[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]




 
THE CLEAN FUTURE ACT AND DRINKING WATER: LEGISLATION TO ENSURE DRINKING 
                        WATER IS SAFE AND CLEAN

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

                            VIRTUAL HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

             SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND CLIMATE CHANGE

                                 OF THE

                    COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                              MAY 25, 2021

                               __________
                               

                           Serial No. 117-34
                           
                           
 [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]       
 
                           


     Published for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce

                   govinfo.gov/committee/house-energy
                        energycommerce.house.gov
                        
                        
                        
                        
                            ______
 
              U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 
 48-960PDF          WASHINGTON : 2022                         
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                    COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE

                     FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
                                 Chairman
BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois              CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington
ANNA G. ESHOO, California              Ranking Member
DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado              FRED UPTON, Michigan
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          BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky
KATHY CASTOR, Florida                DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia
JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland           ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois
JERRY McNERNEY, California           H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia
PETER WELCH, Vermont                 GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida
PAUL TONKO, New York                 BILL JOHNSON, Ohio
YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York           BILLY LONG, Missouri
KURT SCHRADER, Oregon                LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana
TONY CARDENAS, California            MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
RAUL RUIZ, California                RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina
SCOTT H. PETERS, California          TIM WALBERG, Michigan
DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan             EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
MARC A. VEASEY, Texas                JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire         GARY J. PALMER, Alabama
ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois, Vice       NEAL P. DUNN, Florida
    Chair                            JOHN R. CURTIS, Utah
NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California    DEBBBIE LESKO, Arizona
A. DONALD McEACHIN, Virginia         GREG PENCE, Indiana
LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware       DAN CRENSHAW, Texas
DARREN SOTO, Florida                 JOHN JOYCE, Pennsylvania
TOM O'HALLERAN, Arizona              KELLY ARMSTRONG, North Dakota
KATHLEEN M. RICE, New York
ANGIE CRAIG, Minnesota
KIM SCHRIER, Washington
LORI TRAHAN, Massachusetts
LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas
                                 ------                                

                           Professional Staff

                   JEFFREY C. CARROLL, Staff Director
                TIFFANY GUARASCIO, Deputy Staff Director
                  NATE HODSON, Minority Staff Director
             Subcommittee on Environment and Climate Change

                          PAUL TONKO, New York
                                 Chairman
DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado              DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia
JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois               Ranking Member
JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland           BILL JOHNSON, Ohio
YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York           MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
RAUL RUIZ, California, Vice Chair    RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina
SCOTT H. PETERS, California          EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan             JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California    GARY J. PALMER, Alabama
A. DONALD McEACHIN, Virginia         JOHN R. CURTIS, Utah
LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware       DAN CRENSHAW, Texas
DARREN SOTO, Florida                 CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 
TOM O'HALLERAN, Arizona                  (ex officio)
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. David B. McKinley, a Representative in Congress from the 
  State of West Virginia, 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. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, a Representative in Congress from 
  the State of Washington, opening statement.....................     9
    Prepared statement...........................................    10

                               Witnesses

Jennifer McLain, Ph.D., Director, Office of Ground Water and 
  Drinking Water, Office of Water, Environmental Protection 
  Agency.........................................................    12
    Prepared statement...........................................    14
    Answers to submitted questions...............................   125

                           Submitted Material

H.R. 616, the Emergency Water is a Human Right Act, submitted by 
  Mr. Tonko\1\...................................................
H.R. 1512, the Climate Leadership and Environmental Action for 
  our Nation's Future Act, submitted by Mr. Tonko\1\.............
H.R. 3238, the Colonia Infrastructure Improvement Act of 2021, 
  submitted by Mr. Tonko\1\......................................
H.R. 3267, the Protect Drinking Water from PFAS Act of 2021, 
  submitted by Mr. Tonko\1\......................................
H.R. 3282, the Drinking Water Funding for the Future Act of 2021, 
  submitted by Mr. Tonko\1\......................................
H.R. 3286, the Emergency Order Assurance, Safety, and Inspection 
  of water Systems, submitted by Mr. Tonko\1\....................
H.R. 3291, the Assistance, Quality, and Affordability Act of 
  2021, submitted by Mr. Tonko\1\................................
H.R. 3292, the Water Debt Relief Act of 2021, submitted by Mr. 
  Tonko\1\.......................................................
H.R. 3293, the Low-Income Water Customer Assistance Programs Act 
  of 2021, submitted by Mr. Tonko\1\.............................
H.R. 3300, the Get the Lead Out Act, submitted by Mr. Tonko\1\...
Report of the Environment America Research and Policy Center and 
  U.S. PIRG Education Fund, ``Get the Lead Out: Ensuring Safe 
  Drinking Water for Our Children at School,'' by John Rumpler 
  and Emma Dietz, March 2019, submitted by Mr. Tonko\2\..........

----------

\1\ The bills have been retained in committee files and are available 
at https://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/
ByEvent.aspx?EventID=112686.
\2\ The report has been retained in committee files and is available at 
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF18/20210525/112686/HHRG-117-IF18-
20210525-SD003.pdf.
Blog post of October 14, 2020, ``No more pipe dreams: EPA must 
  order removal of all lead service lines,'' by John Rumpler, 
  Environment America Research and Policy Center, submitted by 
  Mr. Tonko......................................................    52
Letter of February 13, 2019, from John Rumpler, Clean Water 
  Program Director, Environment America, et al., to David Ross, 
  Assistant Administrator for Water, Environmental Protection 
  Agency, submitted by Mr. Tonko.................................    55
Letter of May 20, 2021, from Diane VanDe Hei, Chief Executive 
  Officer, Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies, and Adam 
  Krantz, Chief Executive Officer, National Association of Clean 
  Water Agencies, to Ms. Blunt Rochester and Rep. John Katko, 
  submitted by Ms. Blunt Rochester...............................    62
Report of the New York League of Conservation Voters Education 
  Fund, ``5 is the New 15: A Case for Reducing the Action Level 
  for Lead in New York State's Public School Drinking Water 
  Program from 15 parts per billion (ppb) to 5 ppb,'' submitted 
  by Ms. Clarke..................................................    63
Letter of May 24, 2021, from G. Tracy Mehan III, Executive 
  Director, Government Affairs, American Water Works Association, 
  et al., to Mr. Pallone, et al., submitted by Mr. Tonko.........    77
Letter of May 24, 2021, from Renee Willette and Sara Aminzadeh, 
  Co-Interim Chief Executive Officers, U.S. Water Alliance, to 
  Ms. Blunt Rochester and Rep. John Katko, submitted by Ms. Blunt 
  Rochester......................................................    80
Letter of May 21, 2021, from Emily Feenstra, Managing Director, 
  Government Relations & Infrastructure Initiatives, American 
  Society of Civil Engineers, to Ms. Blunt Rochester and Rep. 
  John Katko, submitted by Ms. Blunt Rochester...................    81
Letter of May 24, 2021, from Billy McKinney, Mayor, Zion, IL, and 
  Board Member, Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative, 
  to Ms. Blunt Rochester and Rep. John Katko, submitted by Ms. 
  Blunt Rochester................................................    83
Statement of Rep. Veronica Escobar, submitted by Mr. Tonko.......    84
Letter of May 24, 2021, from Kalima Rose, Cochair, Water Equity 
  and Climate Resilience Caucus, et al., to Ms. Blunt Rochester 
  and Rep. John Michael Katko, submitted by Ms. Blunt Rochester..    86
Letter of May 24, 2021, from Mark Magana, Founding President and 
  Chief Executive Officer, GreenLatinos, to Ms. Blunt Rochester 
  and Rep. John Michael Katko, submitted by Ms. Blunt Rochester..    88
Letter of May 25, 2021, Mike Watson, President, and Mark Alpert, 
  Executive Director, Water Design-Build Council, to Mr. Tonko 
  and Mr. McKinley, submitted by Mr. Tonko.......................    89
Statement of Rep. Rashida Tlaib, submitted by Mr. Tonko..........    91
Statement of the American Exploration and Production Council, 
  ``AXPC has significant concerns with H.R. 1512, the CLEAN 
  Future Act of 2021,'' submitted by Mr. McKinley................    93
Statement of the American Exploration and Production Council, 
  ``Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA): States Have Primary 
  Enforcement Over Safe Operations to Protect Water,'' submitted 
  by Mr. McKinley................................................    96
Article of May 19, 2021, ``There's no need to control PFAS as a 
  class, industry scientists say,'' by Cheryl Hogue, Chemical & 
  Engineering News, submitted by Mr. McKinley....................    98
Letter of April 15, 2021, from Dan Naatz, Executive Vice 
  President, Independent Petroleum Association of America, to Mr. 
  Tonko and Mr. McKinley, submitted by Mr. McKinley..............   100
Letter of April 14, 2021, from Michael J. (Mike) Page, Executive 
  Director, Ground Water Protection Council, to Mr. Tonko and Mr. 
  McKinley, submitted by Mr. McKinley............................   112
Letter of May 24, 2021, from Lori Wrotenbery, Executive Director, 
  Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission, to Mr. Tonko and Mr. 
  McKinley, submitted by Mr. McKinley............................   115
Statement of the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission, 
  ``Resolution 21.051: Urging the Federal Government to Work with 
  States in the Spirit of Cooperative Federalism During Review of 
  the Federal Fossil Fuel Program,'' by Lori Wrotenbery, 
  Executive Director, submitted by Mr. McKinley..................   116
Statement of the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission, 
  ``Resolution 21.052: Pertaining to The CLEAN Future Act and Any 
  Substantially Similar Legislation or Policies,'' by Lori 
  Wrotenbery, Executive Director, submitted by Mr. McKinley......   119
Article of May 25, 2021, ``CLEAN Future Act Lays Groundwork for 
  Backdoor Fracking Ban,'' by Mike Palicz, Americans for Tax 
  Reform, submitted by Mr. McKinley..............................   122


THE CLEAN FUTURE ACT AND DRINKING WATER: LEGISLATION TO ENSURE DRINKING 
                        WATER IS SAFE AND CLEAN

                              ----------                              


                         TUESDAY, MAY 25, 2021

                  House of Representatives,
    Subcommittee on Environment and Climate Change,
                          Committee on Energy and Commerce,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 11:33 a.m., via 
Cisco Webex online video conferencing, Hon. Paul Tonko 
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
    Members present: Representatives Tonko, DeGette, 
Schakowsky, Sarbanes, Clarke, Ruiz, Peters, Dingell, Barragan, 
McEachin, Blunt Rochester, Soto, O'Halleran, Pallone (ex 
officio), McKinley (subcommittee ranking member), Johnson, 
Hudson, Carter, Palmer, Curtis, Crenshaw, and Rodgers (ex 
officio).
    Also present: Representatives Castor and Burgess.
    Staff present: Jeffrey C. Carroll, Staff Director; 
Jacqueline Cohen, Chief Environment Counsel; Adam Fischer, 
Professional Staff Member; Waverly Gordon, General Counsel; 
Jessica Grandberry, Staff Assistant; Tiffany Guarascio, Deputy 
Staff Director; Anthony Gutierrez, Professional Staff Member; 
Caitlin Haberman, Professional Staff Member; Perry Hamilton, 
Clerk; Zach Kahan, Deputy Director, Outreach and Member 
Service; Rick Kessler, Senior Advisor and Staff Director, 
Energy and Environment; Mackenzie Kuhl, Digital Assistant; 
Brendan Larkin, Policy Coordinator; Dustin J. Maghamfar, Air 
and Climate Counsel; Elysa Montfort, Press Secretary; Kaitlyn 
Peel, Digital Director; Tim Robinson, Chief Counsel; Chloe 
Rodriguez, Clerk; Nikki Roy, Policy Coordinator; Andrew 
Souvall, Director of Communications, Outreach and Member 
Services; Rebecca Tomilchik, Policy Analyst; Sarah Burke, 
Minority Deputy Staff Director; Michael Cameron, Minority 
Policy Analyst, Consumer Protection and Commerce, Energy, 
Environment; Jerry Couri, Minority Deputy Chief Counsel for 
Environment; Nate Hodson, Minority Staff Director; Peter 
Kielty, Minority General Counsel; Mary Martin, Minority Chief 
Counsel, Energy and Environment; Brandon Mooney, Minority 
Deputy Chief Counsel for Energy; Peter Spencer, Minority Senior 
Professional Staff Member; and Michael Taggert, Minority Policy 
Director.
    Mr. Tonko. Good morning, the Subcommittee on Environment 
and Climate Change will now come to order.
    Today the subcommittee is holding a hearing entitled ``The 
CLEAN Future Act and Drinking Water: Legislation to Ensure 
Drinking Water Is Safe and Clean.'' Due to the COVID-19 public 
health emergency, today's hearing is being held remotely. All 
Members and witnesses will be participating via video 
conferencing as part of our hearing. Microphones will be sets 
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 Rebecca Tomilchik at the email address we 
have provided to staff. All documents will be entered into the 
record at the conclusion of today's hearing.
    I now recognize myself for 5 minutes for an opening 
statement.

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

    Last week, Ranking Member McKinley and I were able to 
participate in the Bipartisan Policy Center's American 
Congressional Exchange program. Mr. McKinley was kind enough to 
host me in West Virginia for a few days. And thank you, David. 
And I really appreciate all the hospitality he showed me as I 
tried to better understand some of the challenges facing our 
constituents and in this case his constituents. I will not 
pretend that a short visit will solve all of our disagreements. 
But it indeed was eye opening.
    One thing that we consistently heard was the need for 
infrastructure investments and this subcommittee can play a 
critical role in supporting our Nation's struggling water 
systems. Today we will consider some 10 bills, including 
several Republican-led and bipartisan bills to support the 
infrastructure safety and affordability of our Nation's 
drinking water.
    I always am quoted with ``every life and every job depend 
on access to clean drinking water.'' As we consider how to make 
our economic recovery robust and equitable, supporting our 
long-neglected water systems must be a cornerstone of that 
effort, because the needs are indeed immense.
    In its 2021 report card, the American Society of Civil 
Engineers rated the Nation's drinking water infrastructure as 
C-minus, and the EPA's 2018 Needs Survey estimated that an 
investment of over $472 billion is required to maintain our 
drinking water systems over the next 20 years.
    So every member of this subcommittee should be accustomed 
to local news reports of water main breaks, boil-water 
advisories and service disruptions. And a few Members are sadly 
all too familiar with major contaminations from lead, from 
PFAS, and other serious threats to public health. We have 700 
main breaks every day on average. We lose 6 billion gallons of 
treated water through leaks every day. And there are hundreds 
of thousands of schools and children--facilities delivering 
water through lead components to American children every day. 
This is unacceptable. And Congress knows that it is 
unacceptable.
    In recent years, there have been bipartisan efforts to 
increase Federal assistance to local water systems. But the 
needs have continued to grow. And the financial stress on local 
governments and their water customers have only become more 
acute due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
    President Biden's American Jobs Plan recognizes this 
massive need and includes $111 billion for drinking and 
wastewater infrastructure, including fully replacing every lead 
service line and addressing PFAS. The CLEAN Future Act invests 
$105 billion over 10 years for our Nation's drinking water 
systems. Including $53 billion for the Drinking Water State 
Revolving Fund, $45 billion to fully replace lead service 
lines, and $5 billion to provide assistance to systems with 
PFAS contamination.
    Other proposals under consideration today seek to address 
near- and long-term affordability challenges and support 
financially distressed water systems. The AQUA Act, which I 
introduced, would make it easier for EPA to set national 
standards for emerging contaminants like PFAS in the future. 
This is what today's bills are about: making our drinking water 
safer, more reliable and more affordable, protecting our 
children from lead exposure at their homes and their schools, 
and ending the threat of having water service shut off amid 
this prolonged public health crisis.
    These are not controversial things. They are fundamental 
government services that today local governments are struggling 
to provide. If you do not believe that the Federal Government 
should be stepping up and doing its fair share for this 
essential infrastructure, what exactly then should we be doing?
    So I hope today can be the beginning of a conversation that 
allows us to find consensus that will deliver the assistance 
needed by our local communities and constituents to address 
their water needs.
    I certainly welcome Dr. Jennifer McLain, from the Office of 
Ground Water and Drinking Water, to this subcommittee. We look 
forward, Doctor, to your perspective on these bills and our 
Nation's drinking water issues broadly. And we look forward to 
working with EPA to refine these proposals as they move forward 
in the House.
    With that again, welcome to the subcommittee. And to all, 
let's have an engaging conversation on water infrastructure.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Tonko follows:]

                 Prepared Statement of Hon. Paul Tonko

    Last week, Ranking Member McKinley and I were able to 
participate in the Bipartisan Policy Center's American 
Congressional Exchange Program.
    Mr. McKinley was kind enough to host me in West Virginia 
for a few days, and I really appreciate all the hospitality he 
showed me as I tried to better understand some of the 
challenges facing his constituents.
    I will not pretend that a short visit will solve all our 
disagreements, but it was eye opening.
    One thing that we consistently heard was the need for 
infrastructure investments, and this subcommittee can play a 
critical role in supporting our Nation's struggling water 
systems.
    Today, we will consider 10 bills, including several 
Republican-led and bipartisan bills, to support the 
infrastructure, safety, and affordability of our Nation's 
drinking water.
    I always say that every life and every job depend on access 
to clean drinking water. As we consider how to make our 
economic recovery robust and equitable, supporting our long-
neglected water systems must be a cornerstone of that effort.
    Because the needs are immense.
    In its 2021 report card, the American Society of Civil 
Engineers graded the Nation's drinking water infrastructure a C 
minus.
    And the EPA's 2018 Needs Survey estimated that an 
investment of over $472 billion is required to maintain our 
drinking water systems over the next 20 years.
    Every member of this subcommittee should be accustomed to 
local news reports of water main breaks, boil water advisories, 
and service disruptions.
    And a few Members are sadly all too familiar with major 
contaminations from lead, PFAS, and other serious threats to 
public health.
    We have 700 main breaks every day. We lose 6 billion 
gallons of treated water through leaks every day. And there are 
hundreds of thousands of schools and childcare facilities 
delivering water through lead components to American children 
every day.
    This is unacceptable. And Congress knows it is 
unacceptable.
    In recent years, there have been bipartisan efforts to 
increase Federal assistance to local water systems, but the 
needs have continued to grow.
    And the financial stress on local governments and their 
water customers have only become more acute due to the COVID-19 
pandemic.
    President Biden's American Jobs Plan recognizes this 
massive need and includes $111 billion for drinking and waste 
water infrastructure, including fully replacing every lead 
service line and addressing PFAS.
    The CLEAN Future Act invests $105 billion over 10 years for 
our Nation's drinking water systems, including $53 billion for 
the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund, $45 billion to fully 
replace lead service lines, and $5 billion to provide 
assistance to systems with PFAS contamination.
    Other proposals under consideration today seek to address 
near- and long-term affordability challenges and support 
financially distressed water systems.
    And the AQUA Act, which I introduced, would make it easier 
for EPA to set national standards for emerging contaminants, 
like PFAS, in the future.
    This is what today's bills are about--making our drinking 
water safer, more reliable, and more affordable; protecting our 
children from lead exposure at their homes and schools; and 
ending the threat of having water service shut off amid this 
prolonged public health crisis.
    These are not controversial things.
    They are fundamental government services that today local 
governments are struggling to provide.
    If you do not believe that the Federal Government should be 
stepping up and doing its fair share for this essential 
infrastructure, what exactly should we be doing?
    So, I hope today can be the beginning of a conversation 
that allows us to find consensus that will deliver the 
assistance needed by our local communities and constituents to 
address their water needs.
    I want to welcome Dr. Jennifer McLain from the Office of 
Ground Water and Drinking Water to the subcommittee.
    We look forward to your perspective on these bills and our 
Nation's drinking water issues broadly.
    And we look forward to working with EPA to refine these 
proposals as they move forward in the House.

    Mr. Tonko. And with that I will recognize Representative 
McKinley, the ranking member of our subcommittee on Environment 
and Climate Change, for his opening statement for 5 minutes, 
please, David.

 OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID B. McKINLEY, A REPRESENTATIVE 
          IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA

    Mr. McKinley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Look, I get a kick 
out of, as a civil engineer--the only licensed civil engineer 
in Congress--I get a kick out of the fact that our committee 
and others keep referring to the ASCE report. Let's just keep 
working on that, Paul. I think is the right thing.
    And thank you again for your opening remarks about coming 
to visit in West Virginia, because you had the chance to see 
firsthand in Wheeling how using the State Revolving Fund, how 
they were putting in water lines in our streets in downtown. So 
you have seen the advantage of what has happened with it.
    So my official remarks here primarily would be that our top 
priority that I am finding--whenever I go to one of my water 
districts, their top priority is always about overcoming the 
associated costs with leaks and breaks in their lines. Their 
aging systems, maybe some of them are over 100 years old. But 
keep in mind, Paul, as we talked about when you were here, West 
Virginia is not unique. This is happening nationally. You 
already just mentioned 250,000 waterline breaks annually. It is 
700 a day.
    Now, according to the American Water Works Association, we 
are losing--because of these breaks and leaks, we are losing as 
much as 30 percent of the water. Thirty percent of the water 
that we treated. And that amount, as you pointed out, 6 billion 
gallons of lost water a day. That is costing utilities, the 
public service commissions, these groups that are just so 
underfunded, $7.6 billion is being lost that they can't get 
revenue for. They have cleaned the water, but yet it is gone, 
$7.6 billion. This 6 billion gallons is a huge amount.
    Think about that, Paul, that for the whole committee, that 
amount of water we lose every year or every day is more than 
the entire continent of Africa has available for their water 
system. Think about that. The water that we waste is more than 
they have available for consumption in the entire continent of 
Africa.
    So just imagine the hardship that all these leaks are doing 
to our public service commissions and utilities companies all 
across America. With 51,000 systems, it can't be efficient to 
be losing 30 percent. Thirty percent is not acceptable. Imagine 
if we lost 30 percent of our oil and gas in the pipelines, if 
we leaked that.
    Imagine our post offices, if they lost 30 percent of the 
mail. We have got to stop this. And according to the American 
Water Works Association, we are going to need 1.7, almost 2 
trillion dollars through 2050 to repair this infrastructure. 
And at the rate we are helping our communities and public 
services, it will take over 100 years to catch up.
    So my point, Mr. Chairman, why is Congress nibbling around 
the edges on this? We are passing bills that just whistle past 
the graveyard about these issues. Leaks and breaks cause 
heartaches. They are breaking the backs of our public service 
commissions. They simply don't have the financial resources to 
do that.
    And if you look back on it, President Obama initially 
requested $4 billion in his State Revolving Fund when he came 
to office. But then gradually he reduced that money down to 
less than $2 billion. And when we ask that--you remember, 
Tonko, in the committee when Gina McCarthy said the reason she 
did that, made the reduction, is that because our priorities 
have changed and that the funding differences should be used 
for climate change initiatives like pamphlets, literature, 
educational.
    So what I am saying is, where can Congress identify the 
fund that we need? Maybe the money is already there. Congress 
has already signed multiple COVID relief funds for our States. 
We know that the States and local government have 
unappropriated funds sitting in their respective coffers, and 
clean water is a public health issue.
    So why don't we, as part of the legislation, really be 
serious about this instead of nibbling around the mark? Why 
don't we allow the States, if they choose, to transfer some of 
the Federal COVID money to the State Revolving Fund so that we 
can expedite these repairs without having to ask for more 
money? Everyone, the water mains will continue to break all 
across America and leaks are going to continue to occur over 
the next 100 years.
    Mr. Chairman, this is not a partisan issue. We talked about 
it in West Virginia and you and I came to America deserves 
better. I think we have got a better plan than nibbling around 
the edges.
    Thank you. And I yield back the balance of my time.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. McKinley follows:]

              Prepared Statement of Hon. David B. McKinley

    Thank you. Mr. Chairman we need to set an example. If we 
want schools to be open, shouldn't we be open too? If the 
Senate and other House committees are having hybrid in-person 
hearings, who is directing you not to do the same?
    Look, everyone supports cleaning up Superfund sites. 
They're a blight on America. Unfortunately, there are over 
1,100 designated Superfund sites around the country. President 
Obama cleaned up 82 Superfund sites in 8 years, i.e., 10 sites 
per year. So do the math: It would take us over 100 years to 
get rid of all the Superfund sites, and by that time more sites 
will be added to that list.
    So what was the problem? Under Obama his focus was climate 
change--Superfund sites were neglected. Now how does that 
differ from Trump? Trump cleaned up sites at twice the annual 
rate, 20 per year.
    Trump made cleaning up these sites a priority. His task 
force developed an ``emphasis list'' so that they were 
following a plan. One that wasn't politically driven.
    As a result, sites like West Lake Landfill (Missouri), 
Diamond Alkali Company (New Jersey), Tar Creek (Oklahoma), and 
Madison County Mines (Missouri) were all taken care of. He put 
together a lean management system that made the Superfund 
process more efficient and cleanups happen faster. And he 
clearly did more outreach to communities.
    Elected officials all around the country appreciated his 
attention to their problem sites. As former chairman Walden 
mentioned in previous hearings, in a thank-you note, an elected 
official from Portland, Oregon, wrote that they had been 
waiting for years for EPA to clean up the Willamette River and 
Portland Harbor and Trump made it happen
    And according to a Politico article last year a prominent 
Superfund activist said even though she couldn't stand Trump, 
he was getting something done. She went on to say that ``Obama 
was terrible on these issues. ... and Gina McCarthy only cared 
about the climate.'' She said that until the Trump 
administration the last time she saw that much work being done 
on Superfund sites was never. Mr. Chairman this legislation 
doesn't seem to support building atop the Trump successes. But 
rather, it seems like its going to slow things down. And 
because it's tied to the CLEAN Future Act the Superfund program 
will be mired down in the climate change debate and buried 
under reams of new bureaucratic requirements; relegated to the 
back burner like it was under Obama.
    In so doing we can only expect the cleanup process to slow 
down again, with less empathy to rural communities saddled with 
the horrors of a Superfund site in their background. So, Mr. 
Chairman, don't tell me Congress is going to clean up these 
sites, show me. Thank you and I yield back.

    Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back. And again, thank you, 
Representative McKinley, for an enjoyable time in West 
Virginia, and instructive also.
    The Chair now recognizes the chair of the full committee, 
Representative Pallone, for 5 minutes for his opening 
statement. And again, thank you for the assistance on this 
issue, Chairman. You are recognized for 5 minutes.

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

    Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Chairman Tonko.
    I want to thank you for your long-standing leadership on 
drinking water issues and for calling this hearing, because 
access to safe drinking water is essential to our health and 
prosperity as a Nation. Unfortunately, it is far from 
guaranteed.
    I know our ranking member said that as well. And like many 
aspects of our lives, the COVID-19 pandemic has shown just how 
important and how fragile that access to safe drinking water 
is. We have aging infrastructure, we have tight State and local 
budgets, family budgets stretched to the limits, and climate 
change. These are all making the situation worse. But 
fortunately, the legislation we are considering today can help.
    The President has called on us to invest $111 billion on 
our Nation's water infrastructure, investments that can create 
good-paying jobs, protect public health, and strengthen 
communities. And the bills before us could deliver the 
investments and benefits envisioned in the President's American 
Job Plan and long supported by members of this committee.
    We will discuss legislation from both sides of the aisle 
that would extend important drinking water programs, including 
the State Revolving Fund as well as water resiliency, school 
drinking water, and Tribal water programs. We have multiple 
bills before us to address customer water debt, including a 
bipartisan bill that would establish permanent rate assistance 
programs to help low-income customers pay their water bills. 
And we will discuss legislation from both sides of the aisle 
that will deliver the funding called for in the American Jobs 
Plan to replace all lead service lines nationwide.
    The CLEAN Future Act, which I introduced earlier this year 
with Chairman Tonko and Rush, invests $45 billion over 10 years 
to replace all lead service lines. It also prioritizes 
replacing the lines in disadvantaged and environmental justice 
communities.
    So our States and water assistance are trying do the right 
thing to find lead service lines and replace them. And I look 
forward to hearing from the EPA today on how the Agency and 
Congress can help States and water systems get it done.
    In the past, we have had great success on this committee of 
coming together to pass funding for drinking water 
infrastructure. Unfortunately, we have made less progress 
coming together to strengthen drinking water standards and 
ensure safer drinking water for all based on those standards.
    So I hope we have reached a turning point in that effort. 
Bipartisan support for strengthening protections against lead 
and PFAS can point the way towards greater consensus on 
strengthening the law to provide safer water for all.
    At last year's hearing on standard setting under the Safe 
Drinking Water Act, I noted that almost all of our drinking 
water standards were set before the 1996 amendments to the 
statute. And the standards that have been set since then have 
all been done under special statutory provisions. So the end 
result is that, over the last 25 years, EPA has never managed 
to complete the general standard setting process called for 
under this Safe Drinking Water Act. And I hope we can agree 
that that is a problem.
    Some of the bills before us would set deadlines for 
specific drinking water standards, carving a path for health 
protective standards for PFAS, microcystin, and 1,4-Dioxane.
    The AQUA Act, which you sponsored, Chairman Tonko, and you 
mentioned it, would go further and take steps to fix the 
standard setting process for all contaminants. The narrow 
changes in that bill could make a huge difference for 
communities across the Nation. And I hope that can be part of 
the bipartisan work going forward.
    And over the last few months, I have often said that this 
moment of crisis provides us an opportunity to invest in our 
country, making us stronger, cleaner, healthier, and better 
off. Drinking water legislation is a clear example of that 
opportunity. Every family should be able to trust that the 
water coming from the tap is safe. In order to make that 
happen, we have to come together to enact real improvements to 
our drinking water systems.
    So again, I hope--I really appreciate what you are doing 
here with this hearing and the bills. You know, it is a 
question of having better standards so that the water itself is 
safe but also providing the money so we can address the 
infrastructure. And both of those are what we are trying to 
accomplish here today.
    So thank you again. And I yield back.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]

             Prepared Statement of Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr.

    I want to thank Chairman Tonko for his long-standing 
leadership on drinking water issues and for calling this 
hearing. Access to safe drinking water is essential to our 
health and prosperity as a Nation. Unfortunately, it is far 
from guaranteed. And like many aspects of our lives, the COVID-
19 pandemic has shown just how important, and how fragile, that 
access to safe drinking water is.
    Aging infrastructure, tight State and local budgets, family 
budgets stretched to the limit, and climate change are all 
making the situation worse. Fortunately, the legislation we 
will consider today can help.
    The President has called on us to invest $111 billion in 
our Nation's water infrastructure--investments that can create 
good-paying jobs, protect public health, and strengthen 
communities. The bills before us could deliver the investments 
and benefits envisioned in the President's American Jobs Plan 
and long supported by members of this committee.
    We will discuss legislation, from both sides of the aisle, 
that would extend important drinking water programs including 
the State Revolving Fund, as well as water resiliency, school 
drinking water safety, and Tribal water programs.
    We also have multiple bills before us to address customer 
water debt, including a bipartisan bill that would establish 
permanent rate assistance programs to help low-income customers 
pay their water bills.
    And we will discuss legislation, from both sides of the 
aisle, that would deliver the funding called for in the 
American Jobs Plan to replace all lead service lines 
nationwide. The CLEAN Future Act, which I introduced earlier 
this year with Chairmen Tonko and Rush, invests $45 billion 
over 10 years to replace all lead service lines. It also 
prioritizes replacing the lines in disadvantaged and 
environmental justice communities.
    Our States and water systems are trying to do the right 
thing--to find lead service lines and replace them. I look 
forward to hearing from the EPA today on how the Agency and 
Congress can help States and water systems get it done.
    In the past, we have had great success on this committee of 
coming together to pass funding for drinking water 
infrastructure. Unfortunately, we have made less progress 
coming together to strengthen drinking water standards and 
ensure safer drinking water for all.
    I hope we have reached a turning point in that effort. 
Bipartisan support for strengthening protections against lead 
and PFAS can point the way toward greater consensus on 
strengthening the law to provide safer water for all.
    At last year's hearing on standard setting under the Safe 
Drinking Water Act, I noted that almost all our drinking water 
standards were set before the 1996 amendments to the statute. 
And the standards that have been set since have all been done 
under special statutory provisions. The end result is that over 
the last 25 years EPA has never managed to complete the general 
standard setting process called for under the Safe Drinking 
Water Act.
    I hope we can all agree that is a problem.
    Some of the bills before us would set deadlines for 
specific drinking water standards, carving a path for health 
protective standards for PFAS, microcystin, and 1,4-Dioxane.
    The AQUA Act of 2021, authored by Chairman Tonko and 
myself, would go further and take steps to fix the standard 
setting process for all contaminants. The narrow changes in 
that bill could make a huge difference for communities across 
the Nation, and I hope they can be a part of bipartisan work 
going forward.
    Over the last few months, I've often said that this moment 
of crisis provides us an opportunity to invest in our country, 
making it stronger, cleaner, healthier and better off. Drinking 
water legislation is a clear example of that opportunity. Every 
family should be able to trust that the water coming from their 
taps is safe. In order to make that happen, we must come 
together to enact real improvements to our drinking water 
systems.

    Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back. The chair yields 
back.
    The Chair now recognizes Mrs. Rodgers, Representative 
Rodgers, who serves as ranking member of the full committee. 
Thank you for joining us, Representative. You are recognized 
for 5 minutes for an opening statement.

      OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, A 
    REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

    Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Good morning to all and to our witness. Before I get to my 
remarks I want to say thank you, Mr. Chairman, for including 
the Drinking Water Funding for the Future Act as part of this 
hearing.
    Helping our communities comply with the Safe Drinking Water 
Act, extending funding for approving proven programs, 
increasing purchasing power for drinking water systems, and 
bolstering technical assistance--these are the items upon which 
I think we all agree. These were the pillars of a very 
successful bipartisan drinking water package that became law in 
2018. It can also be the formula for today.
    We must invest in our children's future to win the future. 
But there is a difference between investing wisely and saddling 
our children with crushing debt. Last week, the Committee for a 
Responsible Budget stated that, despite record low borrowing 
rates, interest payments on the Federal debt will be over $300 
billion this fiscal year. We must think about creative ways to 
solve these problems, not just write a bigger check.
    On today's bills, there are parts of each that sound 
appealing. But taken as a whole, they divert us to a dangerous 
pathway. Just let me highlight three areas. First, the 
authorization amounts contained in many of these proposals. For 
instance, Drinking Water Revolving Loan Fund authorization has 
increased 400 to 500 percent of the last appropriation bill 
passed by the Democrat-led House. I support the Drinking Water 
State Revolving Fund. But I am concerned States cannot meet 
their matching requirement. And I see few practical benefits 
with pushing a number this high.
    Additionally, there is a $45 billion authorization for lead 
service line replacements for both poor and wealthy Americans, 
including their privately owned pipes. This amount is being 
pushed, even though the EPA's yet to publish a needs assessment 
on the number of lead service lines and legislative pushes for 
lead line mapping.
    The second area of concern is the creation of new 
entitlement programs to pay off unpaid invoices. I and many of 
my Republican colleagues supported bipartisan legislation to 
help effected people pay their water bill during this pandemic. 
But they were targeted and temporary. These bills create open-
ended programs that prevent future collection efforts for 5 
years. Plus, one of them creates the first-ever entitlement 
program run by EPA. Moreover, these bills simultaneously 
require EPA to study the size and scope of the program while 
also pushing aid funding out the door, which seems a little 
backwards to me.
    Lastly, there are proposals to change regulatory 
requirements when EPA issues drinking water and underground 
injection rules that I find concerning. One proposal strikes 
requirements, preventing EPA from issuing rules where the costs 
exceed the benefits and also remove variances for small 
systems, killing alternative, innovative, affordable means of 
compliance. Water itself may be quote ``free,'' but treated 
water is not. Especially in towns like College Place, 
Washington, where they can't even afford the State Revolving 
Fund. We must sustain policies that prioritize finite resources 
to address public health matters, including Federal, State, 
local, or private ones.
    Once Congress commits those resources, they won't be there 
for the worst ones. Most importantly, these changes will place 
water systems into a spiral of debt, chronic noncompliance, or 
both, essentially pushing any nonurban or suburban system into 
consolidation under the terms of the Safe Drinking Water Act.
    Additionally, Federal regulations on hydraulic fracturing 
and underground injection of carbon dioxide will not make water 
safer. It will, however, create a powerful disincentive for 
hydraulic fracturing and carbon capture, CCUS. This will make 
us less secure, more economically dependent going forward, 
whether from our government or a foreign nation. And it could 
sideline emissions reduction technology.
    Mr. Chairman, I look forward to learning more about the 
EPA's current staff's views on these bills. I wish we had other 
stakeholders here to weigh in on these provisions. 
Nevertheless, I thank you. And I yield back the remaining of my 
time.
    [The prepared statement of Mrs. Rodgers follows:]

           Prepared Statement of Hon. Cathy McMorris Rodgers

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning to you, to all the 
Members here today, and to our witness. Before I get to my 
remarks, I want to say thank you to you, Mr. Chairman, for 
including the ``Drinking Water Funding for the Future Act'' as 
part of the hearing.
    Helping our communities comply with the Safe Drinking Water 
Act extending funding for proven programs, increasing 
purchasing power for drinking water systems, and bolstering 
technical assistance--these are the items upon which I think we 
all agree.
    These were the pillars of a very successful, bipartisan 
drinking water package that became law in 2018. It can also be 
a formula for today. We must invest in our children's future to 
win the future. But, there is a difference between investing 
wisely and saddling our children with crushing debt.
    Last week, the Committee for a Responsible Budget stated 
that despite record low borrowing rates, interest payments on 
the Federal debt cost over $300 billion this fiscal year. We 
must think about creative ways to solve these problems, not 
just write a bigger check.
    On today's bills, there are parts of each that sound 
appealing; yet, taken as a whole, they divert us to a dangerous 
pathway. Let me just highlight three areas.
    First, the authorization amounts contained in many of these 
proposals. For instance, the drinking water revolving loan fund 
authorization is increased 400 to 500 percent of the last 
appropriation bill passed by a Democrat-led House. I support 
the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund, but I am concerned 
States cannot meet their matching requirements and I see few 
practical benefits with pushing a number this high.
    Additionally, there's $45 billion for full lead service 
line replacements for both poor and wealthy Americans 
(including their privately owned pipes). This amount is being 
pushed even though EPA has yet to publish a ``needs 
assessment'' on the number of lead service lines and 
legislative pushes for lead line mapping.
    The second area of concern is the creation of new 
entitlement programs to pay off unpaid invoices. I--and many of 
my Republican colleagues--supported bipartisan legislation to 
help affected people pay their water bills during this pandemic 
because they were targeted and temporary.
    These bills create open-ended programs that prevent future 
collection efforts for 5 years. Plus, one of them creates the 
first EVER entitlement program run by EPA. Moreover, these 
bills simultaneously require EPA to study the size and scope of 
the problem while also pushing aid funding out the door--which 
seems a little backwards to me.
    Lastly, there are proposals to change regulatory 
requirements when EPA issues drinking water and underground 
injection rules that I find concerning. One proposal strikes 
requirements preventing EPA from issuing rules where the costs 
exceed the benefits and also removes variances for small 
systems--killing alternate, affordable means of compliance.
    Water, itself, may be quote ``free,'' but treated water is 
not--particularly in towns like College Place, Washington, 
where they can't even afford the State Revolving Fund loan. We 
must sustain policies that prioritize finite resources to 
address public health matters--including Federal, State, local, 
or private ones. Once Congress commits those resources, they 
won't be there for worse ones.
    Most importantly, these changes will place water systems 
into a spiral of debt, chronic noncompliance, or both; 
essentially pushing any non-urban or suburban system into 
consolidation under the terms of the Safe Drinking Water Act. 
Additionally, Federal regulations on hydraulic fracturing and 
underground injection of caron dioxide will not make water 
safer. It will, however, create a powerful disincentive for 
hydraulic fracturing and CCUS.
    This will make us a less secure, more economically 
dependent society going forward--whether from our government or 
foreign nations. And it could sideline emissions reduction 
technology. Mr. Chairman, I look forward to learning more about 
EPA career staff's views on these bills. I wish we had other 
stakeholders here to weigh in on these provisions. 
Nevertheless, I thank you and I yield back my remaining time.

    Mr. Tonko. You are welcome. The gentlelady yields back.
    The Chair reminds Members that, pursuant to committee 
rules, all Members' written opening statements shall be made 
part of the record.
    Now, I will introduce the witness for today's hearing. As 
earlier mentioned, we are joined by Dr. Jennifer McLain, 
Director of Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water at the 
United States Environmental Protection Agency.
    Dr. McLain, we appreciate the sharing of information today 
that will enable us to move forward the soundest policy. And so 
we appreciate your time and your information.
    I recognize Dr. McLain now for 5 minutes to provide her 
opening statement. And again, thank you.

STATEMENT OF JENNIFER McLAIN, Ph.D., DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF GROUND 
   WATER AND DRINKING WATER, OFFICE OF WATER, ENVIRONMENTAL 
                       PROTECTION AGENCY

    Dr. McLain. Thank you. Good morning Chair Tonko, Ranking 
Member McKinley, and members of the subcommittee. I am Dr. 
Jennifer McLain, Director of the Office of Ground Water and 
Drinking Water within the Office of Water at the U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency. Thank you for the opportunity 
to testify about EPA's efforts to help ensure that all people 
in America have safe drinking water.
    Water is essential to life and to thriving communities. And 
our Nation's drinking water systems deliver this vital 
resource, thereby protecting public health and serving as a 
cornerstone for economic development. We have seen a lot of 
progress since Congress passed the Safe Drinking Water Act. 
Currently 93 percent of community water systems meet all 
health-based standards. Unfortunately, many of the systems that 
ushered in this progress are aging. And their infrastructure 
needs repair or replacement.
    Water's importance has never been clearer than during the 
COVID-19 pandemic, which highlighted the essential need for 
safe water while putting unprecedented stresses on water 
systems and on the tens of millions of Americans who are 
struggling to afford their water bills.
    Tribal utilities and communities that lack reliable water 
infrastructure have been among the hardest hit. Our Nation's 
water utilities have worked tirelessly to keep vital drinking 
water and wastewater services operating. And EPA has supported 
water utilities throughout the pandemic and recovery, including 
through infrastructure financing.
    EPA's water infrastructure programs have demonstrated time 
and again that they can improve public health and environmental 
protection while creating good-paying jobs and laying a 
foundation for long-term economic development.
    In the last 2 years, the two State Revolving Fund programs 
have collectively provided more than $20 billion to support 
water infrastructure, which is estimated to create over 300,000 
jobs.
    Additionally, through the Water Infrastructure Finance and 
Innovation Act, or WIFIA, loan program, EPA has provided more 
than $9 billion to help finance more than $20 billion in water 
infrastructure while creating more than 49,000 jobs and saving 
rate payers $4 billion.
    The strategic direction in partnerships water 
infrastructure investments can also help address key challenges 
facing communities. For example, the Drinking Water State 
Revolving Fund, managed by my office, prioritizes investments 
that protect public health and can be used by States to address 
affordability. To date, States have provided nearly $3 billion 
in Drinking Water State Revolving Fund additional subsidies to 
State-identified disadvantaged communities.
    EPA also supports access to safe drinking water on Tribal 
lands through the Drinking Water Infrastructure Tribal Set-
Aside Program. This track record of success underscores the 
potential of EPA's water infrastructure programs to deliver 
multiple benefits to communities across the country. EPA 
appreciates the attention that Congress and this committee have 
paid to addressing the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic and in 
making critical drinking water infrastructure investments.
    As part of the American Rescue Plan, Congress acknowledged 
EPA's essential role in closing the health disparity gap by 
advancing environmental justice, including in the area of safe 
drinking water. EPA also appreciates Congress' assistance in 
appropriating more than $1 billion to support low-income water 
rate payers through a new program at the Department of Health 
and Human Services.
    Additionally, the legislative priorities in the committee's 
CLEAN Future Act and other legislative proposals would help 
support investments in the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund 
to protect our communities from PFAS in drinking water and 
replace millions of lead service lines across the Nation. EPA 
shares the committee's interest in addressing these critical 
challenges.
    Thank you again, Chair Tonko, Ranking Member McKinley, and 
members of the subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to 
testify today. And I look forward to answering any questions 
you may have.
    [The statement of Dr. McLain follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    
    
       
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you very much for your time today and for 
the information that you will exchange, it will be very 
helpful.
    We now will move to Member questions. I will start, Dr. 
McLain, by recognizing myself for 5 minutes.
    Drinking water is an area where I hope we will be able to 
find bipartisan consensus, especially when we know the status 
quo is not adequately serving our constituents or our local 
government partners. As has been mentioned, EPA estimated that 
$472 billion will be needed over the next 20 years to maintain 
our water systems. This is a number that is hard to fathom. Dr. 
McLain, can you give us a sense of why the needs are so great?
    Dr. McLain. Thank you for that question. I really 
appreciate the chance to come here and talk about our Nation's 
drinking water infrastructure. As you mentioned and as we have 
discussed, the drinking water infrastructure in this Nation is 
aging. And there is a critical need to modernize this aging 
infrastructure.
    Much of that infrastructure has been in place for decades, 
some for maybe even 100 years. We also have the critical needs 
to increase resiliency of our systems against natural disasters 
and cyber attacks. So these are some of the reasons.
    Mr. Tonko. OK. I thank you for that.
    In President Biden's American Jobs Plan includes $111 
billion for the State Revolving Funds, lead line replacements 
and other water infrastructure programs. I know that sounds 
like a lot of money, but do you believe that the proposal was 
developed in the context of our best assessments of water 
system needs, including the cost to fully replace every lead 
service line in the country?
    Dr. McLain. Thank you for the question. We have been 
working closely with States and water utilities to assess the 
needs. And this $470 billion needs assessment that we have been 
talking about is through a survey of water utilities across the 
country. The need is great. And EPA has been working closely 
with States to try to get funding and financing, money out the 
door to help water systems improve their systems through the 
programs that we have in place today.
    Mr. Tonko. Uh-huh. And, you know, the financing on these 
projects is very important. So today, how are most water 
infrastructure projects financed?
    Dr. McLain. We use a number of tools. We have, of course, 
as we have discussed the State Revolving Funds and the WIFIA 
loan programs. Those programs are very critical in providing 
low-interest financing for infrastructure improvements. And the 
State Revolving Fund, of course, includes programs for 
disadvantaged communities to provide no-interest or loan 
forgiveness. We also use grant programs that are established by 
Congress to--for specific needs such as supporting small and 
disadvantaged communities and replacing lead service lines and 
other lead reduction activities.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you. So if a local government cannot get 
support through perhaps a SRF loan, or a rare grant from EPA, 
or from the USDA, the full cost then is really being born by 
local budgets, municipal bonds, and water rate payers. That is 
correct?
    Dr. McLain. Yes, thank you. The decisions on how to finance 
infrastructure are a local decision. And it is correct that 
those infrastructure improvements can be made through a 
combination of different investments and resources, including 
using the bond market and using the programs that EPA or other 
Federal agencies have.
    Mr. Tonko. Right. And that $472 billion that has been 
calculated includes needs from systems of all sizes, does it 
not? There are massive needs, I would imagine, for both rural 
systems and urban systems and--suburban in between. Is that 
correct?
    Dr. McLain. Yes. It includes the needs for very, very large 
systems, and very small systems, and systems on Tribal lands, 
in rural areas, and urban areas, all over the U.S.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Dr. McLain.
    I will now yield to recognize Mr. McKinley, subcommittee 
ranking member, for 5 minutes to ask questions.
    Representative McKinley.
    Mr. McKinley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And welcome, Dr. McLain, to the committee. Can you tell us 
how much money is being spent annually on water systems, 
repairing leaks and breaks all across this country annually?
    Dr. McLain. Thank you for the question. I don't have a 
specific number for you on that, but as you recognized in your 
statement, it is a significant issue and systems do spend 
considerable amounts on----
    Mr. McKinley. Dr. McLain, if you could get back to me, I 
would appreciate that, if you could get back and put some 
numbers on it.
    So my question also, if the American Water Works 
Association has projected that it could be as much as $1.7 
trillion to fix our aging infrastructure on water lines--just 
water lines, not sewer and sewage systems but just on water 
lines--how long do you think it would be--what timeframe would 
be appropriate to make the repairs?
    Hopefully, less than 100 years. Are we talking about 20 
years, 30 years? What would be the level of improvements we 
have to make to retire it in 20 or 30 years?
    Dr. McLain. Thank you for that question. The needs are 
great, and they exist both in our drinking water----
    Mr. McKinley. [Inaudible] Dr. McLain a year. What would be 
an appropriate timeframe to fix all our water lines that are 
maybe 50 years old? Give me some conditions by which we could 
say, ``We are going to fix all our water lines and leaks and 
breaks over a 30 years period.'' Is that a fair--something like 
that, or do you want to go 100 years?
    Dr. McLain. The decisions about construction projects 
really happen at a very local level. And the----
    Mr. McKinley. But they are driven locally based on the 
ability to pay. And we know most of these SCR--these are not 
grants, these are low-interest loans and maybe they can be 
zero, but they have to find the resources to be able to do 
that.
    I have designed numbers of water systems in this country. I 
understand a lot of [inaudible] goes. I am trying to figure out 
what the timeframe is to address that, because for communities 
and public service districts that are aging or unemployed, they 
are hard pressed to be able to implement higher rates.
    So my question then, since you are not giving me a year on 
this--and I would like to get some--maybe you need to think 
about that, Dr. McLain, come back and say, ``We ought to fund 
something. It could be done over 50 years or 30 years.'' I 
would like to hear that.
    But secondly, could you go back, when--my opening statement 
was having to do with, could we use the funds that we had from 
COVID for State and local government since it is used for 
healthcare on this, would that--would you agree that that is a 
way that we might want to approach this, using the 
unappropriated money that the State and local courts have that 
they can spend? Did you understand what I was trying to get to?
    Dr. McLain. Thank you for the question. And I will commit 
to getting back to you on your question of projects and the 
years.
    I do----
    Mr. McKinley. Could we use--would you support using some of 
the unappropriated COVID funds that are used by some States for 
roads and bridges--they have made some infrastructure--could we 
use that for water lines? Because right now, to my 
understanding, we are prohibited from using that for augmenting 
the State Revolving Fund.
    Would you support that concept?
    Dr. McLain. As the Director of the Office of Ground Water 
and Drinking Water, my job is to ensure that we are as 
efficiently as possible using the funds that are appropriated 
by Congress. And we will continue to do that. And we will be 
doing that in close partnership with the States and the local 
communities who have these infrastructure needs.
    Mr. McKinley. OK. I am sorry. I am not going to get an 
answer.
    So if I could, section 205 of H.R. 3291 strikes the small 
system variances provisions in the Safe Drinking Water Act. 
These variances permit systems serving our Nation's smallest 
drinking water systems that cannot meet the national primary 
drinking water regulations. This variance by law is not 
permanent and that the quality of drinking water is required to 
ensure adequate protection of public health?
    Dr. McLain. So, as the Director of the Drinking Water 
Program, I am implementing the Safe Drinking Water Act as it is 
written in the development of standards. Currently, the Safe 
Drinking Water Act has provisions for States to give variances 
if EPA has found that water treatment is not affordable.
    Mr. McKinley. Dr. McLain, I have gone over my time. But you 
filibuster very well. I hope you get back to me with answers on 
the other questions. But thank you very much, water is 
critical. Thank you.
    Dr. McLain. Thank you.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes Representative Pallone. Chairman 
Pallone, full committee chair, for 5 minutes to ask questions.
    Representative Pallone.
    Mr. Pallone. Thank you Chairman Tonko.
    Dr. McLain, I appreciate everything you said in your 
testimony about how EPA's Drinking Water Program can improve 
public health, and create jobs and support economic prosperity. 
But I think the Safe Drinking Water Act is primarily a public 
health statute. So I wanted to ask a few questions about that.
    How can investing in removing lead service lines improve in 
the safety of drinking water? And what does that mean for 
public health?
    And then secondly, what about investing in treatment 
technology to remove PFAS from drinking water?
    Dr. McLain. Thank you for that question. Both lead and PFAS 
are significant public health issues that are a top priority 
for EPA. Removing lead service lines can contribute to public 
health protections. And what we know about lead in drinking 
water is that it is a very serious issue. It can be devastating 
for children and adults to be exposed to lead in their drinking 
water, because lead is a neurotoxin. And when there are homes 
that have lead service lines, removing those lead service lines 
is a significant advancement in the reduction of lead, because 
those service lines can be the greatest contributor of lead in 
a home that has a lead service line.
    Mr. Pallone. And what about investing in treatment 
technology to remove PFAS from drinking water?
    Dr. McLain. EPA is doing a lot of research on the ability 
of different treatment technologies to remove PFAS. And 
removing PFAS in drinking water is a protection that we support 
States and local communities in making.
    Mr. Pallone. And what about investing in school lead 
testing and drinking fountain replacement to help protect 
children? Both the testing and the drinking fountain 
replacement?
    Dr. McLain. Thank you. Children spend a significant amount 
of their time in schools and childcare centers. And removing 
sources of lead in those places and testing to find out whether 
or not there are lead exposures in schools and childcare 
centers are both important measures for protecting children 
from lead in drinking water.
    Mr. Pallone. All right. Thanks.
    We know that the environmental justice communities bear a 
disproportionate burden of harm from pollution. But how does 
assistance targeted at disadvantaged communities help protect 
public health in environmental justice communities?
    Again, you know, going back to water systems.
    Dr. McLain. Thank you for that question. Under the State 
Revolving Fund and under the Safe Drinking Water Act, States 
have set up disadvantaged communities programs and defined 
disadvantaged communities according to their State definitions.
    And EPA works with States to set up those programs to 
ensure that the funds are going to disadvantaged communities 
that need the money to make improvements to their systems, 
especially those that are underresourced.
    Mr. Pallone. Right. I wanted to ask you, you noted in your 
testimony that 92 percent of water systems meet all health 
standards, but unfortunately we have no standard for dangerous 
contaminants, so that includes PFAS, microcystin, and also the 
1,4-Dioxane. So that figure does not give the full picture of 
drinking water safety.
    So I know I am almost out of time, but I just wanted to ask 
quickly how would setting standards for these three 
contaminants protect public health in communities that have 
them in their water?
    Dr. McLain. Thank you. EPA is hard at work right now 
developing a drinking water standard for PFOA and PFAS. And we 
are conducting the analyses to support that standard. And we 
expect to go to the Science Advisory Board later this year. So 
we are very happy with that progress.
    Mr. Pallone. Is that for all three: the PFAS, the 
microcystin, and the 1,4-Dioxane? I didn't hear if you 
mentioned all three. All three?
    Dr. McLain. This is a regulation for PFOA and PFOS, for 
PFAS.
    Mr. Pallone. Oh, OK. Not one for microcystins and 1,4-
Dioxane yet, or is that in the cards?
    Dr. McLain. We are in the process of evaluating other 
contaminants under the unregulated contaminant monitoring rule, 
our monitoring program, as well as evaluating the science 
behind those in our upcoming contaminant candidate list.
    Mr. Pallone. All right. Well, I think it is really 
important to set up those standards because, you know, they 
need to be part of our drinking water effort too.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Thank you, Doctor.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you. The chairman yields back, so now the 
Chair recognizes Mrs. Rodgers, full committee ranking member, 
for 5 minutes to ask questions. Representative Rodgers, please.
    Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And Ms. McLain, I appreciate you being with us today, 
representing the Agency and answering technical feedback, but 
also tackling so many bills that are on the docket today. A lot 
of complex subjects.
    As I mentioned in my opening remarks, I believe in the 
value of promoting safe drinking water and innovation, and 
providing it in the areas I represent, both large and small. I 
also believe in the importance of investing in our children's 
future.
    One of the bills we are addressing today is the Drinking 
Water Funding for the Future Act that I have introduced with 
the ranking member, Mr. McKinley. And this bill extends many of 
the bipartisan programs that Congress authorized in the 
America's Water Infrastructure Act of 2018 that enjoyed 
bipartisan support. Has EPA had any problems implementing the 
programs authorized in the AWIA in 2018?
    Dr. McLain. Thank you for the question. And we appreciate 
the programs that are in place and under the Safe Drinking 
Water Act. We have made great progress in implementing the 
programs newly established under the America's Water 
Infrastructure Act, including the changes to the State 
Revolving Fund program as well as the establishment of risk and 
resiliency assessments and emergency response plans for water 
systems. [Inaudible.]
    Mrs. Rodgers. OK. Thank you, sorry. Have these programs 
been a net positive in improving drinking water quality and 
system compliance?
    Dr. McLain. Thank you. Yes, they have been. And we really 
appreciate having these programs in place. And we are working 
closely with States on implementing them.
    Mrs. Rodgers. Great. Two months ago, in the American Rescue 
Plan that the Democrats passed, in section 6002 EPA was given 
$50 million to issue grants and turn the contract, conduct 
other activities that, quote ``identify and address 
disproportionate environmental or public health harms or risks 
in minority or low-income populations under, among other 
sections, section 1442 of the Safe Drinking Water Act.''
    Would you let me know if your office has spent any of this 
money for these activities and if any of the funding remains 
unspent?
    Dr. McLain. Thank you. As we really appreciate the 
appropriations. And we are working right now to get that money 
out the door.
    Mrs. Rodgers. OK. The American Rescue Plan also included a 
temporary assistance program at HHS like the Low Income Home 
Energy Assistance Program to pay water utilities to defray the 
bills of persons who are low-income or lost their jobs because 
of the pandemic. Has your office kept up at all with that 
program? And if so, can you report any of its progress and any 
issues with implementation?
    Dr. McLain. Thank you. And we appreciate the program, as we 
have heard from many who are struggling during this time. We 
are working closely with the Department of Health and Human 
Services. My staff is working with the staff who are working on 
that program. And we will be continuing to work with them as it 
moves forward into implementation with States and the local 
communities.
    Mrs. Rodgers. So one of the bills we are discussing today 
would create a formal drinking water rate subsidy program at 
EPA. Does EPA administer any entitlement programs that either 
provide income assistance to persons or otherwise benefit 
individuals by having their bills defrayed?
    Dr. McLain. Thank you. I can't talk for the entire EPA on 
that question. But under the Safe Drinking Water Act, we don't 
currently have that type of program. But we have been working 
closely with the Department of Health and Human Services as 
they have been standing up the program and as they are moving 
into the implementation of the program.
    Mrs. Rodgers. Would you just speak to the plan? What would 
be involved in setting up a new assistance program?
    Dr. McLain. Thank you. Of course, any plan established is 
dependent on how it is written into law. So, coming out of the 
details a little bit, we would need to make sure that we are 
working closely with the water sector and with the States and 
the local communities and organizations that would be key 
partners with us in establishing such a partnership and 
program.
    Mrs. Rodgers. OK. Thank you. And I think getting the needs 
assessment done is probably step one.
    Thank you.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentlelady from Colorado, Representative 
DeGette, who also serves as chair of the Subcommittee on 
Investigations and Oversight.
    So we welcome you, Representative DeGette, for 5 minutes.
    Ms. DeGette. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. And I want to 
thank you for holding this hearing. I want to thank our 
witness, because we are all concerned, obviously, about safe 
drinking water.
    I was pleased, Dr. McLain, to hear you say that the Agency 
is developing the PFAS drinking water standard for submission 
later this year, because it has been stalled for some time. And 
of course every single one of us has these chemicals in our 
congressional districts, in our drinking water.
    I just want to follow up one more thing with the chairman's 
questionings. In the Agency is the EPA also looking at 
requiring that sewage sludge be tested for PFAS chemicals? 
Because of course they end up in those sources as well.
    Dr. McLain. Thank you for that question. PFAS is a top 
priority at EPA. And just recently Administrator Regan 
established a new PFAS council, and I am happy to serve on that 
council. We are going to be working across the Agency and with 
Federal partners using the One EPA approach to address PFAS in 
drinking water as well as in other environmental areas. And we 
are working right now on that strategy as we are continuing 
with our important work that you mentioned of developing the 
standard.
    Ms. DeGette. OK. I really appreciate that answer. However, 
it did not answer my question, which was as you prioritize 
PFAS, as you look at an agencywide approach, are you also going 
to be looking at sludge contamination?
    Dr. McLain. So we are considering all areas that can have 
PFAS contamination, including sludge. Right now, we are working 
on risk assessments and evaluating the science.
    Ms. DeGette. I really appreciate that. And I am glad you 
are prioritizing it.
    Turning to the issue of lead service lines, because in my 
own district in Denver, Colorado, Denver Water has been working 
really hard to replace the lead service lines. It is true in 
every urban area in this country, as you noted in your opening 
statement. And one of the things that they have learned is that 
costs are going to be significantly higher than the EPA 
estimate of $4,700 per line. It is going to be more in the 
range of $8,000 to $10,000 per line.
    And so my question to you is do you think that it might 
make sense for the EPA to revise its cost estimates to account 
for cities where replacement costs are higher than the average 
as cities plan their own replacement programs? And what is the 
EPA doing to take those cities' own local cost estimates into 
account?
    Dr. McLain. Thank you for that question. As with many 
construction projects, that lead service line removal does have 
a range of costs depending on the local conditions. And we 
certainly want information from communities that are right now 
in the midst of lead service line removal programs so that we 
can take those costs into consideration.
    Ms. DeGette. So the answer is yes, you are working with the 
local communities?
    Dr. McLain. Yes. As we need cost information, we are 
certainly reaching out to States and water organizations and 
communities to get all of the information available. Yes.
    Ms. DeGette. It would seem to me--I mean, for example, Mr. 
McKinley's question about given the huge magnitude of this 
problem, if you don't have that kind of data, then it is pretty 
much impossible to estimate how long its going to take to 
replace all of these lead pipes. Wouldn't that be fair to say?
    Dr. McLain. Well, we do have a significant, you know--we do 
have data on this. As you are suggesting, new data comes to the 
forefront every day. And so, it is important for us to continue 
to gather new information on costs.
    Ms. DeGette. Right. And that way that will help you be able 
to--for example, here in Denver, Denver Water has embarked on a 
very aggressive lead pipe program, but it is going to take 15 
years just in one city. So I think this is something that we 
all have to grapple with, and I am pleased that the EPA is 
making an effort to the do that.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentlelady yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Ohio. 
Representative Johnson, you are recognized for 5 minutes 
please.
    Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    You know, if our constituents were to tune into our hearing 
today, they might be led to believe that this hearing is 
designed to address the noble goal of ensuring access to clean 
water, replacing old lead pipes, and removing toxins from their 
tap water. Unfortunately, that is not what is going on here.
    Last week, we heard Secretary Granholm admit that the Biden 
administration wants to ban hydraulic fracturing on public 
lands. She conceded that in her appearance before our Energy 
subcommittee. Well, today we are seeing how the left will try 
to ban it from State and private lands too under the guise of a 
discussion to ensure access to clean water. Tucked into Title 
VI of the CLEAN Future Act are multiple proposals that, if 
enacted, could amount to a ban on hydraulic fracturing across 
the country.
    The American people need, deserve, and must have clean 
water. We all agree on that. And we should do everything we can 
to ensure that. But they also deserve affordable and reliable 
energy, not to mention the thousands of essential consumer 
products, medical devices, clothing, and other conveniences 
that are all made from petrochemicals. And how do we get those 
petrochemical raw materials? We harvest them through oil and 
gas production, and that takes hydraulic fracturing.
    And what about the jobs associated with producing these 
petrochemical products? My district in eastern and southeastern 
Ohio is home to a thriving oil and gas industry and a community 
that takes pride in safely providing these abundant resources.
    In Ohio it is the State that takes the lead in regulating 
our oil and gas activity, in part because the EPA does not have 
the regional expertise or the technical capacity to effectively 
regulate this industry from Washington, DC. The last thing we 
need is more duplicative, onerous, top-down mandates coming out 
of Washington from bureaucrats who have never actually worked 
in the industry.
    So Director McLain, I am concerned that section 623 of the 
CLEAN Future Act could result in a de facto ban on hydraulic 
fracturing across the country, killing hundreds of good-paying 
and thousands of good-paying jobs.
    In your view, does the Biden administration support 
legislation like this that would overturn decades of precedent 
with a Federal takeover of the State regulation of hydraulic 
fracturing in respect to protecting ground water?
    Mr. Tonko. Representative Johnson, before the witness 
answers that question, might I just suggest that as a reminder 
to my Republican colleagues and to the entire subcommittee that 
the subject of the hearing is water infrastructure.
    Families across the country are worried about the safety of 
their water and their ability to pay their water bills. I would 
ask if we could please keep on that topic of infrastructure 
that is failing and lead service lines that are poisoning our 
kids.
    These bills should be our top priority, and that is the 
focus of today's hearing.
    So I will not take from your time. We will let you go a 
little longer, but I just want to make certain that we stay 
within the subject of today's hearing.
    Dr. McLain?
    Mr. Johnson. Dr. McLain, do you need me to restate that 
question?
    Dr. McLain. Yes. Thank you. That would be helpful.
    Mr. Johnson. Yes. I am concerned that section 623 of the 
CLEAN Future Act could result in a de facto ban on hydraulic 
fracturing. And let me point out that it has been the assertion 
for years that hydraulic fracturing damages the water. So in 
that regard, Mr. Chairman, this is a relevant question. And it 
would kill hundreds of thousands of good-paying jobs.
    So in your view, Dr. McLain, does the Biden administration 
support legislation like section 623 that would overturn 
decades of precedent with the Federal takeover on State 
regulations of hydraulic fracturing as it regards protecting 
ground water?
    Dr. McLain. Thank you. I think I will be happy to take your 
question back and to provide you technical assistance on this. 
In the Drinking Water Office, we are working to implement the 
provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act that are associated 
with underground injection control programs.
    Mr. Johnson. OK. All right. I tell you what, because the 
chairman kind of cut my time short, let me move on to my other 
question. And if you could please take that question and get 
back to us, I would appreciate that.
    One final question: In your expertise in the field of 
ground water and drinking water, do you believe there is 
evidence of widespread systemic contamination as a result of 
hydraulic fracturing?
    I mean, even Gina McCarthy, President Biden's chief advisor 
on domestic climate change, has previously said there is not. I 
mean, have you seen that American communities are capable of 
having both safe drinking water and economic development around 
oil and gas production?
    Dr. McLain. Thank you. We do want to ensure that all 
Americans have access to safe drinking water. I don't have the 
details on the studies that you are referring to right now, but 
I am happy to get back----
    Mr. Johnson. Dr. McLain, I am going to yield back my time 
since we have run out. But could you take that question back 
and talk to your political leadership as well, because these 
are important questions?
    Dr. McLain. Yes. I'd be happy to take that back.
    Mr. Johnson. Thank you.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you. The gentleman yields back. 
Representative Johnson, we let you have additional time because 
of my request that we stay on the topic of today's hearing. I 
will echo that sentiment again so that we can really focus on 
water infrastructure and the assistance we can provide our 
partners in local government.
    With that, we will recognized Representative Schakowsky of 
Illinois, who also serves as chair of the Subcommittee on 
Commerce and Consumer Protection.
    Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    So the EPA estimates that there are roughly 6.3 to 9.3 
million lead service lines remaining in the United States. The 
number may be as high as 400,000 in Chicago alone.
    I wanted to talk about Chicago. I am very worried, and we 
are in a I think kind of a unique situation of not having done 
much. The Vice President, Vice President Harris, came to 
Chicago a while ago and was looking at some COVID things. But 
when I saw her, she mentioned to me that Illinois has about 25 
percent of all of the lead pipes, lead service lines, in the 
country. And the Chicago Tribune did a study of this. And let 
me just quote a bit from that, that Chicago lags far behind 
other cities and is ground zero for the problem, talking about 
lead.
    And it said that--let's see, that ``dozens of cities 
already have a head start in eliminating the lingering threat 
to public health. One glaring omission is Chicago.'' And I live 
very close to the city border, but I live in Evanston, 
Illinois. I live in a very old house. And I was just looking up 
and maybe--this kind of a technical question, but I wonder if 
you can answer it.
    It said, most water service lines in Evanston are older and 
constructed with lead, lead pipes, blend--what is it called? 
Something about blended phosphate is added to the water during 
the treatment process, and this chemical creates a coating 
inside.
    If I live in a place where this is put as a coating, are we 
out of the woods here? Do we need to replace this? My house was 
built in 1911. We have houses built in the 1800s. And I am just 
wondering, are we really OK because something is put in the 
water?
    Dr. McLain. Thank you for that question. Addressing lead in 
drinking water is a top priority at EPA, and we do know that 
there is a correlation with older homes and the potential of 
having a lead service line, especially in areas like the 
midwest where there was a high prevalence of use of lead 
service lines.
    We do know that--also that corrosion control, which is the 
treatment that you referred to, can be an important treatment 
for utilities to use to reduce the corrosivity of the water, 
because that is how lead gets into drinking water. If water is 
corrosive and it flows over a lead source, then lead can leach 
into the drinking water.
    When you have a lead service line, that lead service line 
can be a very significant contributor to whatever lead might be 
coming out of the tap in that home. And that is why the removal 
of a lead service line, the permanent removal of that source of 
lead, is an important mitigation step against lead in drinking 
water, whether the system is using corrosion control, which is 
an important treatment, or not.
    Ms. Schakowsky. So in 2016, I visited Flint. Nancy Pelosi, 
the Speaker, had a trip that we went to. And for me in Chicago 
now, what most people may not know is that in Illinois, between 
2015 and 2020, there were many homes whose exposure to lead was 
just as high as it was in Flint. Can you talk a little bit more 
about what the dangers are of--I guess, just a few more 
seconds, but--of lead?
    Dr. McLain. Thank you. Yes, lead is a neurotoxin, and it is 
dangerous to children from a brain development perspective, and 
it is dangerous to all people, children and adults, in terms of 
the potential damage to other organs like kidneys and the 
heart.
    Ms. Schakowsky. Well, you know, we have to get on this, and 
I am just interested in what Mr. McKinley's question was about 
how long will this take. We have got to get on it, and in my 
State, especially. So thank you very much.
    Dr. McLain. Thank you.
    Ms. Schakowsky. Maybe we can get together with some of the 
Illinois folks. Thanks.
    Dr. McLain. Thank you. Be happy to do that.
    Ms. Schakowsky. I yield back.
    Mr. Tonko. OK. The gentlelady yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes Representative Curtis from the 
State of Utah.
    We didn't have Representative Carter on the screen. He was 
scheduled next. If he is not available, we will move to 
Representative Curtis.
    Representative Curtis, you are recognized for 5 minutes, 
please.
    Mr. Curtis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I am one of those that has left the warm bed to visit a 
resident's home that had been flooded by broken water mains. 
And as I have listened to this hearing, I find myself 
reflecting on the many burdens of local government. What we 
have heard today are the massive needs for water 
infrastructure, but cities also have aging sewer systems and 
roads. And in my city, the city I live in, they face a bill of 
tens of millions of dollars just to meet the new discharge 
standards for their sewer system.
    And it is not hard to make a case that water infrastructure 
is in desperate need of attention. It is not hard to make a 
case that it is--that there should be some Federal involvement. 
But I would like to point out very gently that the wrong kind 
of involvement from the Federal Government is not always good 
or welcome, and a couple quick examples of that are frequently 
overregulation, excessive regulations when Federal dollars are 
used. It can increase the cost of an infrastructure project as 
much as 30 percent.
    And something that hasn't been brought up today but is 
worth thinking about, and that is that if we subsidize those 
who are having trouble making their water payments, we can 
sometimes frustrate a city's efforts to get people to conserve. 
A lot of times water rates are actually based upon an incentive 
to conserve. And I know that our current systems allow quite a 
bit of flexibility to States and cities in those incentives, 
but just a couple of good examples of how the wrong type of 
involvement can be a problem.
    And, Dr. McLain, I would love to know--and, first of all, 
kind of hold this question while I ask you a couple more 
questions, if that is OK.
    But what do local governments really want from us, right, 
in this massive problem that they face? And right now as a 
mayor, we would use municipal--tax-free municipal bonds. It is 
a great tool, right. And let's face it, there is an impact to 
the Treasury when we use those, because the revenue is not 
received on the interest, but there is also a cost to Treasury 
with a lot of the programs that we are putting forward.
    Which ones are really most helpful to municipalities, and 
do we have to worry about federalizing the funding of water 
systems in a way that cities now become dependent on us and are 
subject to our mandates and requirements?
    Dr. McLain. Thank you. Thank you for those questions. As 
you note, these decisions are really local, and we want to meet 
communities where they are in partnership with States to help 
them figure out through technical assistance what they need 
best but what financing and funding programs, what combination 
of those, will work best for that local community to address 
the problems of aging infrastructure.
    Technical assistance is a really big part of this, because 
especially small communities do need--sometimes need some help 
in increasing the capacity of the system to financially and 
managerial manage the system. And we have programs established 
under the State Drinking Water Act to help systems with that.
    Mr. Curtis. You know, a lot of municipalities--water is a 
bargain, right, and frequently--I know some municipalities 
voted to charge for water because they don't meter it, and yet 
there is intense pressure not to raise rates from taxpayers in 
a city. From your experience, right, how do we balance this 
need to have low water rates but also have the cost of water be 
the true cost of water, particularly if we are talking about 
upgrading systems?
    Dr. McLain. Thank you. Affordability of water is a real 
challenge, and it is a challenge that needs, really, solutions 
from the local, State, and Federal levels working together. 
While we are not as involved at the Federal level on rate 
structure, we do have assistance programs to help systems 
understand best practices and tools to establish rate 
structures to help run the system and maintain it.
    Mr. Curtis. Doctor, I am going to run out of time. I 
certainly don't mean to cut you off. But I was referring more 
to the problem that municipalities are really not charging the 
full freight in many cases and that we have got to make sure 
that we are--the best taxes and fees are those most associated 
with the use, and I was just trying to make that point.
    And, Mr. Chairman, I am out of time, and I will yield.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Maryland, 
Representative Sarbanes. You are recognized for 5 minutes, 
please.
    Mr. Sarbanes. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Appreciate you holding 
the hearing. I want to thank you for your leadership on these 
issues, and I want to focus my questions on the drinking water 
standards in particular.
    Congress amended the Safe Drinking Water Act, SDWA, in 1996 
to make the statute, quote, more effective after citing 
challenges in regulating drinking water contaminants. However, 
as we know, the changes made in 1996 did not actually lead to 
more health-based protections for communities as the EPA 
struggled to set drinking water standards for over 20 years. 
Under the 1996 amendments, EPA is required every 5 years to 
make a regulatory determination for at least 5 contaminants on 
the contaminant candidate list.
    Dr. McLain--and thank you for appearing today, we very much 
appreciate it--how many unregulated drinking water contaminants 
has EPA proposed to regulate since the implementation of the 
1996 amendments, and how many of those have been finalized?
    Dr. McLain. Thank you for that question. EPA has water 
standards for more than 90 contaminants, and we have put in 
place many regulations since the 1996 amendments, and these 
include regulations to reduce risk from disinfection 
byproducts, from arsenic, from pathogens like viruses in ground 
water and cryptosporidium in surface waters, and lead in 
plumbing and fixtures. Just recently, we issued a regulatory 
determination to propose regulations for PFOA and PFAS, and we 
are hard at work on that regulation right now.
    Mr. Sarbanes. How many of these have been finalized since 
1996?
    Dr. McLain. We have had many regulations finalized since 
1996, including some of those that I have mentioned earlier on 
the disinfection byproducts and the ground water regulations, 
and lead and plumbing fixtures. I don't have the number right 
now, but I could be happy to take that back and get it to you.
    Mr. Sarbanes. But the PFAS and PFOA, those have not been 
finalized as yet?
    Dr. McLain. Right. We are working on the proposed 
regulation right now. We have just issued the regulatory 
determination in March of this year.
    Mr. Sarbanes. Let me raise something that concerns me in 
terms of how the standards ultimately get set. I gather that 
when you are promulgating one of these drinking water 
regulations you set a nonenforceable maximum contaminant level 
goal, so this is a goal that you see based on the analysis. 
That is based on health data.
    In addition, you then set an enforceable maximum 
contaminant level, an MCL, which is set as close to the goal as 
feasible, so we get into this feasible concept. What does 
feasible mean in this context, Dr. McLain? How is the cost 
considered as part of that judgment?
    Dr. McLain. Thank you for the question. As you say, we do 
consider a range of health-based science as we are developing 
the maximum contaminant level goal. And when we are looking at 
setting that standard, that maximum contaminant level as close 
as feasible to the maximum contaminant level goal, we are 
looking at also doing significant analysis on available 
treatment technologies as well as the cost of those 
technologies and the ability of those treatments to address the 
contaminant.
    For example, for PFOA and PFAS, we will be--we are working 
closely with our Office of Research and Development on new 
research that they are doing to understand how much of 
different specific PFAS are removed by different treatments as 
well as what the cost of running and using, operating those 
technologies are.
    Mr. Sarbanes. Clearly what happens is that the actual 
contaminant level standard that gets set because of the 
feasibility analysis, that ends up typically being weaker than 
the goal. But I also understand that there is a further 
analysis, a health risk reduction and cost analysis that is 
conducted.
    This is another level. And that can lead to standards that 
are even less stringent than the feasibility standards are, so 
that is very concerning.
    And I know one of the things that we are considering is 
whether that needs to be changed--that extra level of analysis, 
which is really, in a sense, two bites at the apple on this 
feasibility approach--needs to be removed so that we can stay 
closer to the health dimensions of the goal.
    And would you agree that, without the section I just 
referenced in SDWA, that the standards would be at least as 
protective as the feasibility standard would be? Is that 
correct?
    Dr. McLain. We are right now at--we are implementing the 
Safe Drinking Water Act standard-setting process as it is 
established, and we are happy to work with your office to 
provide technical assistance on legislative changes that you 
might be considering.
    Mr. Sarbanes. Thanks very much. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Alabama, 
Representative Palmer. You are recognized for 5 minutes, 
please.
    Mr. Palmer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I am going to talk to Ms. McLain about some of the 
requirements that the EPA imposes. We understand that 
communities have finite resources and that not all the 
communities have the same needs, but what I want to know is, is 
why we are getting rid of the cost-benefit requirement in H.R. 
3291? You are imposing a one-size-fits-all instead of allowing 
a cost-benefit analysis. Why would that be removed?
    Can you hear me?
    Dr. McLain. Yes. Thank you. Thank you, sorry.
    Mr. Palmer. You are using up my time by not responding.
    Dr. McLain. Well, we are busy developing regulations under 
the Safe Drinking Water Act as it is written. We are happy to 
provide technical assistance on legislative changes that the 
committee is considering.
    Mr. Palmer. Ma'am, I am asking you why you have a one-size-
fits-all. I mean, you prioritize regulatory stringency over 
public health and encourage unfunded and--underfunded mandates 
that force State and local governments to divert funds away 
from other critical needs. And I will give you an example of 
this.
    The Clinton EPA in 1993 issued a drinking water standard 
for atrazine that required treatment to below three parts per a 
billion, OK. A human would--under those standards, a human 
would have to drink over 3,000 gallons of water per day to 
three parts per billion of atrazine to equal the doses the EPA 
determined would cause cancer in mice.
    I think when we take that into account, the cost, and there 
are other EPA regulations imposed on local communities that 
they admitted the technology didn't exist to achieve those 
standards. So when we issue these regulations, why are you 
doing away with the cost-benefit analysis?
    Dr. McLain. Thank you. We are developing our regulations 
under the Safe Drinking Water Act as it is written right now, 
and we are using the analysis that we are doing of health 
effects of new science and of treatment technologies and 
developing cost-and-benefit analyses as to inform the decisions 
that we are making for the regulations that we are putting into 
place and for evaluating the regulations that are in place.
    Mr. Palmer. Do you understand that there's tradeoffs here? 
The cost of compliance with that standard on Aquazine would 
have been enough to hire 2,300 teachers, OK. I don't think 
people would be drinking the equivalent of 71 bathtubs full of 
water every day for 70 years to be at risk of getting cancer 
from atrazine. I don't think the benefit of preventing that 
would outweigh the benefit of being able to provide funding for 
other things, like hiring a teacher or maybe investing in 
broadband in the rural communities.
    Do you understand, you know, the situation that--I have a 
number of small towns in my district. Do you understand the 
situation that you put them in in the context of the tradeoffs, 
the cost-and-benefit issues that these smaller communities face 
and even some of the larger communities when you have--when you 
take away that cost-benefit analysis requirement?
    Dr. McLain. Thank you. We do understand the challenges that 
are faced by communities that have--they have a lot on their 
plate, and small communities included. We have technical 
assistance programs to help systems implement the regulations, 
and we also help them understand what funding is available as 
they are--as they work to try to come into compliance with the 
regulations.
    Mr. Palmer. I think you need to keep the cost-benefit 
analysis provision in the legislation. I think we need to focus 
on some of the issues. I mean, the EPA was part of the coverup 
of the lead issue in Flint, Michigan. We need to address those 
issues. But I really believe that we need this cost-benefit. I 
think it goes back to what Congressman Johnson was talking 
about in regard to eliminating fracking, the economic disaster 
that that creates for us on the energy side of things.
    So with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from New York, 
Representative Clarke, the recent former vice chair of the full 
committee.
    You have 5 minutes to ask questions, Representative Clarke.
    Ms. Clarke. I thank you, Chairman Tonko and Ranking Member 
McKinley, for convening this hearing on the pressing need to 
ensure that our drinking water is clean and safe.
    And I would like to also thank our witness, Dr. McLain, for 
your testimony today.
    Lead contamination in drinking water continues to pose a 
major health risk across the Nation, especially to young 
children. Simply put, there is no safe level for lead when it 
comes to children. Lead exposure can cause irreversible damage 
to the child's development, and it is critical that we make 
every effort to remove lead toxins from drinking water in 
schools and childcare facilities.
    The League of Conservation Voters recently released a 
report in New York State entitled ``5 is the New 15,'' which 
highlights the need to protect our children by significantly 
lowering the acceptable threshold for lead in school drinking 
water. Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit this report for the 
record.
    Mr. Tonko. Representative Clarke, we will acknowledge all 
requests for documents at the end of the hearing, but please 
continue.
    Ms. Clarke. I thank you, sir. I thank you.
    So, Dr. McLain, I would like to better understand the steps 
EPA is taking to address this pressing issue. What methods does 
the Environmental Protection Agency use to protect children 
from exposure to lead in their drinking water, particularly in 
schools, and how might these measures change with the updated 
Lead and Copper Rule?
    Dr. McLain. Thank you. Thank you for that question. Lead is 
a very serious issue, and it is a top priority at EPA. And lead 
in school drinking water is important from the perspective of 
the fact that kids spend a lot of their time at schools and 
childcare centers, and we approach this issue from using all 
the tools we have available to us.
    We have a voluntary program called the 3Ts Program that 
establishes best practices for testing and for remediation, for 
risk communication to parents, and so we work with States and 
communities to understand how to use that program to understand 
the lead levels and to remediate those levels in their schools 
and childcare centers.
    And we also are implementing the funding programs that 
Congress established for both the school testing programs, 
which has been established in all States across the country, as 
well as the lead reduction program, which provides grants to 
remediate lead in school drinking water.
    And as you mentioned, we are also examining the Lead and 
Copper Rule revisions, which were issued earlier this year. We 
are in the process of engaging with stakeholders to gather 
their input on the rule including considerations for schools' 
lead in drinking water.
    Ms. Clarke. Thank you. Has the EPA considered or is the 
Agency currently considering the possibility of separate, more 
stringent action level under the Lead and Copper Rule for 
schools such as the 5-parts-per-billion threshold that New York 
and other States are looking into?
    Dr. McLain. Yes, thank you. As I mentioned, we are in the 
process right now of engaging the stakeholders and getting 
input on the rule. We had listening sessions over the past 
month, and we are just about to start community roundtables, 
and we expect those roundtable discussions to include 
discussions of school drinking water. We will be having 
roundtables with other water sector stakeholders and States 
also, and we will be taking all of this consideration into the 
Agency for our decision making as we move through these 
engagements.
    Ms. Clarke. And thanks to the recent work of our committee, 
Federal funding is now available to help schools and childcare 
facilities not only test voluntarily for lead in their drinking 
water but also to cover the cost of replacing older drinking 
water fountains.
    The Assistance, Quality, and Affordability Act of 2021, one 
of the bills under consideration today, would extend the 
authorization timeframes of these critical programs for another 
10 years. How would extending these programs through 2031 
better enable the EPA to keep children safe from lead in their 
drinking water?
    Dr. McLain. Thank you. We appreciate the work that you have 
done to put these programs into place, and the need is great in 
schools in reducing lead in their drinking water, so having 
these programs available is very helpful to reaching our goal 
of reducing that lead exposure in schools.
    Ms. Clarke. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. My time has run 
out, and I yield back.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentlelady yields back.
    We now recognize the gentleman from Georgia, Representative 
Carter. You are recognized for 5 minutes, please.
    Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it.
    And thank you, Ms. McLain, for being here. I have just got 
a couple of quick questions here. If we are indeed able to get 
these capitalization grants for drinking water, State Revolving 
Funds to rise and to increase, it makes sense that the States 
are going to have to increase their activities as well, and we 
want to make sure that they can accommodate the requirements 
under the program.
    Based on what you are hearing from the State drinking water 
officials, will it be difficult for States to meet their 
statutory match requirements?
    Dr. McLain. Thank you for the question. We appreciate our 
partnership with the States in enacting the State Revolving 
Fund programs as they are described in statute. Ultimately, the 
States are going to make these important considerations 
depending on, you know, the need in their communities, and we 
will be there to support them in those decision-making 
processes.
    Mr. Carter. How long do you think it is going to take them 
to ramp up? Are they going to have adequate time to ramp up for 
this?
    Dr. McLain. EPA and the States both have experience with 
these programs, and we intend to build on the successful track 
record that we have both in the Federal Government and in the 
State governments and in using these programs and getting money 
out to support the infrastructure needs across the country.
    Mr. Carter. OK. What would happen to a State program that 
can't meet the match? Would they lose the funding or have an 
underfunded mandate to implement?
    Dr. McLain. Thank you for the question. We do work closely 
with States to try to find ways to help them meet the match. We 
have done this a number of times. If a State can't meet the 
match, they can apply for a lower level and--but we really do 
work hard to help them meet the match and to find resources to 
do that.
    Mr. Carter. I know it is not a fair question, but at the 
same time, can you give me an idea how the States are doing? 
Have they been growing their individual funds? I mean, they are 
partners in this, and I want to make sure that they are doing 
their part as well.
    Dr. McLain. Thank you. Yes, these are successful programs. 
The funds have grown over the years since the SRF have been 
established, and it has been a successful way to have financing 
and funding available for our Nation's drinking water 
infrastructure.
    Mr. Carter. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will yield you 
back 2 minutes. Thank you.
    Mr. Tonko. Well, we appreciate the 2 minutes, and the 
gentleman yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes the Representative from the State 
of California, Dr. Ruiz. You are recognized for 5 minutes, 
please.
    Mr. Ruiz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing 
and for considering my bill, the Emergency OASIS Act.
    Over the past year, I have spoken in this committee many 
times about the environmental injustices taking place in my 
district at the Oasis Mobile Home Park and other areas in some 
of our underserved communities, and I will continue to advocate 
for them until I know my constituents can safely turn on their 
faucets without being exposed to toxins.
    Since August 2019, Oasis Mobile Park has been under an EPA 
emergency order under section 1431 of the Safe Drinking Water 
Act due to arsenic contamination 9 times the legal limit. In 
the weeks following the revelation that they were drinking 
arsenic-laden water, the residents of Oasis faced a nightmare 
scenario due to predatory park ownership, who, one, failed to 
quickly provide replacement drinking water; two, then put 
residents--restrictions on who could access that water; then 
raised rent by over 30 percent; and then threatened evictions.
    And while the EPA Region 9 staff have been diligent and 
attentive to the situation, it was during this crisis that we 
saw the limits of EPA's enforcement abilities. The Safe 
Drinking Water Act threatens fines of $15,000 per day for 
violations of an emergency order, but the process takes time 
and it is cumbersome. When residents require replacing drinking 
water now, they can't wait weeks or longer for a legal process 
to play out in the courts.
    So, Dr. McLain, under section 1431, what are EPA's current 
enforcement abilities if a water system owner or operator fails 
to provide replacement drinking water pursuant to an EPA order?
    Dr. McLain. Thank you for that question. We work closely 
with our partners in our Office of Enforcement and Compliance 
as well as in the regional offices, as in Region 9 in this 
case. And we do see that we have a number of tools available to 
us in statute, and we work hard to implement the statute as it 
is written.
    And I think that the thing that we are very appreciative of 
your attention to this issue and this--you know, these folks 
had contaminated water, and we want to make sure that we 
address that----
    Mr. Ruiz. And so how long does that process take? You say 
you have different tools. There has been no true enforcement, 
no fines, and it is almost 2 years that they are struggling 
with this.
    How long does that process take, from initial reports of 
noncompliance and violations to the day a fine is levied?
    Dr. McLain. Well, I can't speak directly for the 
enforcement program because it is outside of my office. I would 
be happy to take that question back and talk to my colleagues.
    Mr. Ruiz. Thank you. So my bill, the Emergency OASIS Act, 
would give EPA the authority to step in and provide drinking 
water in cases where an owner of a system fails to do so within 
a week of an order going into effect.
    EPA would then recoup the cost of the water plus a penalty 
from the system owner who would be prohibited from passing 
those costs on to the residents.
    Dr. McLain, under the provision that I just described, 
would residents who are not provided alternative drinking water 
by a system owner likely get access to safe drinking water 
faster than under the current process?
    Dr. McLain. Thank you for the question. I am not prepared 
to talk at that level of detail on the provisions and----
    Mr. Ruiz. Well, I think if an owner doesn't provide water 
for 14 days and the EPA is able to provide water in 7 days, 
then I think the match speaks for itself, that I think they 
would be able to get water faster if they were able to get it 
sooner by the EPA.
    And then, also, the second piece of the Emergency OASIS Act 
focuses on making sure the entire drinking water system is safe 
before it is put back into service. At the Oasis Mobile Home 
Park, the initial EPA emergency order was focused on the well 
filtration system, yet it took a community group, an outside 
group, to test the distribution system where they found that 
arsenic remained in the water pipes as well despite the EPA 
order saying it was OK to drink that water.
    Section 1431 of the Safe Drinking Water Act gives the EPA 
broad authority to implement remedies to fix an unsafe system. 
Dr. McLain, a situation like Oasis or other places where the 
contamination point is a well, does EPA have the ability to 
ensure that a contaminant hasn't built up in the distribution 
system?
    Dr. McLain. Thank you for the question, and I would be 
happy to talk to my colleagues who are implementing the 
enforcement provisions of our statute. We do have many tools 
available to us.
    Mr. Ruiz. OK. Well, I am looking forward to working with 
you, the EPA, your colleagues, and the enforcement tools, and 
those that know how to clear a system from contaminants, 
because this is a problem identified in my district that is 
systemic and could be eliminated with this provision in my 
bill.
    So I appreciate it, and I yield back my time.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas, 
Representative Crenshaw. You are recognized for 5 minutes, 
please.
    Mr. Crenshaw. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all for 
being here.
    Look, I think the clean drinking water and making sure that 
lead is not infused with lead drinking water is certainly 
something we can agree on. As usual, though, we find ourselves 
scratching our heads at the proposals in order to fix a 
specific problem.
    You know, we look at the price tag on this, $45 billion, 
and I have to wonder why we don't start out with a smaller 
amount and make sure that the policy being put in place is 
actually going to work, and I have a lot of doubts that it 
will.
    I mean, what we are talking about is the vast majority in 
private homes where older private homes, where lead pipes might 
still exist, and it is difficult to get to this stuff. And I am 
not so sure that the incentives being created here will work. I 
don't think there is a lot of guardrails in place.
    So the first question for Ms. McLain is, how do we know 
where all the lead lines are in America? How do we know which 
ones to replace?
    Dr. McLain. Thank you for the question. We do have 
estimates on the numbers of lead service lines in the country, 
6 million to 10 million lead service lines across the country, 
and that information is really held at a local level. So 
different communities have different levels of understanding of 
the lead service lines that they might have in their system 
and----
    Mr. Crenshaw. It sounds like we don't know, and, I mean, 
that is the short answer. I know EPA does have an assessment 
coming out, but this bill doesn't even require that this money 
be spent on what EPA identifies, does it?
    Dr. McLain. Thank you for the question. The water systems 
have information on lead service lines in their system, and EPA 
works to provide guidance to systems to identify----
    Mr. Crenshaw. That would be news to a lot of local 
authorities who we have been speaking to about this bill. It is 
extremely difficult to know where these lead pipes are. You 
have to--now, what would happen, I am assuming, is that this 
money would be used to pay engineering companies vast amounts 
of money to go survey neighborhoods and see where the lead is.
    I would assume that would be the case. But here is the 
problem when we are talking about guardrails: Is there anything 
in this bill that would stop limitless and endless surveys and 
wasting all that money?
    Dr. McLain. There are a number of systems that have unknown 
service lines, and there is guidance that the EPA can provide, 
that States can provide to help the systems find those lead 
service lines and understand where they are most likely and----
    Mr. Crenshaw. That wasn't my question.
    Dr. McLain [continuing]. We can take a look at them.
    Mr. Crenshaw. That wasn't my question at all. The question 
is how you stop endless surveys and wasting this money.
    The other thing about this bill is, you know, how do we 
prioritize? Are any Americans being left out of this? How do we 
prioritize where we look and how lead service line replacement 
actually gets sought out? How does this bill do that?
    Dr. McLain. We are happy to provide technical assistance to 
your office on the specific details of the legislation being 
considered.
    Mr. Crenshaw. Why don't you do it right now? Do you not 
know what is in the legislation? Do you not know how this bill 
prioritizes it?
    Dr. McLain. I----
    Mr. Crenshaw. This is a hearing on this specific bill and 
this specific provision in the bill.
    Dr. McLain. Yes. I have come prepared to talk about the 
provisions in the bill, but when you--but not at the very, very 
specific level of detail in consideration. I am happy to----
    Mr. Crenshaw. Well, I do know the answers to the questions 
I am asking. I am surprised you don't. And the reality is, is 
that there is nothing in this bill that prioritizes communities 
with the highest lead readings or homes in the oldest housing 
stocks, which would obviously make the most sense if we are 
trying to use the money correctly. Again, we are just talking 
about guardrails, right, here, and please come more prepared to 
speak about these.
    The other issue is--I see in this is flexibility. So is 
there anything in this bill that would allow some flexibility? 
For instance, you have old homes that aren't going to be around 
much longer. This is the most likely place where you might have 
lead in the home. There's other ways, scientifically proven 
ways, much cheaper ways, say, putting an epoxy coating on those 
pipes, to fix the problem without doing a $20,000 remodeling of 
the home. Does this bill allow for that kind of flexibility?
    Mr. Crenshaw. Not prepared, or what? What is the problem?
    Dr. McLain. My understanding of the bill is that it is a 
lead service line removal program, and lead service lines are 
important to remove because they can be a significant source of 
lead to the people living in the home that is served by lead 
service lines.
    Mr. Crenshaw. All right. I am out of time.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from California, 
Representative Peters. You are recognized for 5 minutes, 
please.
    Mr. Peters. Hey, Dr. McLain. This former EPA employee very 
much appreciates the work you do. I understand you probably 
don't know the details of every bit of proposed legislation, 
and I appreciate you being here today to tell us your 
perspectives in general from your position with respect to 
drinking water, and I thank you for that, and I know you will 
get back to the committee if they have additional questions.
    I have some questions about resiliency. In California we 
are facing several simultaneous threats: Droughts are getting 
more severe, snowpack levels are decreasing, temperatures are 
rising, wildfires are getting more intense. We are on the front 
lines of the climate crisis, and for many people in California 
and many Americans, climate stress is often felt as water 
stress.
    According to the 2020 U.N. Water Development Report, 
climate change will lead to further water stress in regions 
across the globe, negatively affect water quality, and threaten 
safely managed water and sanitation infrastructure. My 
questions for you are, what steps is the Agency taking to 
predict general water availability in the future, considering 
increasingly severe drought from climate change?
    Dr. McLain. Thank you for the question. We work closely 
with other Federal agencies on data on climate-driven impacts 
to our water. And as you mentioned, there can be significant 
impacts both on the quality and on the quantity of the water 
that we know we are experiencing, and we----
    Mr. Peters. So you work with other agencies, but how are 
you going to ensure working with EPA that our water 
infrastructure is resilient to climate impacts? Specifically, 
is EPA or is someone devoting resources to modeling to ensure 
our water is safe as climate impacts increase?
    Dr. McLain. Yes, we are working very hard to understand the 
climate impacts that are faced--that our water utilities face. 
And we have a lot of guidance in addressing drought as well as 
floods because of the resiliency. There's also issues with too 
much water, too little water.
    Mr. Peters. Well----
    Dr. McLain. There are a number of resiliency----
    Mr. Peters [continuing]. If I wanted to find--if I wanted 
to talk to the person in the Federal Government who is in 
charge of the modeling to understand what changes we are going 
to face as a nation and also geographically, who would I talk 
to? Is that in your department, or is that someone else? Is 
that in another department you are working with?
    Dr. McLain. Yes, that is in other parts of the EPA as well 
as in other agencies and the Federal Government. It is a 
collaborative effort, and we would be happy to get back to you 
with more specific information on the modeling that you are 
looking for.
    Mr. Peters. I would like to understand that. You know, my 
concern is that if everyone is doing it, no one is doing it. 
And so I would expect you to know that today, but I would like 
to know who is responsible for modeling that so that the 
Federal Government is making sure that we are providing 
localities with this information, but also that we are aware as 
a nation of what is going on. So I appreciate you getting back 
to me on that.
    In San Diego, we have a serious water supply issue, and one 
constant solution is to significantly increase the amount of 
recycled water, including blackwater. San Diego's currently 
implementing the Pure Water Program, which aims to use water 
recycling and reuse technology. We are going to produce 83 
million gallons of purified drinking water per day rather than 
discharging usable freshwater into the ocean.
    My question for you is, how could EPA provide incentives, 
or do these incentives exist to other coastal and riverine 
communities to invest in aggressive water recycling including 
blackwater recycling?
    Dr. McLain. Yes, water reuse is an important tool that is 
available to utilities, and EPA provides information to 
utilities and works with States to help utilities assess some 
of these technologies. And we have financing tools, as you are 
aware of, that are available to help support the investment in 
those technologies if systems choose to implement them.
    Mr. Peters. Can you briefly describe for me what those 
financing tools are that exist today and whether we need more, 
if you have an opinion on that?
    Dr. McLain. Our existing tools right now are the State 
Revolving Funds, we have the Clean Water and Drinking Water 
State Revolving Funds, which both come into play here with the 
reuse technologies that you are talking about, as well as the 
Water Infrastructure Improvement Act Loan Program, which is an 
important resource for low-interest financing. And we have a 
number of grant programs available from the EPA, so we have 
those financing tools to use.
    Mr. Peters. Just let me--I am running out of time, Dr. 
McLain. But do you think we are sufficiently resourced to 
support the needs around the country, or do we need more 
resources?
    Dr. McLain. The infrastructure needs across the country are 
great. For drinking water alone, we estimate over a $470 
billion need.
    Mr. Peters. OK. Well, I appreciate that. And Mr. Chairman, 
I yield back.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from California, 
Representative Barragan. You are recognized for 5 minutes, 
please.
    Ms. Barragan. Well, thank you, Chair Tonko, for holding 
this important hearing on the CLEAN Future Act and drinking 
water legislation that can help ensure every community in 
America has clean and affordable drinking water.
    Dr. McLain, thank you for being here with us today.
    In 2018, the Sativa water system in my district, in 
Compton, California, had issues with brown water, 
affordability, debt, and outdated infrastructure. It had to be 
taken over by the county. This is an issue for many small urban 
and rural water systems in California and throughout the 
country that can struggle with meeting both affordability and 
water quality standards.
    Can you talk about how the EPA works with water systems 
over issues of consolidation and if there is any Federal policy 
guidance or funding to help facilitate these when necessary?
    Dr. McLain. Thank you for the question. Yes, as you say, 
there are many systems that struggle with providing safe 
drinking water, and EPA is there with technical assistance 
programs so that systems can have the capacity from a technical 
and managerial and financial standpoint to operate those 
systems.
    Sometimes one of the options that is the right decision for 
that locality is to consolidate with another system. And we 
have a program at EPA, our partnership program, that provides 
resources to local communities that want to use that option for 
addressing their difficulties at their system, and we work with 
their States very closely in this.
    Ms. Barragan. Thank you. A recent report from the Natural 
Resources Defense Council showed that 186 million Americans 
drank water from systems with lead levels exceeding the level 
of 1 part per billion, which is recommended by the American 
Academy of Pediatrics to protect children from lead in school 
water. For over 61 million Americans, this level exceeds 5 
parts per million. The City of Los Angeles was one of the most 
affected systems.
    How important is the proposed American Jobs Plan's proposed 
$45 billion investment for replacing all lead service pipes 
throughout the country to reducing lead in the water?
    Dr. McLain. Thank you for the question. Lead is a 
neurotoxin, and it is very, very dangerous to be exposed to 
lead in drinking water for children and for adults. We know 
that when the lead service lines are in a home, those lead 
service lines are the most significant--can be the most 
significant source of lead to the home, and so removing lead 
service lines is a way to permanently remove that source of 
lead that can be a potential risk to the people in the homes.
    Ms. Barragan. Thank you. And my last question builds upon 
what Representative Peters just asked you. As the climate gets 
warmer and we see more extreme weather events, this will impact 
our water supplies and availability. Nearly three quarters of 
California is in extreme drought. It is critical that water 
utilities are planning for what changes they will face now 
rather than reacting after they happen.
    Does the EPA provide any technical or financial support for 
water utilities to create climate adaptation plans so they can 
be prepared to meet the needs of their customers?
    Dr. McLain. Thank you. Yes, we do. We provide--we have a 
climate water program for utilities to understand, plan, assess 
their systems, plan what they need to do and to help them 
implement those plans. We have financial programs in place so 
that they can put the money where they need it to increase the 
resiliency of their system against climate-driven changes.
    Ms. Barragan. Well, thank you for that. And thank you, Dr. 
McLain, for your leadership. I am looking forward to working 
with you to make sure we are cleaning up our drinking water, 
because regardless of your ZIP Code, every child deserves clean 
drinking water, every American deserves clean drinking water, 
and we know that water is life.
    And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentlelady yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Virginia, 
Representative McEachin. You are recognized for 5 minutes, 
please, and thank you for your work on the environment.
    Mr. McEachin. And thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    As has been said many times already today, everyone needs 
and deserves ready access to safe drinking water, but in many 
areas that right is under threat with Americans facing 
uncertainty about how they will meet one of life's most basic 
requirements. Most of Virginia's public water systems are 70 
years old, and the EPA says we need to invest $8.1 billion over 
the next 20 years to maintain health and safety standards.
    As ASCE writes, inaction could result in degraded water 
service or quality violations, health issues, and higher cost 
in the future. Legacy infrastructure laden with lead is most 
likely found in low-income communities, communities with older 
stock, and communities of color, and these infrastructure 
issues can leech toxins into drinking water. With inaction in 
this area, we will have long-term health impacts, particularly 
for our children.
    As we continue to see the impacts of climate change, these 
investments in water infrastructure will prove crucial. For 
saltwater threatening our Nation's aquifers and those who rely 
on them for clean water, we will need to invest in the 
necessary infrastructure and services to ensure clean water 
access for those impacted.
    Ms. McLain, thank you so very much for being here today--I 
am sorry, Dr. McLain, thank you so very much for being here 
today. With the initiative taking effect in July, how does the 
EPA plan to work with communities to ensure that their needs 
are being addressed and the funds are reaching communities with 
the greatest needs?
    Dr. McLain. Thank you for the question. Reliable access to 
safe water is so important from a health and an economic 
standpoint, as you say.
    And we are working very hard to make sure that the programs 
that we have under the Safe Drinking Water Act are working to 
provide the funds where they are needed in underserved 
communities through those disadvantaged communities programs in 
the State Revolving Fund as well as in the grant programs that 
Congress has provided for small and disadvantaged communities. 
These are a really important source of money for communities 
that have some of these great infrastructure needs.
    Mr. McEachin. You know, Dr. McLain, many of the communities 
where water infrastructure projects are required suffer from 
underemployment. Will the EPA be in a position to work to 
ensure that infrastructure projects benefit low-income workers 
and workers of color?
    Dr. McLain. Thank you for the question. The construction to 
provide modernization of infrastructure and new treatment, 
those projects bring jobs, and it is an important aspect of the 
programs and for the local economies.
    Mr. McEachin. Dr. McLain, I don't know that this has been 
asked before, but in a general sense--well, let me describe the 
problem very quickly.
    As I already said, Virginia has got old, old, old, old 
infrastructure, and throughout my district in many cases folks 
don't know where the lines are--the water lines are--until they 
break. That is because they were kept in the courthouse, the 
courthouse burned down way back when, and nobody has got copies 
of the records.
    How can EPA help that type of locality locate the lines so 
that they can be in a position to repair and replace them?
    Dr. McLain. Thank you for the question. Yes, there are 
systems that know they have lead service lines but don't have a 
lot of information on where they are, and they have--we call 
those unknown lead--unknown--sorry, unknown service lines, and 
we do provide guidance, and we are continuing to provide 
guidance to the States and to systems on ways to examine the 
service line both from the utility perspective and for 
homeowners. We have videos and documents available to help the 
systems.
    Mr. McEachin. And then real quickly, does that guidance 
have any money associated with it at this point, or do we need 
to provide it?
    Dr. McLain. Thank you for the question. We do have 
technical assistance programs where this could fit in, where a 
system could receive technical assistance in this type of work.
    Mr. McEachin. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I apologize. I owe 
you 12 seconds.
    Mr. Tonko. You do not. But anyhow, it is great to have 
heard from you.
    And the gentleman yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Delaware, 
Representative Blunt Rochester. You have 5 minutes to ask 
questions, please.
    Ms. Blunt Rochester. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman and 
Ranking Member, for calling this hearing.
    And thank you, Dr. McLain, for your testimony.
    As was said, every person in this country regardless of 
race, income, or ZIP Code deserves the right to clean, 
reliable, and safe drinking water and sanitation services, 
which is why last week I introduced H.R. 3293, the bipartisan 
Low-Income Water Customer Assistance Programs Act. And I want 
to give special recognition to my fellow committee member, 
Representative Debbie Dingell, for her help and hard work on 
this bill.
    This legislation would establish a permanent program at EPA 
to help utility companies assist low-income households with 
their drinking water and wastewater bills. It would also ensure 
that utilities have the necessary funding to make crucial 
upgrades to our aging drinking water and wastewater 
infrastructure.
    This is an unprecedented time, and many families, 
particularly low-income families, are struggling to pay their 
utility bills. The ongoing public health crisis has heightened 
the importance and the important role of clean water that it 
plays in our society in keeping communities safe and healthy. 
As we emerge from the ongoing health crisis, we need to work 
together to ensure that all Americans have access to safe and 
affordable water utilities.
    I would also like to state that I have letters of support 
for my bill, including from the American Society of Civil 
Engineers and U.S. Water Alliance and others and ask the Chair 
for unanimous consent to have them entered into the record.
    Mr. Tonko. Yes. Representative Blunt Rochester, we will be 
doing that at the end of the hearing, but certainly.
    Ms. Blunt Rochester. Thank you.
    You spoke to the public health standards, Dr. McLain, 
during Chairman Pallone's questioning, and we have seen how 
vital clean water is during a pandemic also, in particular. How 
can a low-income water customer assistance program, like the 
one outlined in my legislation, help low-income communities 
maintain critical water and wastewater infrastructure networks 
as well as meet public health standards?
    Dr. McLain. Thank you for the question. Water affordability 
is a real challenge across the country, and reliable access to 
water is very important for public health, and we have seen the 
COVID-19 pandemic really deepen these two problems.
    And it is very important for people to have access to a 
continuous water supply, especially in a crisis like the COVID-
19 pandemic has been. And we support the efforts that utilities 
and local governments and State governments took during the 
pandemic to ensure continuous access to water.
    Because we know the devastating impacts that can happen 
when their access--when people don't have access to water, 
which we saw, for example, in the winter storms in Texas and in 
Jackson, Mississippi. And we are--oh, OK.
    Ms. Blunt Rochester. I was just going to say, I know you 
were helpful as Congress provided funding, the $1.1 billion for 
emergency low-income household water and wastewater 
affordability program to be managed by the Department of HHS. 
Can you tell us, given EPA's history of helping set this up, 
does EPA have the capacity to quickly and effectively stand up 
and implement the permanent nationwide program outlined in my 
legislation?
    And as a followup, can you speak to your experience, EPA's 
experience, in administering drinking water grant programs and 
assessing the affordability of drinking water standards?
    Dr. McLain. Thank you for the question. We are working 
closely with the Department of Health and Human Services as 
they implement the low-income household affordability program 
that has been established. And we are working with them and 
learning from them. We have a long track record of implementing 
financing programs and funding programs, including the grant 
programs to help communities that need assistance with water 
infrastructure-related issues. And if Congress enacts such a 
legislation, we would be prepared to work on that. And we are 
happy to give you technical assistance in partnership with the 
Department of Health and Human Services.
    Ms. Blunt Rochester. Great. And I--just to follow up two of 
my colleagues, Peters and Barragan, also talked about climate 
change, and just the frequency of storms making our 
infrastructure upgrades even more costly. How would long-term 
investments in water affordability programs contribute to 
resiliency of these communities?
    And I see my time has run out. But, Mr. Chairman, that is a 
question I have for the witness. And we can submit that for the 
record.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I see you are manipulate----
    Mr. Tonko. Yes. You are most welcome. If the witness wanted 
to just quickly answer, she could.
    Ms. Blunt Rochester. Great.
    Mr. Tonko. She can, please.
    Dr. McLain. Thank you. Yes, utilities have also been 
struggling as well as individual homeowners. So having programs 
available for utilities to help them maintain and operate their 
systems can also be an important factor.
    Ms. Blunt Rochester. Great. Thank you so much, Mr. 
Chairman, for your indulgence. And I yield back.
    Mr. Tonko. Always, always.
    Thank you. The gentlelady yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Florida, 
Representative Soto.
    Thank you so much for joining us. You have 5 minutes, 
please.
    Mr. Soto. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    It is clear that the American Jobs Plan will help address 
safe and ample drinking water for Central Florida and across 
the Nation. We have experienced 20 percent growth in the region 
just in the last 10 years. And I represent over 930,000 
constituents, the sixth most of any congressional district. 
Some areas, we need new drinking water infrastructure to handle 
this growth. Other areas, we need repairs like Orlando and St. 
Cloud, where the infrastructure is aging. Other areas, it is 
about affordability. We recently had an apartment complex, 
Caribbean Isles, that faced an unscrupulous landlord, and now 
individuals are faced trying to afford their water.
    In Polk County, in our rural agriculture areas, they are 
running out of water. And then add threats like climate change, 
intensifying hurricanes, rising seas, with saltwater intrusion 
into our water systems, even cyber attacks. And we understand 
that risk and resiliency is critical.
    Just over in Tampa Bay, an Oldsmar city worker noticed 
something odd on his remote work computer one afternoon in 
February. Large amounts of sodium hydroxide, used in cleaning 
supplies, was increased in the city's water treatment system. 
The worker quickly took action. What had happened? There was 
almost a hack in that water system in Tampa Bay that would have 
poisoned thousands of residents.
    So I want to focus my questions on the importance of 
risking resiliency programs for water systems. Section 1433 
from the Safe Drinking Water Act was created through bipartisan 
work on this committee. It requires water systems to assess and 
address their vulnerabilities to extreme weather and climate 
change as well as intentional acts, like the Oldsmar water 
system cyber attack. The work of this program is far from over. 
And I am happy to see several bills before us in this 
committee, including the CLEAN Future Act and the AQUA Act of 
2021, which would double the funding available to help water 
systems address these vulnerabilities.
    Dr. McLain, what is the status of EPA's implementation of 
this program? I know the deadlines of the program have been 
phased in. So how much progress have we been able to make so 
far?
    Dr. McLain. Thank you for the question. The resiliency of 
our water systems is a critical need, both from the natural 
disaster standpoint as well as from the cybersecurity 
standpoint. And the risk assessment and resiliency program 
established under AWIA has been an important program and 
requiring systems to do risk and resiliency assessments, and 
make emergency response plans based on those assessments.
    We have seen very good compliance with the mandates put in 
place. So far the dates have passed for the largest water 
system and for the medium water systems for the risk assessment 
plans. And we have seen very good compliance. And we are 
already seeing risk assessments come in for the smallest water 
systems. And the deadline for that is in another month.
    Mr. Soto. Thank you, Dr. McLain. These water systems are 
developing vulnerability plans. How much money has gone out the 
door so far once we have reached the implementation stage of 
the program?
    Dr. McLain. Under AWIA, the program is a mandate for 
systems to develop the assessments and the plans. We have 
financing available under our State Revolving Funds and other 
programs for systems that want to make changes to their systems 
based on the plans that they have put in place.
    Mr. Soto. Well, thank you, Dr. McLain. [Inaudible] 
supplement your answer. We will amount that [inaudible] go far 
on the implementation stage of the program. I know the 
committee, that would be helpful for us.
    What other tools has EPA made available to water systems to 
help them adapt to climate change and address cybersecurity?
    Dr. McLain. Thank you for the question. We have a number of 
tools available for systems to address climate change. As I 
mentioned earlier, we have a specific technical assistance 
program creating resilient water utilities. And we also have 
funding and financing programs available to help make those 
changes.
    With respect to cybersecurity, we have a specific 
cybersecurity program where we provide best practices and 
guidance to our water sector. And we do this in collaboration 
with the water sector on measures that utilities can take to 
increase their countermeasures against cyber attacks. And this 
is a voluntary program.
    Mr. Soto. Thank you. My time has expired.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back.
    And The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Arizona. 
Representative O'Halleran, you are recognized for 5 minutes, 
please.
    Mr. O'Halleran. Thank you, Chairman Tonko. I appreciate 
that. I would also like to thank Dr. McLain for joining us 
today.
    EPA is one of these agencies that over the last 4\1/2\ 
years I have had the distinct honor to work with, because I 
have so much work in my district to be able to address your 
issues. And as you can imagine, access to clean drinking water 
is a very important issue for families in Arizona. This is 
especially true in rural and Tribal areas where water 
infrastructure is lacking.
    An estimated one in six households in the Navajo Nation do 
not have water piped to their homes. You will find the same 
story in other Tribal lands in Arizona and throughout the 
southwest. Over 100,000 homes on Tribal lands lack access to 
running water and adequate sanitation infrastructure. It is an 
outrage that so many communities still lack access to clean, 
reliable drinking water here in the United States.
    Adding to these problems are environmental hazards on 
Tribal lands that contaminate some sources of water. Addressing 
these problems requires attention and coordination across 
Federal agencies.
    First of all, Doctor, I would like to ask you, in 
comparison to how much work is needed to be done, just with 
your priorities and how you are funding is, what percentage do 
you think you can meet of the ongoing need versus the ongoing 
funding?
    Dr. McLain. Thank you for your question. I don't think I 
have a percentage for you today, but I am in agreement with you 
about the long-standing challenges in Indian Country and the 
significant infrastructure needs.
    We know that there are many Native American households that 
do not have access to basic plumbing for wastewater and for 
drinking water. And we do work closely with Indian Health 
Services and other Federal agencies to partner with Tribes to 
make improvements, particularly on this access issue, which as 
you mentioned is very important. Just last year, we were able 
to use the Small and Disadvantaged grant program as provided by 
Congress to help make progress on this access issue in Tribal 
lands.
    Mr. O'Halleran. I thank you, Dr. McLain.
    Can you tell us more about that role that you played in 
addressing those areas to get access?
    Dr. McLain. Yes. Thank you. So the Small and Disadvantaged 
Communities Grant Program that I was just mentioning provided 
by Congress and has as a priority underserved communities 
with--lacking access. And this most--in 2020 we used the funds 
appropriated by Congress to address those access means needs in 
Tribal lands. And we have been announcing the awards as we have 
been making them over the past few months. Very excited to have 
the ability to put that program in place.
    And we work with our other financing programs very closely 
under the State Revolving Fund with the money set aside for 
Tribal lands to address access and water quality issues in 
collaboration with Indian Health Services, both for the Tribal 
Nations and for Alaska Native villages.
    Mr. O'Halleran. Thank you. The last question I have is 
Administrator Regan was here last month. These Superfund sites 
of uranium mines up on Navajo, a tremendous amount of them, 
these Superfund sites, impact the availability of clean 
drinking water for thousands of residents. Can you tell us how 
the Departments within the EPA coordinates with each other and 
officials on the ground to keep clean drinking water a 
priority?
    Dr. McLain. Yes, thank you. I know that the President has 
prioritized a cleanup of mines. And EPA definitely works within 
EPA across our authorities to address important drinking water 
issues, contamination of drinking water that can happen, for 
example, how a Superfund site is an important mitigation 
measure for improving the quality of drinking water in a 
locality.
    Mr. O'Halleran. Mr. Chairman, I yield and thank you, Dr. 
McLain.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you. The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes the Representative from Texas. The 
gentleman has asked to waive on to the subcommittee. And so the 
Chair recognizes Dr. Burgess for 5 minutes, please. Thank you.
    Mr. Burgess. Thank you, Chairman Tonko.
    I just want to say at the outset I don't want to get in a 
long debate about this, but it strikes me as unusual earlier in 
the questioning when Mr. Johnson had his line of questioning 
restricted. This is a committee that has often enjoyed a wide-
ranging jurisdiction, and it just seem to me for a Member to be 
able to question an Agency personnel does not seem 
unreasonable. So I just register that discomfort with the 
restriction placed upon Mr. Johnson's line of questioning.
    So I do have a question on section 621, the enhancing 
underground injection controls for enhanced oil recovery. It 
seems like this is creating a new class of underground 
injection wells for this enhanced oil recovery. This uses 
carbon dioxide to more easily extract the crude oil.
    So Dr. McLain, are current enhanced oil recovery activities 
already regulated under the EPA's Underground Injection Control 
Program?
    Dr. McLain. Thank you for that question. At this time, we 
regulate the sequestration of carbon dioxide under the Class VI 
UIC program, and under the Class II program there are 
provisions for sequestration of carbon dioxide with enhanced 
oil recovery. Yes.
    Mr. Burgess. So is the EPA able or unable to safely 
regulate enhanced oil recovery under current law?
    Dr. McLain. We are enacting the statute as it is written 
today. And we will be prepared to work with Congress as you 
consider changes to those programs. We are happy to provide 
specific technical assistance.
    Mr. Burgess. And we are grateful for the technical 
assistance, but in order to give the fundamental question, are 
we able or unable to regulate, safely regulate, enhanced oil 
recovery under current law?
    Dr. McLain. We are in partnership with the States. And we 
are implementing the Underground Injection Control Program to 
protect underground sources of drinking water. And we are doing 
this today across all of the well classes.
    Mr. Burgess. Well again, it just begs the question, has the 
EPA failed to protect ground water near enhanced oil recovery 
activity?
    Dr. McLain. I don't have any information on that topic.
    Mr. Burgess. It just makes you ask the question of, why 
would a new regulation be necessary for enhanced oil recovery 
if the EPA is adequately protecting ground water near oil 
recovery activity?
    Let me just ask a question, because this is a little bit 
unrelated, but it does--we had a week of winter in February in 
Texas. And it resulted in some lack of water in some locations. 
And then Hurricane Harvey a couple of years ago, a solar 
problem down in the Houston area. And what strikes me is that 
dialysis centers always seem to be terribly adversely affected 
by these types of events.
    Is there anything that you do in conjunction with other 
parts of the Department of Health Department and Human Services 
to ensure that dialysis centers have access to the type of 
water resources that they need during the time of crisis?
    Dr. McLain. Thank you for that question.
    There are critical infrastructure like healthcare that are 
dependent on water. It is very important in an emergency 
situation for those facilities to have access to water 
available to them.
    And we do work under the emergency response system in the 
U.S. with the State and the local emergency responders to help 
them understand that the water sector is critical, in response, 
in terms of getting it stood up right away and ensuring 
connections to those facilities that need it most.
    Mr. Burgess. Yes. Of course typically those patients cannot 
wait----
    Dr. McLain. Yes.
    Mr. Burgess [continuing]. What is more than a day or 2 with 
interruption in their process. And the type of water that is 
required is obviously highly purified and pretty 
professionalized. It is worth paying some attention to because 
it does seem to crop up from time to time.
    Thank you, Mr. Tonko. Thank you for hearing my criticism at 
the beginning. And I will yield back.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back.
    I believe that completes the list of our colleagues who 
chose to question the witness at today's subcommittee hearing. 
And I do thank our witness for joining us.
    I remind Members that, pursuant to committee rules, they 
have 10 business days in which to submit additional questions. 
And we would ask that they be answered by our witness and to 
respond promptly, please, to any such questions that you may 
received.
    Before we adjourn, we have had a request for several 
documents to be included in the record.
    So I request unanimous consent to enter the following 
documents into the record:
    A report from Environment America Research and Policy 
Center and U.S. PIRG Education Fund entitled ``Get the Lead 
Out: Ensuring Safe Drinking Water for Our Children at School.''
    A blog post from Environment America Research and Policy 
Center entitled ``No more pipe dreams: EPA must order removal 
of all lead service lines.''
    A letter from 62 organizations to former Assistant 
Administrator Ross, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, on 
revisions to lead and copper national primary drinking water 
regulations.
    A letter from the Association of Metropolitan Water 
Agencies and the National Association of Clean Water Agencies 
to support--in support of H.R. 3293, the Low-Income Water 
Customer Assistance Program Act of 2021.
    A report from New York League of Conservation Voters 
Education Fund entitled ``5 is the New 15: A Case for Reducing 
the Action Level for Lead in New York State's Public School 
Drinking Water Program from 15 parts per billion (ppb) to 5 
ppb.''
    A letter from the America Water Works Association, 
Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies, National 
Association of Water Companies, and the National Rural Water 
Association.
    A letter from the U.S. Water Alliance in support of H.R. 
3293, the Low-Income Water Customer Assistance Program Act of 
2021.
    A letter from the American Society of Civil Engineers in 
support of H.R. 3293, the Low-Income Water Customer Assistance 
Programs Act of 2021.
    A letter from the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities 
Initiative's Mayors Commission on Water Equity in support of 
H.R. 3293, the Low-Income Water Customer Assistance Programs 
Act of 2021.
    A statement from Representative Veronica Escobar.
    A letter from the Water Equity and Climate Resilience 
Caucus in support of H.R. 3293, the Low-Income Water Customer 
Assistance Program Act of 2021.
    A letter from GreenLatinos in support of H.R. 3293, the 
Low-Income Water Customer Assistance Program Act of 2021.
    A letter from the Water Design-Build Council.
    A statement from Representative Rashida Tlaib.
    A fact sheet from the American Exploration and Production 
Council on H.R. 1512, the CLEAN Future Act.
    A fact sheet from the American Exploration and Production 
Council on the Safe Drinking Water Act.
    An article from Chemical & Engineering News, entitled there 
is no need to control PFAS as a class industry scientists say.
    A letter from the Independent Petroleum Association of 
America.
    A letter from the Ground Water Protection Council.
    A letter from the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact 
Commission.
    A resolution from the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact 
Commission entitled ``Urging the Federal Government to Work 
with States in the Spirit of Cooperative Federalism During 
Review of the Federal Fossil Fuels Program.''
    A resolution from the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact 
Commission entitled ``Pertaining to The CLEAN Future Act and 
Any Substantially Similar Legislation or Policies.''
    An article from Americans for Tax Reform entitled ``CLEAN 
Future Act Lays Groundwork for Backdoor Fracking Ban.''
    So those are the requests.
    Do I hear any objection?
    Mr. McKinley. No objection.
    Mr. Tonko. So without objection, so ordered.
    [The information appears at the conclusion of the 
hearing.\1\]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ The Environment America Research and Policy Center and U.S. 
PIRG Education Fund report has been retained in committee files and is 
available at https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF18/20210525/112686/
HHRG-117-IF18-20210525-SD003.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Tonko. With that, the committee is adjourned.
    And I thank everyone for their cooperation and we are 
adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 1:59 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
    [Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]