    Ms. Chard. And we appreciate that.
    Our mission is to protect public health. Our mission is to 
work with our systems. We try to focus on plant optimization. 
We try to provide technical assistance to our operators to 
operate their plants the best they can, knowing that they may 
be years away from having additional plumbing for construction. 
We work----
    Mr. Mullin. Because they don't have the infrastructure to 
pay for it, they can't pass a bond.
    Ms. Chard. Correct. We work with our water systems doing 
water loss auditing, trying to help them identify water loss or 
unneeded water uses. There is help to extend the life of their 
systems and getting additional funding, because they are 
getting paid for all of the water that they are treating. We 
work to connect communities together to help improve water 
treatment and water quality, and we have used our subsidies to 
help systems consolidate where that is possible, even if it is 
just on the administrative side.
    Mr. Mullin. Thank you so much. And, Madam Director, thank 
you so much for taking your time being with us today.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Virginia. 
Representative McEachin, you are recognized for 5 minutes, 
please.
    Representative, unmute, please.
    Do we have Representative McEachin? If not--there he is.
    Mr. McEachin. Yes.
    Mr. Tonko. OK.
    Mr. McEachin. I was trying my best to unmute.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for convening this 
hearing today.
    I think we can all agree that access to safe and healthy 
drinking water for every individual is critical, and I 
appreciate that some of my colleagues today have discussed the 
need to ensure that our drinking water is safe for our Nation's 
vulnerable populations, including pregnant women, infants, and 
children. This is incredibly important.
    It is also incredibly important that we ensure our drinking 
water is safe for environmental justice communities, 
communities that have borne the brunt of disproportionate 
exposure to pollution in their water, their air, and their 
land.
    Ms. Wu, can you explain why environmental justice 
communities might need specific consideration in the setting of 
drinking water standards?
    Ms. Wu. Well, these are communities that have--are bearing 
the brunt of pollution from all different fronts and 
disproportionately even the rest of the communities. And so 
they have been--you know, there has been a history of 
disinvestment in their infrastructure. There has been less 
enforcements, lower enforcement. And so these communities 
really need to be considered and be taken into account when 
drinking water standards are put into place, because 
oftentimes, their water has more and is more dirty than in 
other places.
    Mr. McEachin. Thank you. And does the Safe Drinking Water 
Act currently require drinking water standards to protect 
environmental justice communities?
    Ms. Wu. Currently, it does not.
    Mr. McEachin. OK. Ms. Wu, how can we strengthen the Safe 
Drinking Water Act to ensure that drinking water standards are 
strong enough to protect environmental justice communities?
    Ms. Wu. I think that you could put in there more explicitly 
the requirement that the--you know, the burdens that our 
environmental justice communities are already facing and being 
explicit about the vulnerable populations, making sure that 
they are considered as part of the vulnerable population 
consideration, and then really, again, explicitly say that the 
standards have to protect these vulnerable populations, not 
just consider them.
    Mr. McEachin. Thank you.
    Every American deserves access to safe and healthy drinking 
water. I look forward to fighting alongside with my colleagues 
on this committee to ensure this becomes a reality. Ms. Wu, I 
thank you.
    And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you, sir.
    Do we have--the gentleman yields back.
    Representative Carter, you are recognized for 5 minutes for 
questions, please.
    If you are not there, we will go to Representative Blunt 
Rochester, please.
    Mr. Shimkus. Mr. Chairman?
    Mr. Tonko. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Shimkus. You should call on a Republican next.
    Mr. Tonko. OK. Mr. Duncan, or who do we have? OK. 
Representative Duncan, I am sorry, you are recognized for 5 
minutes, please.
    Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I would like to yield my time to the gentleman from 
Michigan, Mr. Walberg.
    Mr. Walberg. I thank the gentleman and appreciate the 
opportunity.
    Thanks to the panel for being here. In fact, I just got off 
a phone call, I had to step away, talking with an entity, a 
business in my State, a Wolverine, who had significant issues 
relative to PFOS and had been doing remediation under a consent 
decree. And so far, it has worked very well with EPA, as well 
as with EGLE, the regulatory entity under the State, and it has 
been a challenge but, nonetheless, it is working, as well as 
working with 3M. So this is a very, very important hearing 
today.
    Ms. VanDe Hei, the presence of perchlorinated chemicals in 
Michigan is an area of great concern of mine and my colleagues 
in Michigan, as well as other areas across the country. The 
situation with PFAS in Michigan is alarming. The number of PFAS 
confirmed sites has grown rapidly over the last few years, my 
district included, and Michiganians are seriously concerned.
    As you know, in February, the EPA made the decision to move 
forward with regulating PFOS and PFOA under the Safe Drinking 
Water Act. On July 22, the Michigan Department of Environment, 
Great Lakes, and Energy, EGLE, announced that Michigan will 
adopt a rule set to limit PFAS contamination in drinking water.
    In your testimony, Ms. VanDe Hei, you highlight the 
importance of allowing States to set their own limits for 
federally regulated contaminants that are no less stringent 
than EPA's standards or to set State regulations for a 
contaminant that is not regulated by EPA at all. Could you 
expand on it and discuss why this is an important aspect of the 
Safe Drinking Water Act?
    Ms. VanDe Hei. I will do my best, sir. One of the problems 
I see with the Safe Drinking Water Act is something that 
actually HAs, health advisories, were intended originally to 
deal with, and that is regional contamination, where National 
Primary Drinking Water Regulations are not necessary but 
certain regions of the country have problems with different 
contaminants.
    So it is important that Michigan have the authority to do 
what it is doing, and there are a number of other States that 
do the same thing, New Jersey, California, and Massachusetts, 
and I am sure there are others. And Michigan in particular has 
been aggressive in this way.
    And so I think it is very important that where the 
contamination is significant, that the State be able to do what 
it needs to do to protect the people of their State when that 
happens.
    Mr. Walberg. What challenges are there for the water 
systems, the municipal water systems, specifically with that?
    Ms. VanDe Hei. Well, the challenges for the water systems 
are the treatment, the cost. It is great that--I forget the 
company that you mentioned--is a part of the process for 
cleaning it up. So all of the parties that are responsible for 
the contamination--and I think it was something Mae said--that 
what we need are the contaminants to be kept out of the water, 
not in the water.
    So I think your question was, why is it important? It is 
because it is a major problem, and States need to have the 
ability to take action.
    Mr. Walberg. And the challenge, I guess, now is we are 
seeing probably next week Michigan will set levels at 
significantly lower than what we have presently under the Clean 
Water Act, almost to the level right now that we can't--and 
that is why I asked about the municipal water systems, that we 
are going to have difficulty even measuring to get to that 
level, which could be a challenge, I would assume.
    Ms. VanDe Hei. It is a challenge, sir. And having different 
levels in different States with different measuring devices is 
a problem for water systems. When you have no standard that is 
put in place to use to measure with, what do you do? And if you 
can't measure to the level at which the standard is set, how do 
you address that issue? So water systems are kind of left 
miscommunicating with the public, which is something we haven't 
done.
    Mr. Walberg. I appreciate Mr. Duncan's time has expired. I 
yield back.
    Mr. Duncan. I yield back.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back.
    And now, the Chair recognizes the gentle lady from 
Delaware. Representative Blunt Rochester, you are recognized 
for 5 minutes, please.
    Ms. Blunt Rochester. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, for 
calling this important hearing on the Safe Drinking Water Act. 
And thank you also to all of the witnesses for your 
testimonies.
    The COVID-19 pandemic is shining an intense spotlight on 
health risks and health disparities across our country, and I 
think it is even more evident that safe drinking water is a 
necessity in a pandemic as it is under normal circumstances.
    I particularly want to focus initially on a few comments 
from some of my colleagues who talked about the environmental 
justice communities in their own States that they are working 
with and dealing with. And in Delaware, we have communities 
that also do not or did not have running water and that used 
bottled water at times and well water that was contaminated.
    And I particularly want to commend the community of 
Ellendale that worked for many, many decades to get a public 
drinking water system implemented. A gentleman named Harold 
Truxon just kept going, kept going to make sure that his 
community had safe drinking water. And we all know that having 
the public water system is not enough. The water that comes 
through that system also has to be healthy and safe to drink.
    And so for me, this issue today is not just about data and 
numbers; it is about families and communities. And in recent 
years, I have worked with many of my colleagues on this 
committee, on both sides of the aisle, to address the dangers 
of PFAS in our water and in our environment. These dangers 
include a range of health risks, including impaired immune 
systems. As COVID-19 continues to spread at alarming rates, 
strong immune systems are more critical than ever in the fight 
against this pandemic and other infectious diseases.
    All of my questions are for you, Ms. Wu. My first question 
is, EPA has still not taken action to limit PFAS in our 
drinking water. How does this failure of the Safe Drinking 
Water Act make us as a Nation more susceptible to diseases like 
COVID-19?
    Ms. Wu. Well, the fact is that PFAS contamination is 
showing up almost everywhere that we look, and so we know that 
there are millions and millions of Americans who have dangerous 
levels of PFAS in their water. And so the fact that there are 
health effects associated with exposure to this chemical, 
including immunological that you talked about, but also cancers 
and other--you know, liver disease or ulcerative colitis, like 
my friend had, just puts that extra burden on people as they 
are trying to get through both this pandemic that we have but 
also, you know, how do they get treatment for the diseases. My 
friend had to wait to get the surgery that he needed because he 
was scared to go in because of the pandemic.
    Ms. Blunt Rochester. Some water systems have taken 
aggressive action to get PFAS out of their water, but without a 
Federal standard, there is no consistent floor of protection 
nationwide. Do you think that this lack of consistent 
nationwide protections contributes to disparate impacts from 
water pollutants and may contribute to the disparate impacts of 
COVID-19?
    Ms. Wu. I think that is right, that the people who happen 
to live in States that happen to take action on these 
contaminants are lucky, but that that shouldn't mean that 
everybody else then just has to suffer with it. And it is 
important that we don't treat people differently based on which 
State that they are living in. It is important that we have at 
least a floor that is protective of everybody.
    Ms. Blunt Rochester. Great. And there is currently 
authority in the Safe Drinking Water Act for EPA to set an 
interim drinking water standard to address pressing threats to 
public health, authority they could use to set a standard for 
PFAS now, but they have never used that authority.
    Do you think that the EPA should use this authority to set 
an interim standard for PFAS to protect communities as soon as 
possible?
    Ms. Wu. Yes. I think this is an urgent public health 
threat, and it needs to be used to deal with it right now.
    Ms. Blunt Rochester. And what do you think we could do to 
strengthen this interim authority for the EPA to address this 
public health, these threats as they emerge? Is there anything 
that we can do?
    Ms. Wu. Well, I think that, again, you know, be more 
explicit about what that eminent threat and when it shows up, 
that EPA can take the action. There is also right now a 
requirement that once they do this interim thing, that 
eventually they still have to go through this huge gauntlet of 
other assessments that has basically stopped it for all the 
previous ones. And so, you know, streamlining this whole 
process and not making it so intensive would be an important 
addition.
    Ms. Blunt Rochester. Thank you. Thank you so much to Ms. Wu 
and to the other witnesses.
    And I join my colleagues in wanting to make sure we do 
something in a bipartisan way to ensure the health and safety 
of all Americans.
    Thank you. And I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentle lady yields back.
    I do not see Mr. Carter. Is he not back? If he is not, then 
we will go to the Representative from Florida, Representative 
Soto, for 5 minutes, please.
    Mr. Soto. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Congress last significantly amended the Safe Drinking Water 
Act in 1996, and a lot of this is in the staff analysis, but it 
really paints a damning situation. Since then, the new standard 
setting process relied on a 5-year cycle.
    Our Nation's primary drinking water standards regulate more 
than 90 contaminants and contaminant groups. The standards have 
been adopted since the 1996 law are for arsenic, radium, and 
disinfectant byproducts, but those were done due to deadlines 
already set in the 1996 law.
    EPA has had an analysis on multiple different dangerous 
pollutants and contemplated standards on everything from fecal 
coliform to acrylamide to 13 other identified revisions. But 
out of those 13, since 1996, they have approved one; one in 24 
years.
    Through sound science we are determining that current water 
protection standards are unsafe. Through sound science we are 
determining that new chemicals pose a danger to clean water. 
But with only one new standard implemented in 24 years, it 
shows that the system is broken, the Safe Drinking Water Act is 
broken, and it is broken during a COVID-19 pandemic when we 
need it most.
    Ms. Wu, I know you have talked at length about it. But what 
is the overall public health consequence of having a broken 
Safe Drinking Water Act process for adding new chemicals and 
new standards?
    Ms. Wu. The problem is that we know that our water is 
contaminated with a lot of contaminants that we know have 
adverse health impacts. The science is also clear on those. And 
we know that it is showing up at levels that cause these health 
harms, and we know it is showing up in the water of millions of 
Americans. But this broken Safe Drinking Water Act means that 
we haven't actually done anything to get these contaminants out 
of our water.
    Mr. Soto. How many lives do you think we have lost in the 
U.S. over the last 24 years due to this broken water process?
    Ms. Wu. Oh, gosh, I couldn't even begin to guess. But, you 
know, it is not just lives lost, but it is the quality of life. 
If somebody survives cancer, does that mean it was okay then to 
let them get it, right? All of the other diseases that could 
come with these contaminants seriously affect quality of life.
    Mr. Soto. In addition to cancer, which obviously can be 
deadly in many instances, what are the other conditions 
specifically that you see as a result of polluted water?
    Ms. Wu. There are so many. There are ones that affect 
developmental--development of children, and so that could be 
impacts around behavior. This is what we see a lot in lead. 
There could be things like liver disease, kidney disease. 
Again, my friend who had ulcerative colitis meant that he no 
longer has a colon because of it. There is so many different 
types of harmful effects that exist, because we are talking 
about a lot of different contaminants.
    Mr. Soto. Thank you, Ms. Wu.
    Ms. VanDe Hei, how do we value human life and health 
conditions in a current cost-benefit analysis within the law? 
How should we value life as we are trying to adjust these 
standards?
    Ms. VanDe Hei. Life is invaluable, but our ability to 
protect people from every chemical that comes into existence is 
impossible. I really, I guess, take Mae to task on some of the 
statements that she has made. Yes, some contaminants are 
carcinogenic, and the MCLG for them is zero. And others are 
chronic and others are acute. Acute contaminants hurt people 
immediately, and they are the first ones to be treated for it. 
The chronic ones are second. And those that take 70 years plus 
are--you are right, getting to zero is problematic. But there 
is a triage of contaminants that are set out to protect public 
health and do it immediately.
    Mr. Soto. Because of my limited time, what type of 
investments would a national infrastructure plan like the 
Moving Forward Act that we passed in the House help with a lot 
of our local and State governments to upgrade their 
infrastructure to be able to handle some of these new 
standards?
    Ms. VanDe Hei. I have not seen any estimates of the 1916--
1916, sorry, I am living in the past--2016 proposal that came 
from the committee, what those costs would be.
    Mr. Soto. Well, this is 2020, and we have a new bill we 
passed out of the House that included infrastructure funding 
for water systems, and I would urge you all to take a look at 
it. Because we are not only interested in making the standards 
2lst century but putting our money where our mouth is moving 
forward.
    With that, I yield back.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentleman from Florida yields back.
    I see our gentleman from Georgia has returned. So, 
Representative Carter, you are recognized for 5 minutes, 
please.
    Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank all of you 
for being on this very important hearing and being a part of 
it.
    Ms. VanDe Hei, I wanted to ask you, a lot of your testimony 
today has been about the good work that the EPA is doing to 
protect our drinking water and how the system works for people. 
You discussed the cost-benefit analysis that you feel like 
should be taken into consideration whenever there are any kind 
of substantial changes that are made, and I can appreciate 
that.
    Having been a former mayor, I am very appreciative of that 
and certainly appreciative of it at a Federal level where we 
were often mandated what we were supposed to do, and we 
referred to them as unfunded mandates. You know, having said 
that, obviously, we were very concerned about the safety of our 
citizens and the health of our citizens, but also it includes 
the financial health of our city.
    So I just wanted to ask you, what are the biggest concerns 
you have in that space of the cost-benefit analysis, and how 
would your members handle an increase in cost like that?
    You are on mute. Ms. VanDe Hei, you are muted.
    Ms. VanDe Hei. OK. Sorry about that.
    There are two parts that I would like to make to sort of 
clarify something, and that is, under the Safe Drinking Water 
Act standard setting process, what is feasible is taken into 
consideration when setting a standard. Feasible is defined as 
what works for the larger system. It does not apply to the 
smallest system. So feasible there is defined as what is 
technologically feasible for the largest system.
    And so you have a separate provision that takes cost 
benefits into consideration. And I will say that again, into 
consideration. It does not say under that provision of the 
statute that thou shall set a standard where the benefits 
exceed the costs. It doesn't say that.
    So the cost-benefit analysis, I think, in the Safe Drinking 
Water Act is there for public consumption, for the public to 
consider when standards are being set.
    So I am not sure if I answered your question, but I----
    Mr. Carter. Well, I appreciate----
    Ms. VanDe Hei. I think the analysis is important for water 
systems to see, it is important for the public to see, it is 
important for everyone to see. It doesn't make any sense to not 
have it, especially when you do not have to set the standards 
based on it.
    Mr. Carter. Right, right. Well, I can appreciate exactly 
what you are saying, because I became mayor of a city in 1996 
that had a population of 4,500, and when I left as mayor in 
2004--no kidding--that population was 19,000.
    So we had a tremendous amount of growth, and with that came 
what I referred to as the nuts and bolts of municipal 
government, and that is water, sewer, things that, as an 
educated pharmacist, I didn't have any clue about those things 
until I became mayor, but I learned it real quick.
    And I learned the impact that some of these regulations can 
have on a municipality, particularly on a small municipality. 
So I can appreciate very much what you are saying there.
    Let me ask you another question, Ms. VanDe Hei. You talked 
about the Safe Drinking Water Act as it pertains to urgent 
threats to public health. Can you define urgent threats as you 
think the EPA is using it in that context?
    Ms. VanDe Hei. It is not defined in the statute. I think 
Flint, Michigan, is a good example of an urgent threat to 
public health. And there are multiple reasons for that and the 
water system was part of the problem, but so was the State.
    So was EPA, as far as I am concerned, because they could 
have taken action earlier than they did, because it was a case 
of urgent public health problem, and I think that it was known 
about and that they could have taken action quicker.
    Mr. Carter. OK.
    Ms. VanDe Hei. But the term ``urgent'' is not defined under 
the statute, that I know of.
    Mr. Carter. Right. And do you feel like it needs to be?
    Ms. VanDe Hei. Perhaps. Perhaps. Maybe that is something 
that we all could talk about.
    Mr. Carter. It just seems to me like when you are not at 
least having some kind of guidelines with it that it becomes 
subjective, and that is something that, again, as a former 
mayor, I can tell you I never liked to be in that situation 
either.
    So I am out of time, but thank you all very much. 
Obviously, a very important issue.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    Mr. Tonko. You are most welcome.
    The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentle lady from Illinois. 
Representative Schakowsky, you are recognized for 5 minutes, 
please.
    Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the 
hearing today and our testifiers. Thank you.
    I live close to Lake Michigan. Actually, my whole district, 
including the city of Chicago, our eastern border is Lake 
Michigan. And the Great Lakes represent 20 percent of the 
world's surface water. And the EPA is responsible for a 
wonderful project to make sure that we stay clean.
    And I think it is shocking what Darren Soto, Congressman 
Soto mentioned, that in all the years since the act has been in 
place that only one toxin has been identified. There are 
millions of Americans who don't have access to clean water 
right now. And we know that the environment and the challenges 
we are facing are hurting our Great Lakes. We see rising lake 
levels and worsening storms, and they are eroding drinking 
water infrastructure. And unless we address climate, the 
climate crisis, our water systems are going to be worsened.
    But no one in the United States of America, the richest 
country in the world, should worry that they cannot turn on the 
tap and not have clean water. And this is why it is so 
concerning to me that the EPA struggles to act promptly under 
the Safe Drinking Water Act. Sometimes we even--can you hear 
me?
    So we hear the phrase ``paralysis by analysis.'' And I just 
wanted to ask, Ms. Wu, have you heard that phrase and what does 
it mean to you?
    Ms. Wu. I have heard it. And it is I think, you know, the 
idea that EPA or whoever just keeps going back and back and 
back and looking and looking for as much certainty as possible 
before they can take action on it, even though, you know, they 
may have the science in front of them that shows more than 
enough information for them to take action that is protective.
    Ms. Schakowsky. So we know that years have passed while the 
EPA goes through certain requirements and toxins remain in the 
water. Can you give us an example of something that--I know a 
number of people have asked questions about what is urgent, but 
what are examples of common toxins that have been studied and 
not addressed?
    Ms. Wu. Well, I think perchlorate is probably the best 
example, because it is really the only one that EPA tried to 
get through this whole process, which is even as far back as 
like the nineties we knew that it had harmful health impacts 
for people, especially pregnant women who were exposed to it. 
And we also knew that it was in the drinking water of millions 
of Americans.
    And then as EPA was trying to figure out how to set the 
standards and what the numbers should be, you know, there were 
a lot of points where industry could influence that uncertainty 
and influence the science and, you know, try to change it. And 
EPA even missed its statutory deadline for when it needs to 
propose and finalize these standards. And it took a lawsuit 
from NRDC to try to get them to say that they were going to set 
one, and now we are seeing this administration try to backtrack 
on that.
    So, you know, perchlorate is the best example, because it 
is the only one that EPA has tried to get through this, and we 
can see we are, you know, how many years out and we still 
haven't seen one from them.
    Ms. Schakowsky. Let me ask you this: I work pretty closely 
with the employees at EPA in Chicago in Region 5, and they have 
been pretty much decimated staff-wise. Has this been a problem 
just that the EPA does not have the personnel it needs to do 
the kind of oversight and to move things more quickly?
    Ms. Wu. I don't know the total answer to your question. You 
know, for some of these, like you said, it has been decades of 
science and assessments that EPA has done. So what is happening 
to them right now shouldn't have impacted, say, you know, 10 
years ago, when they could have embarked on this, or even 
earlier. Maybe it is impacting it now, but, again, that doesn't 
really explain like the decades of delay.
    Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you. I do think that they feel like 
they are hamstrung in doing today's job to protect our water, 
because they have lost so much personnel, and I want to thank 
all of you.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentle lady yields back. I note that 
Representative Walden, the full committee ranking member, has 
returned. So we recognize Representative Walden for 5 minutes, 
please.
    Mr. Walden. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And it 
has been a terrific hearing.
    Ms. VanDe Hei, many advocates for overhaul of the current 
drinking water regulatory system have argued the EPA has not 
taken contaminant from start to finish through the system 
established in the 1996 amendment in a way that results in new 
Federal regulation.
    When the 1996 amendments were created, what was the focus 
of that effort?
    Ms. VanDe Hei. There were two focuses of that effort. The 
first was to clean up what hadn't been done under the 1986 
amendment, and those were the most important ones that didn't 
get done. And that was the disinfection byproduct/
cryptosporidium rule that needed to be done.
    And so the statute not only set a deadline, it gave them 
the tools in which to do that. They needed to use a riskless 
tradeoff in order to develop those two rules together. You 
couldn't have lowering the disinfection and increasing 
microbial risk or vice versa unintentionally.
    So it took the contaminants that were of most concern and I 
think the hardest ones to do and put them in the statute and 
did set deadlines, but it also gave them the tools in which to 
do that. And those took time. Those took time.
    Since then, they have revised or at least are attempting to 
revise the lead and copper rule. We could go around and around 
about the problems with that or the good parts of it, but there 
is no doubt to me that it is a complicated rulemaking.
    The purpose of that amendment was to set the criteria for 
EPA to use to set proposed standards when there were none in 
the 1986 statute. And so that was really the second key 
priority to the development of those amendments.
    I think I lost Mr. Walden.
    Mr. Shimkus. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Walden is having connection 
issues. So I am not sure what your response will be, but he is 
not connected anymore.
    Mr. Tonko. Yes, why don't we go to Mr. McNerney now and we 
will come back to Mr. Walden, or is he back?
    Mr. Walden. Yes, I think I am back, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Tonko. OK, I am sorry.
    Mr. Walden. Yes, it kicked me out. I did nothing.
    Mr. Tonko. We believe you.
    Mr. Walden. Yes, to effect this.
    Since 1996, EPA has actually taken significant regulatory 
action to control contaminants in drinking water. These do 
include arsenic, total coliform, stage two disinfection 
byproducts, surface water treatment and filter backwash. And 
the agency is aiming to finish the lead and copper rule.
    Do you agree with me that, regarding public health 
protection, these are significant rules, Ms. VanDe Hei, and 
why?
    Ms. VanDe Hei. They are very significant rules, and they 
are very significant because they address issues of public 
health concern.
    The question of disinfection byproducts and microbial 
contamination, those are real issues. Arsenic is a real issue. 
It occurs in particularly closed systems and groundwater wells.
    The total coliform rule is important to how well we treat 
our water and can get it through the pipes and into the homes 
without being contaminated. So.
    The rules that were done were essential.
    Mr. Walden. All right. Thank you.
    I have one final question, Mr. Chairman, and that is the 
agency, I think, deserves some credit for the good work these 
professionals have done. They made a conscious choice to take 
care of these issues because they are public health priorities. 
And I think it is unfair to act as if EPA should have put these 
regulations off to pursue other individual contaminant 
regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act.
    So, Ms. VanDe Hei, how would you characterize the impact of 
these rules on protecting public health from treated drinking 
water?
    Are you muted, by chance? Yes. We want to hear your words.
    Ms. VanDe Hei. I just muted myself rather than unmuted 
myself.
    I think they were achieved, and the reason they didn't get 
done under the 1986 amendment was because they were difficult. 
You had to make difficult choices, but they had to be done. I 
mean, I think everybody recognized that those contaminants or 
those processes needed to be addressed, updated, done in order 
to ensure that the water was safe to drink.
    And then they were to move on to the rest of the 
environment rulemaking process, issuing the factors that were 
outlined in the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1996.
    Mr. Walden. All right. Thank you.
    And, Mr. Chairman, thank you for your indulgence in letting 
me log back on after I got kicked out.
    So, we appreciate all the witnesses and their testimony and 
the answers to our questions and the good advice and counsel 
you give the committee.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you. The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. 
McNerney, for 5 minutes, please.
    Mr. McNerney. Well, I thank the chairman and I thank the 
ranking member for this hearing and the witnesses. It has been 
very informative, so I appreciate what we have learned so far.
    Ms. Wu, in your testimony you highlighted that the 
vulnerable populations have often been left unprotected by 
EPA's civil process. How important is it to provide explicit 
guidance to the EPA, not only consider but to protect 
vulnerable subpopulations in their standards?
    Ms. Wu. I think it is really important that they are 
explicit about it. The way that they think about some of the 
regulations, if you don't consider, you know, the special needs 
of vulnerable populations like infants or children--they are 
not small adults. They really are different. They are a lot 
more susceptible to a different gamut.
    So, you know, it has to really take them into consideration 
and these other vulnerable populations in order to protect 
them.
    Mr. McNerney. Not only consider them, but actually to 
provide in their rulemaking.
    Ms. Wu. Exactly.
    Mr. McNerney. Thank you.
    Ms. VanDe Hei, in your opinion, do our drinking water 
systems face challenges in adapting their infrastructure to the 
effects of climate change and extreme weather?
    Ms. VanDe Hei. They definitely do. Drinking water systems 
across the country will face challenges from climate change and 
extreme weather, such as seawater intrusion into drinking water 
sources, due to rising sea level and more frequent extreme 
storms battering infrastructure, and prolonged drought that 
threatens water supplies.
    A decade ago, a report found that the cost of adapting to 
these impacts across the Nation's water and wastewater systems 
was $1 trillion over four years. And that was some time ago 
that those cost estimates were done, and I think it is even 
greater now.
    And I think what is even more important, I think that we 
are seeing the impacts of climate change, particularly around 
the seacoast and particularly in the arid southwest. But water 
systems will face large challenges, big challenges in adapting 
to those things, and they have to do it now. As many of you 
know, you can't change the structure of a water system in a----
    Mr. McNerney. All right, right.
    Ms. VanDe Hei. You have to be caring for the experience of 
that water system over time and as funds are available to 
improve the infrastructure.
    Mr. McNerney. OK. Well, thank you for that answer.
    Ms. Wu, this is a question that Ms. Barragan touched on. I 
just want to ask it again, because I think it needs emphasis.
    What are the problems that arise when we leave the decision 
as to whether it would be, quote, meaningful to regulate a 
contaminant up to the full judgment of the EPA administrator?
    Ms. Wu. I think what ends up is that it is almost based on 
the political leanings of the administrator and that you aren't 
necessarily focused on the science and on, you know, the 
technical assessments that the agency has done if then, after 
knowing that there are adverse health effects associated with a 
contaminant and knowing that it is showing up in people's water 
at a level that is of concern, that then one person, one 
administrator could make a political decision not to take any 
action.
    Mr. McNerney. Thank you. Well, in your testimony, you speak 
of the importance of adding various triggers that will compel 
the EPA to act and better protect public health. What might 
some of these triggers look like?
    Ms. Wu. There could be different ones. So you could say, 
for example, if we know that a certain contaminant is showing 
up at levels above some scientifically derived number. Maybe it 
is the World Health Organization has a health advisory number 
or ATSDR has some number, but it is showing up at levels above 
that number. It is in some number--I will let you all pick 
that, 100,000, a million, whatever it is--in a certain number 
of States, that maybe that is an automatic trigger that sets in 
place, like, we need a regulation for this.
    It could be that a governor or a citizen could petition for 
standards, and that would show the same thing. And that there 
is some presumption then on EPA that they are going to set a 
standard unless there is clear and convincing evidence that 
they don't meet these statutory requirements. You know, it 
could also, you know, be something like that.
    But, you know, even the idea of having Governors do the 
petitioning is something that is contemplated in other 
statutes. It is contemplated in the Safe Drinking Water Act. So 
it is not unusual.
    Mr. McNerney. Good. I am glad you brought up Governors, 
because I was going to ask that myself.
    Ms. VanDe Hei, you noted in your testimony how confusing it 
is between the maximum contaminant level goals and the maximum 
contaminant levels or treatment technique. Can you speak to the 
importance of reform that makes the drinking water regulations 
understandable to the general public?
    Ms. VanDe Hei. If I had my preferences a long time ago, 
there would be one number. Having two numbers sitting out 
there, and one was intended to be an aspirational goal and it 
has now become the health-based number, with the MCL being 
something else, when, in fact, the MCL is the standard by which 
water is judged, that it meets that standard, not if it meets 
the goal.
    Like I said earlier, some carcinogens and other 
contaminants today, the MCLG is zero. Well, as detection 
methods get better and better and better, we still will never 
get to zero. Do those detection measures indicate public health 
concerns? No.
    Mr. McNerney. Thank you.
    My time has expired. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Tonko. OK. The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentle lady from Michigan. 
Representative Dingell, you are recognized for 5 minutes, 
please.
    Mrs. Dingell. Thank you, Chairman Tonko, and thanks for 
holding this very important hearing.
    My other colleagues have touched upon many other areas I am 
worried about, so today I want to focus on the strong need for 
Federal leadership and the establishment of a national drinking 
water standard for PFAS, which has not happened, and in that 
absence the States have had to act.
    Michigan is one of the States that has been hit the 
hardest. In fact, we have more than 100 contamination sites 
now. Many of them are in my district. But our State is stepping 
up and leading. Last week, we had to do our own maximum 
contaminant level standard for seven PFAS chemicals, which will 
go into effect or is expected to go into effect in early 
August.
    I would like to start with Ms. Chard. In the specific case 
of Michigan, can you share with this committee about how much 
time and money Michigan had to invest to set its own MCLs for 
PFAS chemicals because the Federal Government failed to 
establish a standard?
    Ms. Chard. I can tell you it is a significant amount of 
dollars. I do not know the cost for their epidemiologists and 
their risk assessment. I know in talking to my counterparts, 
they talk about the numbers in hundreds of thousands of dollars 
to do that. So I apologize. I don't have those numbers to 
provide you.
    Mrs. Dingell. So not only are States being forced to do 
this, but cities and local drinking water utilities are also 
having to act, in the absence of Federal standards. In Ann 
Arbor, the city's water utility has been a leader and on the 
forefront of mitigating PFAS.
    Ms. Chard, can you say how are water utilities nationwide 
acting to protect consumers from PFAS chemicals in the absence 
of a national drinking water standard, and what do water 
utilities still need from the Federal Government to address 
this crisis?
    Ms. Chard. So water utilities are taking action through the 
types of treatment they install. They may install over and 
above what they were required in order to meet those limits 
that are established nationwide. They may choose one treatment 
technology over another. They may choose specific training for 
their staff in order to do better treatment beyond that which 
is required that will address some of those PFAS or other 
emerging contaminants of concern.
    Mrs. Dingell. Would you agree--and just answer this 
quickly--that when it has been found in the water, the local 
water, that those utilities feel an extra pressure to do 
something since the Federal Government is not?
    Ms. Chard. They definitely feel pressure to take an action 
to protect their citizens.
    Mrs. Dingell. So the Great Lakes, as my colleague Jan 
Schakowsky mentioned, are a shared resource for many States, 
including Canada as well. So isn't it critical that each State 
across the region is addressing PFAS comprehensively and in 
tandem together from State to State, based on a strong Federal 
protective standard?
    And what are the harms to the Great Lakes region and 
nationwide in the absence of setting a maximum contaminant 
standard for PFAS?
    Ms. Chard. The States routinely work together, trying to 
protect their region of the country, their citizens. Water 
bodies don't recognize lines on a map. And for the Great Lakes, 
as with other common water bodies, the States, the Federal 
Government, or international partnerships have to develop.
    Mrs. Dingell. So, Ms. Wu, in the minute I have, let me turn 
to you. Is EPA at all close to establishing a national safe 
drinking water standard for PFOA or PFAS within the statutory 
deadlines?
    Ms. Wu. Not close, no.
    Mrs. Dingell. Do you think, both Ms. Chard or Ms. Wu, are 
there any specific reforms to the Safe Drinking Water Act that 
can be made today that would help speed up this process? I 
mean, we know when people drink water with PFAS, it doesn't 
leave their body. And we don't have a standard. We have 
guidelines.
    Do you think there is something that we could do to speed 
up setting a national protective drinking water standard when 
we know the country needs one? Either. Any.
    Ms. Chard. I guess my comment is not specific to the PFAS 
compounds, but, you know, we could look at occurrence data, how 
frequently a contaminant shows up across the country, and focus 
efforts on that area as opposed to trying to look at a large 
suite of contaminants.
    Mrs. Dingell. Thank you. Obviously, I am out of time.
    I yield back, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentle lady yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from California, 
Representative Ruiz.
    Dr. Ruiz, you have 5 minutes, please.
    Mr. Ruiz. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Thank you to all the witnesses for testifying here today. 
You are in the home stretch.
    Safe and healthy water is essential for our public health. 
I am a doctor, I am a public health expert, but it doesn't take 
a doctor of public health to really stress that safe and 
healthy water and clean water is essential for our public 
health.
    It is imperative during this pandemic that we make the Safe 
Drinking Water Act work, to ensure vulnerable populations who 
have been devastated by COVID-19, like farm workers, low-income 
communities, and Native Americans, have access to safe and 
clean drinking water.
    We must have strong standards in place to prevent 
situations like the one in my district, where residents in an 
oasis mobile home park had arsenic in their water. Because of 
the EPA and their guidelines, they were able to identify that 
there was a problem and bring the water to the mobile home park 
to compliance. Without those guidelines and oversight, my 
constituents might still be drinking contaminated arsenic in 
their water.
    But protecting our communities from harmful drinking water 
is just the first step. Clean and safe drinking water must be 
accessible and affordable. Water service should not be shut off 
because families can't pay their water bills.
    The COVID-19 pandemic has put many families in my district 
and across the country under financial strain, and they are 
struggling to pay their utility bills. We should be doing more 
to help those families pay their water bills right now, and we 
should do more in the Safe Drinking Water Act to ensure water 
affordability.
    When the House passed the HEROES Act in May, we included 
provisions to help pay water bills for struggling families 
during the pandemic.
    So my question for Ms. Chard is, do you support including 
water utilities assistance for low-income families in our COVID 
response?
    Ms. Chard. I think it is critically important that we have 
to consider the availability of clean, safe drinking water for 
all of our citizens, especially in this time of the pandemic.
    It is very much appropriate, in my opinion, that water 
utility funding, the ability of citizens to pay their water 
bill be a part of our national response.
    Mr. Ruiz. Ms. Wu, what are your thoughts? Should the next 
COVID response bill have assistance for water affordability?
    Ms. Wu. Yes, I think it is absolutely critical to have the 
assistance for affordability in addition to, you know, we have 
seen some moratorium around shutoffs for water, but there also 
needs to be assistance beyond just the end of this public 
health crisis, so that people, you know, the arrearages for the 
payments, you know, that are also adding up, that they aren't 
suddenly shut off from the water once the public health crisis 
is over, that we have a way that people are able to continue to 
afford and get access to water.
    Mr. Ruiz. I agree, because this is not just about relief 
during the pandemic. Water affordability was a concern even 
before the pandemic. Even as the Federal Government spends 
hundreds of millions of dollars per year on assistance for 
water utilities, water bills in some communities are far too 
high. If we strengthen standards to make our water safer, these 
affordability issues may get worse.
    So my question for you, Ms. Wu, is, how do we use the 
Federal assistance under the Safe Drinking Water Act to make 
sure that our drinking water is safe and affordable for all 
communities?
    Ms. Wu. I think it is important that assistance is provided 
to the communities who need it to be able to meet the standards 
that we would want our drinking water to meet, so that they are 
providing affordable water to all of their customers.
    And, again, I think that the polluters, who are the ones 
who are creating all these problems, ought to be footing the 
bill for all of this. It shouldn't be on the utilities and it 
shouldn't be on the ratepayers.
    Mr. Ruiz. So my last question, this committee held a 
hearing earlier this month on issues facing Tribal communities, 
including the limited access to safe and affordable water, 
particularly in the Navaho Nation.
    My last question for Ms. VanDe Hei and Ms. Chard: How can 
we reform the Safe Drinking Water Act to increase access to 
safe water for Tribal communities? We will start with you, Ms. 
VanDe Hei.
    Ms. VanDe Hei. OK. I think in the same way that we are 
trying to ensure safe and affordable water to everyone. Tribal 
communities are no different, although they are sovereign 
States, and so I am not sure what difficulties there may be 
there. But----
    Mr. Ruiz. I would recommend reviewing the last hearing, 
because there are unique structural barriers for them to get 
clean water infrastructure and safe water infrastructure that I 
do believe we need to address.
    Ms. Chard, if you can answer in 5 seconds, because my time 
is up and I am going to yield back.
    Ms. Chard. I would say we take advantage of the DWSRF 
program and use that with the Tribal set-asides to help the 
Tribal communities.
    Mr. Ruiz. Thank you very much. Good idea.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back.
    I believe that completes the list of colleagues, members 
who chose to ask questions of our witnesses.
    I request unanimous consent to enter the following into the 
record: First, we have a report from National Partnership 
entitled ``Clean Water and Reproductive Justice: Lack of Access 
Harms Women of Color,'' then a letter from the city of Detroit 
Water and Sewerage Department, also a letter from the 
Metropolitan District of Hartford, Connecticut, a letter from 
the American Water Works Association, and a letter from the Ute 
Indian Tribe.
    Without objection?
    Mr. Shimkus. Without objection, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Tonko. So ordered.
    [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
    Mr. Tonko. I would like to thank our witnesses for joining 
us for today's hearing. You added much to the discussion, and 
we thank you for that, thank you for your time and thank you 
certainly for your experience and expertise that you shared 
with us.
    I want to reiterate that we are serious about this effort. 
This is just the beginning of the process, but we want to work 
together. We should all be able to agree that our drinking 
water should be safe for each and every one of us across this 
country.
    I remind members that, pursuant to committee rules, they 
have ten business days by which to submit additional questions 
for the record to be answered by our witnesses. I ask that our 
witnesses respond promptly to any such questions that you may 
receive.
    And, with that, again, we thank you for spending your time 
with us today, and at this time the subcommittee is adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 1:37 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
                              [all]