[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
TRUSTING THE TAP: UPGRADING AMERICA'S
DRINKING WATER INFRASTRUCTURE
=======================================================================
HYBRID HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND CLIMATE CHANGE
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MARCH 29, 2022
__________
Serial No. 117-76
[GRAPHIC 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
60-334 PDF WASHINGTON : 2025
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
Chairman
BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois CATHY Mc MORRIS RODGERS,
ANNA G. ESHOO, California Washington
DIANA De GETTE, Colorado Ranking Member
MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania FRED UPTON, Michigan
JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
G. K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana
DORIS O. MATSUI, California ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
KATHY CASTOR, Florida BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky
JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland DAVID B. Mc KINLEY, West Virginia
JERRY Mc NERNEY, California ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois
PETER WELCH, Vermont H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia
PAUL TONKO, New York GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida
YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York BILL JOHNSON, Ohio
KURT SCHRADER, Oregon BILLY LONG, Missouri
TONY CARDENAS, California LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana
RAUL RUIZ, California MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
SCOTT H. PETERS, California RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina
DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan TIM WALBERG, Michigan
MARC A. VEASEY, Texas EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois, Vice GARY J. PALMER, Alabama
Chair NEAL P. DUNN, Florida
NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California JOHN R. CURTIS, Utah
A. DONALD Mc EACHIN, Virginia DEBBIE LESKO, Arizona
LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware GREG PENCE, Indiana
DARREN SOTO, Florida DAN CRENSHAW, Texas
TOM O'HALLERAN, Arizona JOHN JOYCE, Pennsylvania
KATHLEEN M. RICE, New York KELLY ARMSTRONG, North Dakota
ANGIE CRAIG, Minnesota
KIM SCHRIER, Washington
LORI TRAHAN, Massachusetts
LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas
------
Professional Staff
TIFFANY GUARASCIO, Staff Director
WAVERLY GORDON, 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........................................... 4
David B. McKinley, a Representative in Congress from the State of
West Virginia, opening statement............................... 7
Prepared statement........................................... 9
Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the
State of New Jersey, opening statement......................... 11
Prepared statement........................................... 13
Hon. Earl L. ``Buddy'' Carter, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Georgia, opening statement........................ 15
Prepared statement........................................... 17
Witnesses
Prepared statement Erik D. Olson, Senior Strategic Director for
Health And Food, Natural Resources Defense Counsel............. 22
Prepared statement........................................... 25
Answers to submitted questions............................... 166
Lori J. Mathieu, Public Health Branch Chief, Environmental Health
and Drinking Water Branch, Connecticut Department of Public
Health, and President, Association of Drinking Water
Administrators................................................. 60
Prepared statement........................................... 62
Answers to submitted questions............................... 167
Kareem Adeem, Director of Water and Sewer Utilities, The City of
Newark, New Jersey............................................. 79
Prepared statement........................................... 81
Answers to submitted questions............................... 175
Richard Diaz, Midwest Regional Field Organizer, Bluegreen
Alliance....................................................... 83
Prepared statement........................................... 85
Answers to submitted questions............................... 177
James P. McGoff, Chief Operating Officer and Director of
Environmental Programs, Indiana Finance Authority, on Behalf of
Council of Infrastructure Financing Authorities................ 96
Prepared statement........................................... 98
Answers to submitted questions............................... 181
Submitted Material
Letter of March 29, 2022, from Matthew Holmes, Chief Executive
Officer, National Rural Water Association, to Mr. Tonko and Mr.
McKinley, submitted by Mr. Tonko............................... 140
Letter of March 28, 2022, from Keith Ashby, Interim CEO, Rural
Community Assistance Partnership, to Mr. Pallone and Ms.
Rodgers, submitted by Mr. Tonko................................ 142
Letter of March 29, 2022, from G. Tracy Mehan, III, Executive
Director for Government Affairs, American Water Works
Association, to Mr. Pallone and Mrs. Rodgers, submitted by Mr.
Tonko.......................................................... 144
Letter of March 29, 2022, from Michael Arceneaux, Acting Chief
Executive Officer, Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies,
to Mr. Tonko and Mr. McKinley, submitted by Mr. Tonko.......... 147
Letter of March 29, 2022, from industry associations, to Mr.
Tonko and Mr. McKinley, submitted by Mr. Tonko................. 155
Replacement Ordinance Notice of May 11, 2021, submitted by Mr.
Tonko.......................................................... 157
Letter of August 23, 2021, from Steven Pudney, C. Eng., MICE,
Section Chief-Engineering, Bureau of Water System Engineering,
Department of Environmental Protection of the State of New
Jersey, to Mr. Adeem, submitted by Mr. Tonko................... 160
Inventory Source Data of March 24, 2022, from Eric Bennett,
Parkersburg Utility Board, submitted by McKinley............... 162
Letter of June 30, 2021, from Michael S. Regan, EPA
Administrator, to Chemical Sector Partners, submitted by Mr.
Crenshaw....................................................... 164
TRUSTING THE TAP: UPGRADING AMERICA'S DRINKING WATER INFRASTRUCTURE
----------
TUESDAY, MARCH 29, 2022
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Environment and Climate Change,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:33 a.m.,
the John D. Dingell Room, 2123, Rayburn House Office Building
and remotely via Cisco Webex online video conferencing, Hon.
Paul Tonko, (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Members present: Representatives Tonko, Schakowsky,
Sarbanes, Clarke, Ruiz, 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 McNerney.
Staff present: Timia Crisp, Professional Staff Member;
Waverly Gordon, Deputy Staff Director and General Counsel;
Tiffany Guarascio, Staff Director; Anthony Gutierrez,
Professional Staff Member; Caitlin Haberman, Senior
Professional Staff Member; Perry Hamilton, Clerk; Zach Kahan,
Deputy Director Outreach and Membership Services; Rick Kessler,
Senior Advisor and Staff Director, Energy and Environment;
Mackenzie Kuhl, Press Assistant; Brendan Larkin, Policy
Coordinator; Elysa Montfort, Press Secretary; Kaitlyn Peel,
Digital Director; Kylea Rogers, Staff Assistant; Andrew
Souvall, Director of Communications, Outreach and Member
Services; Rebecca Tomilchik, Policy Analyst; Michael Cameron,
Minority Policy Analyst, Consumer Protection and Commerce,
Energy, Environment; Jerry Couri, Minority Deputy Chief Counsel
for Environment; Peter Kielty, Minority General Counsel; Emily
King, Minority Member Services Director; Bijan Koohmaraie,
Minority Chief Counsel, Oversight and Investigations Chief
Counsel; and Mary Martin, Minority Chief Counsel, Energy and
Environment
Mr. Tonko. The Subcommittee on Environment and Climate
Change will now come to order.
Today the subcommittee is holding a hearing entitled,
``Trusting the Tap: Upgrading America's Drinking Water
Infrastructure.''
Due to the COVID-19 public health emergency, members can
participate in today's hearing either in person or remotely via
online video conferencing.
In accordance with the updated guidance issued by the
attending physician, members, staff, and members of the press
present in the hearing room are not required to wear a mask.
For members participating remotely, your microphones will
be set on mute for the purpose of eliminating inadvertent
background noise. Members participating remotely will need to
unmute your microphone each time you wish to speak.
Please note that once you unmute you microphone, anything
that is said in Webex will be heard over the loudspeakers in
the committee room and subject to be heard by the live stream
and C-SPAN.
Since members are participating from different locations at
today's hearing, all recognition of members, such as for
questions, will be in the order of subcommittee seniority.
Documents for the record can be sent to Rebecca Tomilchik
at the email address we provided to staff, and all documents
will be entered into the record at the conclusion of this
hearing.
I now recognize myself for 5 minutes for an opening
statement.
STATEMENT OF HON. PAUL TONKO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Mr. Tonko. For many years under both Democratic and
Republican majorities, this committee has heard from a chorus
of State and local governments, public health and environmental
organizations, labor unions, and American manufacturers urging
Congress to provide greater Federal assistance in support of
our Nation's crumbling water infrastructure.
We are all too aware of water systems' struggles, frequent
main breaks, massive leaks of treated water, PFAS
contaminations, and an estimated ten million lead pipes in
service, which are overwhelmingly found in low-income
communities and communities of color.
These challenges on top of a growing backlog of maintenance
projects put financial stress on local governments and water
authorities, which then translates to rate increases for water
users.
I believe that every federally elected official should bear
some responsibility and, frankly, some shame that there are so
many Americans that lack access to safe, reliable, and, yes,
affordable drinking water.
Only since last year can we say that we have made an honest
attempt to tackle the scale of this problem. Last year's
bipartisan infrastructure law made an historic down payment to
address our long-neglected water infrastructure. It included
more than $50 billion for water systems, and today we will have
an opportunity to examine the funding being distributed through
the Drinking Water State Revolving Funds.
This includes some $11.7 billion to supplement the Drinking
Water SRF annual appropriations; $15 billion for the
replacement of lead service lines; and $4 billion to address
emerging contaminants in drinking water, such as PFAS.
Furthermore, Congress has required that 49 percent of the
funds for the SRF supplemental and lead lines be provided as
grants and forgivable loans to our disadvantaged communities.
Given this historic investment, there will certainly need
to be some adjustments made by States, and with that in mind,
earlier this month EPA issued an implementation memo to provide
information to States on how best to administer these new
funds, and by providing this funding through the SRF, States
have flexibility to meet their unique needs.
This is the nature of the cooperative federalism enshrined
in the Safe Drinking Water Act, and I have no doubt that it can
continue to be a successful model.
It is my expectation that EPA will continue to provide
technical assistance and guidance on how States can make the
most of these funds, including by identifying best practices to
enhance capacity building and program access for rural and
disadvantaged communities.
We know that ramping up State and local governments'
capacity to administer these funds effectively will have its
challenges, but we should not allow these challenges, which can
and will be overcome by committed States, to overshadow the
immense opportunity being provided by this funding.
States and local governments will finally be able to
address their immense infrastructure backlogs. They will have a
pipeline of resources to enable recruitment and training of the
next generation of water sector employees and the ability to
access SRF funds as grants and forgivable loans which provides
new opportunities to small and disadvantaged systems that
previously would never have been able to consider an SRF loan.
It is no surprise that stakeholders, such as the National
Rural Water Association and the Rural Community Assistance
Partnership, have submitted letters which will be entered into
the hearing record later today that celebrate this funding's
potential benefits to rural communities.
The bipartisan infrastructure law will result in long-
overdue work getting done. It will fund projects that will make
Americans healthier, and it will create jobs.
The city of Newark has proven it can be done, and the work
being done in Milwaukee is further confirming that there are
replicable models for removing lead lines and repairing
infrastructure that results in developing a localized,
unionized workforce.
This funding will not solve all of our Nation's water
issues. There is still work to do both to ensure effective
implementation of these funds as well as efforts to improve
water affordability, system resilience, and certainly standard
setting.
But I am excited that today we will hear from State, local,
public health, and labor organizations to understand the
opportunities created by this bipartisan infrastructure law.
I do thank our witnesses for joining us this morning, and I
look forward to your testimonies.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Tonko follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Paul Tonko
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Paul Tonko
Mr. Tonko. And with that, I will now recognize the ranking
member of the subcommittee, Representative McKinley of West
Virginia.
The mic is yours.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID B. McKINLEY, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA
Mr. McKinley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, according to the American Society of Civil
Engineers, they publish a report card that ranks the States
according to their water quality and their whole infrastructure
system, and they commented that Nevada and Oregon were ranked
first and second for their quality of their infrastructure.
So it may be understandable that those States may have had
some reservation about funding an infrastructure bill, but what
about Mississippi, West Virginia who ranked last?
If you look at the report card, we are ranked last in the
country. Our drinking water alone in West Virginia was given a
D, the lowest rating.
These States are desperate. Nearly everyone in Congress
says America needs better infrastructure, but when they were
given a chance to vote for the bill last year, it did not pass
unanimously.
So, Mr. Chairman, look. I have been a Member of Congress
for nearly 12 years, and this was the first opportunity we had
to get a real infrastructure bill to the President's desk.
Oh, President Obama talked about doing it, but in the eight
years he never did it, and then President Trump wanted to pass
an infrastructure, but Speaker Pelosi would not let his bill
come to the floor.
And after months of bickering here, partisan bickering, I
appreciate the leadership's decision to keep the social
spending known as Build Back Better separate from the bill.
Now, this bill we have passed by the legislature is pure
infrastructure.
And according to Forbes, the social spending portion is
dead in the Senate.
So when I am back in West Virginia, I hear great things
from stakeholders everywhere I go about this bill, from Marie
Prezioso with the West Virginia Water Development Authority and
Todd Grinstead with the West Virginia Rural Water Association.
They talk about communities like Aurora, Fairview, Paw Paw, and
McDowen, and Wayne County, McDowen and Wyoming County. These
communities are struggling, Mr. Chairman.
According to the West Virginia DEP, our State had nearly
2,500 miles of contaminated water streams. So this bipartisan
infrastructure bill is a once in a lifetime opportunity for
these small and rural communities to get clean, affordable
water.
But this committee is going to need to conduct rigorous
oversight. Democrats unfortunately have a history of
prioritizing climate change over drinking water and putting
urban interests over those of rural communities.
For example, President Obama cut funding for the State
Revolving Fund for rural areas by half.
So these communities must be vigilant to ensure, and this
committee particularly and to you, Mr. Chairman; we have got to
be vigilant that the small and rural communities are not left
out again.
So I look forward to today's discussion, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McKinley follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. David B. McKinley
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes Representative Pallone, the hard-
working chair of the full committee, for 5 minutes for his
opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, Jr., A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Chairman Tonko, particularly for
that hard-working remark. Thank you.
Mr. Tonko. It is true.
Mr. Pallone. Today the committee is continuing its ongoing
work to ensure all Americans have access to safe and clean
drinking water.
And when you think about it, there is no more basic
necessity in our lives than drinking water. We all need to be
able to trust that when we turn the tap on, our faucets have
water coming out that is safe for us and for our families.
Unfortunately, for far too long we failed to properly
invest in our aging drinking water infrastructure, and as
Chairman Tonko mentioned, the American Society of Civil
Engineers just last year gave our Nation's water infrastructure
a C-minus grade, and that is simply unacceptable for a Nation
as prosperous our ours.
Fortunately, last November this Congress acted by passing
the bipartisan infrastructure law, which included $30 billion
to strengthen and rebuild our drinking water infrastructure,
and this is the single largest Federal investment in our
drinking water infrastructure in our Nation's history.
Specifically, the law provides over $11 billion to bolster
the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund, our main funding
mechanism for drinking water projects, and the Drinking Water
SRF provides flexibility to States to address pressing drinking
water challenges. It is imperative that we leverage this
flexibility to ensure that we are lifting up communities.
And while the SRF has been a critical lifeline, there are
many small, rural, and underserved communities that face
barriers to access this Federal funding source. Our ranking
member mentioned that, and those communities, which often have
the greatest needs, will benefit from additional resources and
assistance, and we should ensure that they can tap into them.
Now, the bipartisan infrastructure law also includes $15
billion to help accelerate the inventory and removal of lead
service lines, which is one of my priorities as chairman.
Earlier this year, I was pleased to see Newark, and we have
Director Adeem here representing Newark in my home State. They
completed their efforts to replace all of the lead service
lines.
But millions of other Americans in other places are being
exposed to lead in drinking water through lead service lines,
and this is extremely troubling considering that there is no
safe lead exposure level.
All of these lead pipes must be replaced, and this funding
will provide a huge boost in our efforts to finally address the
longstanding issue of lead in drinking water.
The law also allocates $9 billion to remove dangerous PFAS
chemicals, also known as ``forever chemicals,'' from drinking
water, and this funding will help water systems cleanup PFAS
contamination that is becoming more prevalent and is linked to
adverse health effects.
This investment will accelerate current infrastructure
projects and kickstart new, often costly projects.
So with the bipartisan infrastructure law, we are not only
modernizing our infrastructure in a more resilient way for the
future, but we are also strengthening our local economies.
With provisions to expand the use of American iron and
steel and prevailing wage protections, the bipartisan
infrastructure law will help create good paying jobs across
industries and bolster domestic manufacturing.
But as I said, clean, safe drinking water is, in my
opinion, a fundamental right, and the bipartisan infrastructure
law provides our Nation with the necessary resources to take a
long overdue step toward making safe drinking water a reality
for all, including disadvantaged communities that have been
disproportionately impacted by environmental contamination.
I just wanted to take a minute to say that I appreciate all
our witnesses today, but especially Newark's Water and Sewer
Utilities Director Kareem Adeem. Thanks to his leadership,
along with the mayor, Mayor Baraka, and Governor Murphy and our
congressional delegation, Newark successfully completed the
replacement of all of its lead lines earlier this year.
And I really want to commend you for your work, Director
Adeem. Mayor Baraka made this a major point that he wanted to
do this, and you know, Congress helped in other ways. We
actually had to redirect some of the funds from the Clean Water
Act with legislation that I had introduced in the House and
Senator Booker championed in the Senate and Donald Payne also.
I have to mention Congressman Payne who represents Newark.
But I still think it was amazing that you did this so
quickly, that you were able to do it so quickly. It really was
amazing.
So thank you again and thank you for being here.
We have an incredible opportunity to build resilience and
invest in the future of communities. We also have an
opportunity to continue to work on a bipartisan basis to ensure
these funds have a long-lasting impact, which is why Chairman
Tonko is having this hearing today.
And while this funding is a critical step in closing the
resource gap for drinking water, there is a lot more we can do
and should do to ensure that every person can trust the water
that is coming out of the tap.
So thank you, again, Chairman Tonko. This is a very
important hearing.
I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back.
Now the Chair will recognize Representative Buddy Carter of
Georgia, who is speaking on behalf of Mrs. Rodgers, the ranking
member of the full committee.
Mr. Carter, you are recognized for 5 minutes please.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. EARL LEROY ``BUDDY'' CARTER, A
REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF GEORGIA
Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank all of our
witnesses for being here. We appreciate your attendance very
much.
From Day One I urged for there to be transparency on the
massive amounts of money this Congress has been providing to
the executive branch. Record government spending is fueling
inflation, and it is out of control.
From the gas pump to the grocery store, it is making it
harder for people to pay for basic expenses to get by. We just
learned that funds from the Democrats', quote, ``American
Rescue Plan,'' have been spent on things like a hotel, a
ballpark, and ski slopes.
This is the kind of waste we warned about when Democrats
acted alone to spend $2 trillion. Where is the accountability
we have been asking for?
Whether it is over this $2 trillion and inflationary
spending or over this Senate infrastructure law, there must be
proper oversight over how we spend people's hard-earned
taxpayer dollars.
American families who are struggling to afford gas, cars,
food, new clothes, and heating their homes, they deserve the
certainty that their duly elected representatives are leading
to ensure funds are not wasted or abused. We should all be
asking if the Federal Government wants to spend more money, can
the American people afford it.
Today is an important opportunity for this subcommittee to
review and conduct oversight over the Safe Drinking Water Act
provisions in the Senate infrastructure law, and I appreciate
the chairman scheduling it.
That being said, we are missing an important witness, the
Environmental Protection Agency. The EPA is responsible for
implementing the law we are discussing today. I hope, Mr.
Chairman, that you will work with us to invite EPA to testify
about its implementation of the $35 billion in funding for safe
drinking water programs.
So let me be clear. My stated concerns with the drinking
water provisions in the Senate infrastructure law are about
transparency and accountability. Without question, I want our
communities to have safe drinking water.
I was a mayor one time. I get it. I understand how
important it is. Making that water safe though costs money.
Some communities, because it requires a monetary investment,
again, I get it and I understand. I was a mayor of a growing
city.
Because it requires a monetary investment, they need help
from the Federal Government, but simply throwing money at
drinking water challenges using a Federal one-size-fits-all
approach is no way to solve the problems that many communities
face.
My concerns start with the large amounts of spending, but
also include whether EPA is using this bill as an excuse to
overtake drinking water program management, spending
flexibility, and utility operations.
These are all areas that traditionally fall to local
governments and to the States. A Federal takeover would be
unprecedented and troubling.
My concerns with the Safe Drinking Water provisions in the
Senate infrastructure bill go further. First, whether they
impact the law's mandates on required spending. Promoting
purchasing power for communities should be our highest aim.
If we swallow up these goals with requirements that strain
the ability to complete necessary projects, we do both
taxpayers and those serving communities a disservice.
Second, how will this additional new funding and EPA's
guidance affect existing State Drinking Water Revolving Funds?
And will any of the changes relate only to the Senate
infrastructure funding or would they have long-term impacts to
project prioritization on the State Revolving Fund?
Third, will this law improve cybersecurity at drinking
water plants or does it just increase the burdens on utilities
and strain their resources?
Fourth, there are questions about the lead service line
replacement provisions. For example, do EPA and the States know
where the lead service lines are?
And will the agency ensure that millionaires do not benefit
under this program?
Finally, there are concerns about rural communities' role
in the funding. Will rural communities have access to funding
and technical assistance or could they fall just outside of the
definition of disadvantaged communities?
The Senate infrastructure law has both substantial
authorizing and appropriations provisions. So we have a lot to
cover today. Again, I hope in a future hearing the EPA is here
to formally answer questions about its use of $35 billion in
additional funding.
This is important to ensure accountability and understand
any changes that may be needed in the law.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I look forward to our
conversation today, and I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Carter follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Earl Leroy ``Buddy'' Carter
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair reminds members that, pursuant to committee
rules, all Members' written opening statements shall be made
part of the record.
I now introduce the witnesses for today's hearing. We have
Mr. Eric Olson, Senior Strategic Director for Health and Food,
Natural Resources Defense Council.
We have Ms. Lori Mathieu, Public Health Branch Chief of the
Environmental Health and Drinking Water Branch of Connecticut's
Department of Public Health, and President of the Association
of Drinking Water Administrators.
Mr. Kareem Adeem, Director of Water and Sewer Utilities for
the city of Newark, New Jersey.
And on Zoom, we have Mr. Richard Diaz, Midwest Regional
Field Organizer for the BlueGreen Alliance.
And then finally, Mr. Jim McGoff, Chief Operating Officer
and Director of Environmental Programs, Indiana Finance
Authority, on behalf of the Council of Infrastructure Financing
Authorities.
We welcome each and every one of you here today and on
Zoom.
And at this time the Chair will recognize each witness for
5 minutes to provide the opening statements.
Before we begin, I would like to explain the lighting
system. In front of our witnesses is a series of lights. The
light will initially be green. The light will turn yellow when
you have 1-minute remaining. Please begin to wrap up your
testimony at that point. The light will turn red when your time
expires.
Since we have witnesses appearing virtually, I need to ask
my colleagues in the hearing room to mute themselves whenever
they are not directly speaking during their Q&A portion so that
we can, indeed, clearly hear the witnesses' responses.
So with that, we now recognize Mr. Olson for 5 minutes
please to provide your opening statement, and again, welcome.
STATEMENT OF ERIK D. OLSON, SENIOR STRATEGIC DIRECTOR FOR
HEALTH AND FOOD, NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNSEL; LORI J.
MATHIEU, PUBLIC HEALTH BRANCH CHIEF, ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AND
DRINKING WATER BRANCH, CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH,
AND PRESIDENT, ASSOCIATION OF DRINKING WATER ADMINISTRATORS;
KAREEM ADEEM, DIRECTOR OF WATER AND SEWER UTILITIES, THE CITY
OF NEWARK, NEW JERSEY; RICHARD DIAZ, MIDWEST REGIONAL FIELD
ORGANIZER, BLUEGREEN ALLIANCE; AND JAMES P. McGOFF, CHIEF
OPERATING OFFICER AND DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS,
INDIANA FINANCE AUTHORITY, ON BEHALF OF COUNCIL OF
INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING AUTHORITIES
STATEMENT OF ERIK D. OLSON
Mr. Olson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank Ranking
Member McKinley and all members of the committee.
I am Eric Olson with NRDC, Natural Resources Defense
Counsel.
And I wanted to emphasize that this bipartisan
infrastructure law--I will call it ``the bill''--really makes
historic investments, and I appreciate the bipartisan nature of
the investments that are being made and appreciate the ranking
member's vote in favor of this as well as many other members of
this committee.
It is an historic investment that is going to yield
benefits for a long time.
One issue that we talked about, heard about a little bit
already, is the $15 billion that are going to be invested to
remove these lead pipes, which is basically like drinking water
out of a lead straw. We do not want to be doing that.
And the good news is that that investment is going to take
a big bite out of this problem. But $15 billion is about a
third of what we need. The reconciliation bill that this body
passed some time ago would add an additional $10 billion that
is really urgently needed money in addition.
And I wanted to point out that this historic investment
really is something that is broadly supported. All the polling
shows that about 90 percent of the public supports investing in
things like pulling out all of these lead pipes.
So this is something that is both good sense from a public
support standpoint, but also of course from a public health
standpoint.
One thing that we really need to do, as several members
have already mention, is make sure that this money is being
targeted well to the disadvantaged communities that need it.
And I will emphasize that the States get the vast majority
of this money. This is not going to be administered by the
Federal Government in most cases. Most of that money is going
out to each individual State.
The State defines what a disadvantaged community is, and
the State is going to be allocating the money.
So we need to make sure that that money is being targeted
where it is needed most, be it a rural community that has
urgent need or be it a large city that may have a pocket of
low-income people that really need to get that help.
The bill also includes, as has been mentioned by a couple
of members, $9 billion to address these so-called PFAS, the
chemicals that have been around for now many years and are just
starting to show up in West Virginia, New York, many other
States. North Carolina has a severe problem with PFAS
contamination. Basically every State has this.
We believe that it is going to be a top priority to make
sure that is addressed.
In addition, there are a lot of good jobs that are going to
be created. You are going to hear from Mr. Adeem in Newark who
has created a lot of jobs of local people who are trained by a
local union.
These jobs are very well paying. We hope that they are
going to be permanent. I cite in my testimony a study that
found over 560,000 job-years that are going to be created just
by pulling out the lead pipes. Those are going to be good
paying jobs under this infrastructure legislation. It is
crucial that that go forward.
But I will point out that industry estimates are that the
total cost is going to be a trillion dollars for all of our
drinking water infrastructure fixes. That is a big investment.
We are going to need more than has already been put on the
table. We have got an historic investment, but there is a lot
more needed.
Nine to 12 million lead service lines still in the ground;
lead in schools, which this legislation did not quite tackle.
There are widespread PFAS contamination problems, and 30
million people are served by systems that are in violation of
the Safe Drinking Water Act. All of that needs to be addressed.
In addition, we have got some pockets in Appalachia and
Texas border communities, low income, deep South
[inaudible]. We need to address this.
[Audio malfunction.]
We also need to tackle the fact that with climate change
there are going to be more and more challenges that are going
to be coming. Texas' recent experience with losing huge swaths
of the State and of Mississippi with no water and now power as
a result of a storm. That is an initial indication that we have
got this huge problem.
So we envision a future where every person in America gets
safe, sufficient, and affordable drinking water. That is
something that can be done. Newark is showing that it can be
done in a big city. It can be done in rural communities. That
is something that we ought to tackle and make the investments
to make happen.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Olson follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Olson.
And we now recognize Ms. Mathieu.
Ms. Mathieu, you are recognized for 5 minutes please, and
the mike is yours.
STATEMENT OF LORI J. MATHIEU
Ms. Mathieu. Good morning, Subcommittee Chairman Tonko,
Ranking Member McKinley, members of the subcommittee.
My name is Lori Mathieu, and I am the President of the
Association of State Drinking Water Administrators, known as
ASDWA. We have 57 members, and we include all 50 States and
five territorial programs, a Navajo Nation, and the District of
Columbia.
Thank you for this incredible opportunity to appear before
you and the subcommittee to discuss effective and efficient
implementation of the bipartisan infrastructure law for safe
drinking water.
A collaborative partnership is always and has always been
needed since the beginning of time with the Safe Drinking Water
Act between all of us, States, tribes, territories, and the
Federal Government.
First of all, first and foremost, we collectively and
sincerely wish to say thank you for this funding. This is a
substantial increase in funding under the bill, and an
investment in safe drinking water and public health.
ASDWA members have compliance oversight and enforcement
authority or primacy of the State Drinking Water Act. Our
members and their staff are the scientists and the engineers on
the front lines every day implementing the Act and executing
the laws that you pass.
We provide technical assistance and oversight of drinking
water systems. That is our job every single day.
I am also, as you mentioned, the Public Health Branch Chief
of the Environmental Health and Drinking Water Branch of the
Connecticut Department of Public Health. I have been a public
health official for over 34 years.
I have received statewide programs and addressed primacy
and the Safe Drinking Water Act and regulation of drinking
water systems, also the SRF Program. We also have a PFAS and
Emerging Contaminants Program, Certified Operator Program. We
started a new Climate Change and Public Health Program.
We also oversee a number of lead programs that work to
prevent lead exposure.
Today I will discuss ASDWA's perspective on implementation
of the bill. My testimony has three basic themes.
We want to focus on getting the lead out everywhere. ASDWA
support the removal of all lead service lines across the
country from the water main to where the lead service line goes
to the building wall.
The development of the inventories is only the first step.
Then we need to move toward removal. ASDWA requests that
Congress consider providing for additional subsidization up to
possibly 100 percent loan forgiveness for lead service line
replacements.
In Connecticut, Governor Lemont has proposed Bill 5045,
which focuses on childhood lead poisoning, and we are working
to merge all efforts to reduce lead exposure.
Flexibility and ease in bill implementation are critical to
achieving the goal of equity and helping systems and
communities that need the funding the most.
As stated in EPA's recent implementation bill memo from
Radhika Fox, States are responsible for defining disadvantaged
communities, taking into account local conditions.
In Connecticut and in many States, we are currently working
with our leadership to right now enhance our focus on
communities that need the funding the most, with a focus on
health equity.
Streamline the SRF Programs, the application process.
States and EPA need to work together to make applying for the
bill funds and the SRF Programs as simple and as easy as
possible, while ensuring the requirements are addressed.
Let's work together to develop waivers. ASDWA recommends
the development of waivers in limited circumstances for the
requirements of Buy America, Build America, and the Davis-Bacon
Acts. Make funds simpler to obtain for those most in need.
Sustainability, durability, and longevity. Public water
systems that receive bill funding need to be durable,
resilient, and have longevity. While the bill funding is
substantial, we need the public water systems that use these
funds to be able to appropriately operate and maintain their
infrastructure. Being resilient into the future is important.
There are over 124,000 small community public water systems
in this country. Many lack long-term durability and to meet the
challenges, the many challenges of the Safe Drinking Water Act.
In Connecticut, we have 400 of those small systems in rural
settings, many in disadvantaged communities. The DWSRF
Programs, States, and EPA need to work together to ensure that
the SRF loans are sustainable and have longevity with the split
of loan versus principal forgiveness.
The bill funding is only the first step to address the
needs of our drinking water infrastructure.
Workforce. The workforce needs a sustainable workforce
through these bill funds and beyond, with a particular focus on
engineers. It is incredibly hard to find engineers to take our
jobs these days.
Cybersecurity. We must never forget this issue, and we must
recognize and address it, and it is a growing threat, and we
want to work closely with EPA and our colleagues at the
Department of Homeland Security.
As we participate today in this hearing, ASDWA members are
hard working on the implementation right now, and we are moving
forward. In Connecticut right now, we have an open call for
projects. This unprecedented funding will improve the country's
infrastructure and public health, and we look forward to
keeping Congress informed of our progress.
And, again, thank you so much for this investment in safe
drinking water and public health. It is greatly appreciated by
our membership across the country and certainly within the
State of Connecticut Department of Public Health, who I
represent.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Mathieu follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Tonko. You are most welcome. Thank you, Ms. Mathieu.
And next we move to Mr. Adeem. Let me congratulate you and
Newark on the efforts you have made and the achievement.
So you are recognized, sir, for 5 minutes please.
STATEMENT OF KAREEM ADEEM
Mr. Adeem. Thank you, Chairman Tonko, Ranking Member
McKinley, and subcommittee members, and Congressman Pallone,
New Jersey's own.
Good morning. It is an honor to be here in front of this
congressional Subcommittee on Environment and Climate Change,
and I would especially like to just, you know, thank the
Congress for the bipartisan infrastructure bill.
This bill the city of Newark has seen firsthand how
investment in infrastructure can impact communities. This
investment is not just in our water and wastewater
infrastructure. This bill is going to provide human capital
infrastructure.
You know, from employing local residents to come and work
on union-scale jobs to remove lead service lines, to installing
water mains, but also having Mom and Pop businesses take a part
of what is going on in their community.
Moreover, the bipartisan infrastructure bill is the most
significant investment in the Nation in my lifetime. This bill
is an essential step in the right direction to provide safe
drinking water to everyone in America.
In addition, the Federal Government will invest
infrastructure upgrades and provide economic capital to
communities, like others in New Jersey. I have witnessed the
investment benefits in water infrastructure improvements
firsthand and would like to just share a couple of them with
the committee.
I would like to talk about our lead service line
replacement program. With the investment in human capital and
the solution to a long-neglected problem, of the 200 million
spent on repair and replacement of lead service lines, 70
percent of that money stays in the local community, the city of
Newark.
In the State and the community when we hired local
contractors, subcontractors and emphasized that they hire
Newark residents from the union apprenticeship program that we
created, and we created a unique program with assistance from
the city's Department of Workforce Development, our State
Department of Labor, and the Local Union 472.
Collaboration made the success of this program appreciated.
The apprenticeship program trained into a dozen of our
residents the skills that they need for the future to earn
middle-class salaries and get permanent jobs, permanent union
jobs.
As more cities replace lead service lines and start water
infrastructure with Federal infrastructure money, our residents
will find continued employment.
In addition, we have women and minority-owned business find
business opportunities for these projects, support in
everything from engineering inspections to printing door
hangers, to informing our residents in community meetings.
One of tremendous successes is the joy of community being a
part of the economic investment. They actually see it. A lot of
times when we look at government doing a project, we look at
our highway system. No disrespect to the highway system. We
always see that construction lasts for decades.
You can ride down the New Jersey Turnpike. We can ride down
I-95, and we always see construction going on. However, no one
takes a look at water and wastewater needs because it is a
buried asset.
This buried asset is only brought upon light when there is
a crisis or we have a major flooding event or water main break
where there is a lack of water, and everyone wants to know then
that we need hurry up and fix our aging infrastructure.
As fellow Congress members today pointed out, the American
Society of Engineers gives is a C average. We are in the
greatest country in the world. We should have an A. We should
have an A for infrastructure.
You know, investments in water are an investment in human
capital because we are protecting valuable lives with drinking
water.
So I leave here today. I just want to say, one, engage with
your State. A part of making these programs efficient and
effective would be engaging with your State Revolving Loan
Program early. Have meetings and conversation with them to
understand the process, limits of funding, the terms, and
construction long-term financing.
Lead service lines are on the homeowner's property. We have
to make sure we have special legislation in place to remove
lead service lines by spending public money on private
property.
Schedule meetings with your local county and State
officials. The infrastructure money is to be used to replace
infrastructure, not to be held up by bureaucratic red tape in
the permitting process.
In Newark, most disadvantaged people rent. In other major
cities, too. Seventy-four percent of our residents in the city
of Newark are renters. We needed a council ordinance to pass to
make sure we had the right of access to go on private and
replace lead service lines.
We understand that collaboration on the Federal, State, and
local level will move projects forward, but we understand that
there are emerging contaminants that also need to be addressed,
and this infrastructure funding bill will provide the needed
necessities to move it forward.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Adeem follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Adeem.
And now we will move to our next witness who is joining us
virtually. Mr. Diaz, you are recognized please for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF RICHARD DIAZ
Mr. Diaz. Thank you, Chair Tonko, Ranking Member McKinley,
and members of the committee.
My name is Richard Diaz, and I am the Midwest Regional
Field Organizer with the BlueGreen Alliance. We are a national
partnership of labor unions and environmental organizations.
Thank you for convening this hearing on upgrading America's
drinking water infrastructure. As it was stated earlier, our
Nation's drinking water infrastructure received a grade of a C-
minus by the American Society of Civil Engineers.
The good news is that the $55 billion investment in water
infrastructure within the bipartisan infrastructure law is the
largest Federal investment we have ever seen in our water
systems, and it is a significant down payment on the $434
billion investment gap identified in the ASCE's 2021
infrastructure report card.
Fifteen of that $55 billion investment will be to fund the
replacement of lead service lines. There is no safe level of
lead exposure. Communities of color and low-income communities
often bear the brunt of the hazard of lead water contamination.
Eliminating lead exposure in our water systems cannot only
keep communities healthy, but also create good paying jobs and
boost local economies across the country, particularly if
impacted communities are hired to do this work.
An analysis by the BlueGreen Alliance found that the $15
billion investment for lead service line replacement would
result in the creation of about 200,000 jobs over ten years.
Those same investments made by the bill will greatly benefit
the construction industry.
For example, plumbing, pipefitting, and steam-fitting all
have an industry that currently employs about 300,000 workers,
and there is expected to be a job growth of about 16 percent
through 2026. This investment will be a massive job creator for
American manufacturing thanks to strong domestic procurement
and prevailing wage provisions.
According to the Alliance for American Manufacturing, Buy
America provisions lead to 33 percent increase in manufacturing
jobs per dollar of public spending.
At McLean Ductile Pipe in Ohio, members of the United Steel
Workers Local 7014 produced ductile iron pipe used in water
infrastructure. Buy America helps keep this facility open and
provides a foundation for more good union jobs in the decades
to come.
We also have to make sure that these are not just good jobs
but accessible jobs. This means supporting and growing pathways
into good union water sector jobs for women and workers of
color historically underrepresented.
Provisions needed to ensure these jobs are good and
accessible include registered apprenticeships, free
apprenticeship programs, and other union affiliated training
programs as well as project labor agreements, community
workforce agreements, and community benefits agreements.
The bill also includes a number of changes that will help
direct funding to communities that need it most. The
requirement that 49 percent at least of that funding be
distributed as grants or forgivable loans.
This will be help for people like Ms. Ledora Meadows from
my hometown of Milwaukee, Wisconsin. She is someone who has
been in the same house for over four decades in a neighborhood
with a median income level that is well below the poverty line,
and she is someone who is taking care of many children in the
neighborhood, some of those lead poisoned children, and she has
decided to get her lead service line replaced.
Trying to protect her family from lead exposure, Ms. Ledora
ended up with a bill of more than $1,000, and that is $1,000
she does not have.
Resources in the bill will help families like Ms. Ledora's,
but it will be crucial for the EPA to provide technical
assistance for communities applying for funds to ensure that
disadvantaged communities benefit equitably from these
investments.
The bill's funding will help rebuild our Nation's water
infrastructure and will help protect Americans from the
irreversible damage of lead poisoning. We will save billions of
dollars that would have been spent on medical treatments,
special education, crime and juvenile delinquency caring for
lead poisoned individuals.
We also save billions of dollars in treated water that is
lost from water main breaks and leaks. This translates into
benefits for the environment and for all rural, urban, and
suburban communities, and we do it while creating high quality
union jobs not only at construction job sites, but at
manufacturing facilities down the supply chain.
The bill's investment and continued investment in our water
infrastructure is a win for our country.
Thank you, again, for the opportunity to speak today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Diaz follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Tonko. You are most welcome, Mr. Diaz, and thank you
for your participation.
And finally we turn to Mr. McGoff, who is recognized now
for 5 minutes please.
STATEMENT OF JAMES P. McGOFF
Mr. McGoff. Thank you, Chair Tonko, Ranking Member
McKinley, Chair Pallone, Ranking Member Rodgers, and members of
the subcommittee.
My name is Jim McGoff, and I am the Director of
Environmental Program for the Indiana Finance Authority. I am
testifying today on behalf of the Council of Infrastructure
Financing Authorities, which represents the Clean Water and
Drinking Water Revolving Funds.
I would like to begin my testimony by taking this
opportunity to personally thank you and the other Members of
Congress for trusting and empowering the State Drinking Water
SRF Programs with the financial resources to make meaningful
investments in our Nation's drinking water infrastructure.
I know the success of our programs is well documented and
included in my written testimony. So I will get right to the
purpose of this hearing.
I visit today with a simple request. Please consider
expanding our ability to quickly and effectively deploy the
historic funding in the bipartisan infrastructure bill. My
comments will focus on the SRF's ability to utilize the funding
for emerging contaminants and lead service line replacement in
a way that achieves our shared goal of protecting the health of
the American people.
I can confidently say the SRF Programs are experts in
providing low-cost financial assistance for every community's
drinking water needs. Congress was right to choose the SRF
Programs when looking for the appropriate vehicle to address
emerging contaminants and lead service line removal.
However, to be able to achieve the intent of the law, this
targeted funding requires more flexible and innovative approach
than the base program that we currently monitor. For example,
firefighting foam. It is currently stored at every firefighting
station and usually contains PFAS or PFOA.
We believe the intent of the legislation included the
ability of States to inventory, collect, and properly dispose
of these toxic chemicals.
My apologies of being from Indiana. I feel compelled to
make at least one basketball analogy here. This is a layup.
Of course, we should be able to use this funding to
eliminate that public health threat. However, because we would
not be providing financial assistance directly to a drinking
water utility, we have been informed that we are not permitted
to use the emerging contaminant funding you have provided to
address this critical problem.
Another example, PFAS and PFOA and other contaminants that
would qualify as emerging can be found in our soils and other
areas not associated with the drinking water utility. Again,
the SRF Programs cannot go into these urban neighborhoods
desperately needing the financial assistance to address known
and identified emerging contaminants with this funding unless
they are somehow associated with a drinking water utility.
EPA has provided flexibility in the past, primarily within
the Clean Water SRF Program, and however, we would hope with
your urging and/or modifications to the bill, EPA would do the
same with the Drinking Water SRF Program.
For example, an SRF Program has used its Clean Water SRF
Funds to fund energy efficiency projects with EPA approval
under the theory that energy efficient additions to homes would
reduce energy use, which would reduce energy production, which
would reduce stack emissions, which would reduce particulate
matter leaving the stack and falling into a receiving stream.
Arguably, there is a greater threat of a container of
firefighting foam failing and leaking in the basement of a
firehouse or the more likely scenario of it being used and then
flowing into a receiving stream or well, and that may be the
town's only source of drinking water.
I will now turn my attention to our ability to address lead
service lines. Federal law requires that we provide EPA with a
list of projects we intend to fund before we can draw down the
first dollar. So the funds you have made available to the
States cannot be used unless and until we provide EPA with a
list of projects that will be funded.
Therein lies the problem. Utilities in many States have not
begun the process of developing an inventory of lead service
lines. It would be logical to think we would be able to use
these funds to generate a statewide inventory and then begin
the process of removing the lead lines.
However, we are limited to only using a fraction of the
funds for this purpose. Funds referred to as set-asides are
generally reserved for program administrative expenses or
State-specific initiatives maybe eligible, but in the aggregate
would not be sufficient to adequately address the necessary
inventories.
Logic suggests and we believe your intent would be that the
lead service line funding be eligible for use in all things
associated with the removal or at the very least the first and
second year of funding be eligible for inventories, believing
that once inventoried the later years' funding could be
targeted for their removal.
We do not believe wholesale changes in the legislation are
necessary. It is good legislation, but minor revisions are
needed to ensure we can achieve its goals. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McGoff follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Tonko. Mr. McGoff, thank you.
And thank you to all of our witnesses again for your
participation here today.
That concludes your opening statements, and we now will
move to member questions, and I will start by recognizing
myself for 5 minutes.
Now, we often hear about water systems' needs in big
numbers, $472 billion often quoted as that needed for the next
20 years. Mr. Olson, can you please help us contextualize these
needs?
What does it mean today for American families, for their
health, for their pocketbooks that water systems require nearly
half a trillion in investment?
Mr. Olson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I will say that that is even a lowball estimate according
to the American Waterworks Association, which estimates it
could be a trillion dollars.
I think what it means is there are so many communities
around the country, as we have heard, where this is a buried
asset. Most people do not know that they have problems with
their drinking water until they do not have water if there is a
water main break or they learn that they have lead
contamination in their water or if they are in a rural
community that they have serious contamination problems.
So what it means to communities across the country is if we
do not invest in these problems, I said in my testimony it is a
lot like a decades old car that has not had a brake job or oil
change in years.
That is sort of what we are operating with in a lot of
communities across the country is these water systems are
starting to fall apart. They are not modernized. They are
delivering in many cases water that is not up to snuff. It is
especially true in lower income communities and in many rural
communities that have real problems.
So what it means to Americans is many of us are getting
water that is not safe. Many of us are getting water that
should be better even if it meets standards, and these kinds of
investments from the bipartisan deal will take us a long way
toward helping to fix the problem.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you.
And, Ms. Mathieu, I looked up Connecticut's latest SRF
intended use plan. For a relatively small State, there were a
lot of proposed projects.
Can you discuss how far this new funding could go to
addressing the State's infrastructure backlog?
Ms. Mathieu. Excellent question. And thank you for looking
up our intended use plan. I very much appreciate it. We are
very proud of our SRF Program.
So in our little State, we have 2,400 public water systems,
2,400 in the little State of Connecticut. Two thousand of those
are non-communities. There are about 725 that are formally
eligible to apply for the SRFs.
We have not used one word in here, but which is really
important: aging infrastructure. It is prevalent. Our treatment
systems, as Mr. Olson mentioned, a lot of our treatment plants
need between 40 to $60 million in replacement funding.
Many of even our larger municipal systems cannot afford
that on their own. They need the subsidization. We have
actually rebuilt a treatment plant at Groton, which serves
about 80,000 people. They could not afford the $55 million
price.
We were able to pull together some State funding to help
them with the affordability of that loan.
We have many small systems in our State. We have 3.6
million people. We have 148 really small towns, very rural
towns.
Many small systems struggle. Many of you mentioned the
small system struggle. Many of you mentioned the small system
problem.
A small system to us in Connecticut is 25 people, literally
15 service connections. Affordability is a serious problem,
even taking on a loan. That is why one of the comments that we
made was let's make the process as simple as possible. Taking
out a loan is incredibly difficult. Even if you gave them 80
percent subsidy, just to fill out the paperwork, so to make it
simple and easy as possible.
We like one of the ideas that has come out through EPA, and
I think through the President himself, this idea of technical
hubs. We want in. In our State of Connecticut, we have asked
our EPA Boston people and headquarters staff. We would like a
technical hub for Connecticut. We have enough systems and
enough problems. We want a focused effort.
We as regulators, we scare people when we show up. All
right. Let's face it, right? Every time we show up, it is
thousands of dollars because we are pointing out violations, as
many violations that we identify.
So to bring in a technical expert under a technical hub
idea that is funded directly by EPA to help, I would love to
have that. Three to 400 systems, to sit down and help apply for
an SRF loan; to help identify your lead service line
inventories.
Many of them do not even understand how to put that
together. So to provide direct technical assistance to the
communities that need it the most in these three to 400 really
small systems would be really very important to be able to
spend that money.
Mr. Tonko. Well, thank you very much.
OK. We now recognize Mr. McKinley, subcommittee ranking
member, for 5 minutes of questions, please.
Mr. McKinley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I tried to say in my opening remarks I believe there is a
nexus between States that have low per capita income and the
ranking with your infrastructure. Particularly, the example
would be Mississippi and West Virginia.
So I want to keep that in consideration as we go with this.
Now, let me go to Mr. Olson. You made a comment about lead
water pipes and identifying. I really want to give a shout-out
to Clarksburg Water Department. What they did, they found out
they had a problem, and they have been actively going after
that. And they have replaced most of those now. And they are
identifying the water lines, the lead pipes all throughout the
district for that. So we are making a move on that.
Ms. Mathieu, you made an interesting remark. You said you
are finding a shortage of engineers to do this. I would say to
you we have got a shortage of engineers in Washington.
I am just one of two licensed engineers in Congress and
think about it. Here we are dealing with a massive
infrastructure bill, and as we say, there are two licensed
engineers, but there are 242 attorneys.
So the question is who do we want addressing our
infrastructure, and I will end up on that. We will go back.
But just last week I had a meeting with a water group, and
they were telling me the lack of oversight. The concern they
are having is the massive increase in water pipes and copper
and fire hydrants and all.
As a matter of fact, what they showed me was because of
this lack of oversight and this control that we have now put
in, eight-inch PVC pipe, kind of the heartbeat of water
systems, it has already increased our suppliers 210 percent
over the last three years, 210 percent.
The same thing with six-inch; 157 percent increase. Fire
hydrants, 30-some percent increase in just two years.
So I am hoping that we can develop some kind of oversight
with this, our chairman and our committee, to be able to
control this because our communities are not going to be able
to meet the infrastructure if we are faced with this kind of
supply cost that is facing us.
So let me go to two quick questions with Mr. McGoff, if I
could with you.
States each have their own idea of what a disadvantaged
community is and whether it is urban or rural, and so that both
of these communities, both rural and urban communities, are on
a level playing field.
How can we ensure that the population and needs are part of
the equal consideration if we go ahead?
Need is huge for us in areas in West Virginia and
Mississippi and others that are struggling now to do this. How
can we do that?
How can we make sure that need is also included?
Mr. McGoff. Thank you for the question.
And the SRF Programs have been identifying and getting or
targeting disadvantaged communities for years. So we are well
equipped so each State has the ability and the flexibility to
tailor their definitions of disadvantaged communities to fit
their State need.
For example, in Indiana we have both urban and very rural
communities. Many of the rural communities are very much like
what you have described in some of the Southern States.
And so our disadvantaged community definition recognizes
very low median household income, high user rates, and we
target our grant funding that we have available or forgivable
loan funding that we have available to those communities.
And the communities that can afford a standard interest
rate, that is where we program those loans to.
Mr. McKinley. Thank you.
Ms. Mathieu, last year and then prior to the infrastructure
bill being passed, this committee had hearings on drinking
water, but primarily over leaking pipes and breaks. And
according to the American Water Association when they
testified, they said that we are probably losing 30 to 40
percent of all the water treated because of leaks and breaks.
So how will this legislation start to address that so that
we can be more efficient in our systems?
Ms. Mathieu. Thank you for question.
It is an important one when you lose 30 percent of your
product that you spend a lot of money producing. It is a shame.
So aging infrastructure is a real problem. Water main
replacement has always been a big part of the SRF Programs, and
I hope that it will continue. Some of our water mains, if you
see the water main that runs right on Capital Avenue on the
city of Hartford, it is 100 years old.
And what is interesting is they say, well, we have got
another 20 years on that pipe. It is good.
So we are in the northeastern part of the country. We have
a lot of aging infrastructure. My colleague from New Jersey,
the pipes are old, systems are old.
We need the investment, and I know that one thing in
Connecticut, our intended use plan or last call for projects,
we had over 120 project requests totaling over $520 million in
requests.
We believe on this most recent call for projects, we will
have over $800 million in requests for a little State of
Connecticut.
We also have 12 lead service line removal projects totaling
asking for over $134 million. A 1-percent State like we are in
Connecticut for the SRFs, we are receiving in the bill $150
million over five years.
Mr. McKinley. Thank you.
I have gone over my time. I yield back.
Mr. Tonko. That is fine. Engineers love that.
The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes Chairman Pallone of the full
committee for 5 minutes to ask questions please.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Chairman Tonko.
I wanted to start with Ms. Mathieu. We have talked a lot
about the need to replace lead service lines, cleaning up PFAS,
but all that can be very costly, right?
So in a City like Newark, you know, they struggled to get
the funding, right? I mean they did between the State and the
Federal Government.
So I just wanted to ask basically about resources, Ms.
Mathieu. Is sustained and robust Federal investment like that
provided by the BIF critical to helping water systems address
these public health challenges or would we have just gotten the
job done just as well using the incremental annual funding
approach that we had until the bipartisan bill came along?
Ms. Mathieu. That is a very good question. Thank you for
that.
This infusion of funding will significantly invest in our
cities in their aging infrastructure across the country, as
well as helping the smallest systems that need the help the
most.
In our most rural communities, they struggle just to pull
water samples and to meet the timeframes of the Safe Drinking
Water Act. This funding will help them and these technical
assistance helps in our increased ability at the State level.
We anticipate and are hopeful to hire additional engineers
to get the work done. We would love those professional
engineers to take our jobs. But we have a hard time bringing
engineers on. For whatever reason, there does not seem to be
many coming to the table.
But with this additional funding, it gives our State and
other States across the country an incredible ability to change
the way we have been investing in public health and drinking
water.
Our aging infrastructure in our State alone, again, the
needs are high, about $800 million, we believe, and we know
that we cannot afford that alone.
So my colleague had mentioned Mississippi. I know my
colleague well, Bill Moody, in the State of Mississippi, and we
just completed a nice week together during our member meeting,
and he said, ``Lori, you know, when we invest this money in
these small systems and any system, we have to make sure those
systems are resilient for the future.''
We see this as an investment in the future, and again, we
cannot thank you enough for this investment in our drinking
water.
As Mr. Adeem said, these are not--I am going to say it--
these are not the sexiest things, right, because they are all
buried. People do not know. People do not see the pipes in the
ground. People do not know about the work that you all do to
supply drinking water every day all day.
They see the roads and the bridges. But to provide this
level of money to safe drinking water and public health
protection is tremendous, and we, again, we are thrilled with
it and want to get the work started.
Mr. Pallone. Well, thank you.
Let me go to Mr. Adeem. You talked, of course, about how
there were a lot of jobs created and local jobs as a result of
this major effort to replace all the service lines in Newark.
Just tell me a little more about the benefits to the
community you have witnessed as your city invested in this
effort to replace the lead service lines.
Mr. Adeem. Thank you, Congressman Pallone, Chairman
Pallone.
As we have seen in our community, the city of Newark, we
engage our local residents into coming into an apprenticeship
program with the local trade union. They had gotten an
opportunity that they would never see, but we ``never see'' is
always hard to get into a union skilled job. Unions always had
these announcements. ``We are hiring.'' You see them in the
papers, and there is a long line where it could be as much as
five to 10,000 people trying to get 20 positions.
In the city of Newark, because we knew we had an
infrastructure project that was going to impact one local
union, the Laborers Union for Local 472, we met with them early
and with the State Department of Labor to make sure that we
wanted to focus on putting Newark residents, right, those
underprivileged residents that did not have the opportunity,
men and women, Black and Brown, that may have not had an
opportunity to be a part of the union, to get into the union.
Immediately, we have seen the impact because not only were
we doing the lead service line replacement work in the
community. Residents that actually lived in the community had
the opportunity to replace their own lead service line.
So you are working on a job where you are replacing your
own house, and the income that they received off those jobs,
the middle-class salary, they were putting that money back into
the community. They lived in the community. They were investing
back into the community.
I was on a job site, me and one of my colleagues and a
former reporter, one early in the morning, and we had the
street blocked off, and we were helping a lady bring her
groceries into her house because the street was blocked off.
And she saw her nephew out there. She said, ``Leave those
gentlemen alone. They are working. Get away from them.''
And he says, ``Auntie, I am working.''
She said, ``You are not working with them. Leave them
alone. Get out of the way.''
And he says, ``No, I have been working. I went through the
apprenticeship program, and I have been working for two
months.''
Just the smile on her face and his face to let his aunt
know that he actually had a job, right, on a construction job,
on a union scale job, and today that gentleman is working in
Baltimore somewhere with one of the companies, Pinello Company,
which is a New Jersey company, but it works around the Nation
doing sewer replacement.
So that is one impact that we see.
Also it gives hope to the community. When we looked at
small subcontractors, giving them the ability to bid or be a
prime or a subcontractor on a government job, ushering the
progress, not progress; ushering the steps and making the
process easier for them to get in.
So we set up and made sure they had MBEs and WMEs to be a
part of a project that they would never have thought that they
would have had the opportunity to.
One night working with a construction company in the city
of Newark, the valve blew off at the meter, and it damaged the
hot water tank. We had a contractor that came to one of our
community outreach meetings that was a four-person firm that
did cleaning.
They were able to come in at eight o'clock at night and
clean that basement up, clean the water up, sanitize the
basement, you know, do restoration, and you know, this lady had
a $1,500 contractor come in and do restoration and cleanup with
a small company, which led her later on to partner with another
company.
Mr. Tonko. Mr. Adeem. The time has expired. Thank you. A
great story. Thank you so much for sharing that.
The gentleman yields back.
Next, we will recognize the gentleman from Alabama.
Mr. Palmer, you are recognized for 5 minutes please.
Mr. Palmer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I thank the witnesses for participating, and to the
subcommittee for holding this hearing.
One of my concerns about what we are doing here is asking
for funds, additional funds, when we just passed the
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. And I am just
wondering, and I guess this would be particularly for you, Mr.
Adeem, has the city of Newark received funds from that bill we
just passed yet?
Mr. Adeem. No, sir.
Mr. Palmer. Then why are we asking for more money when we
have not even utilized the funds?
Are you telling me that we do not have enough money in the
bill we just passed, the 1.2 trillion?
That is a yes or no.
Mr. Adeem. No.
Mr. Palmer. OK. What concerns me about this, Mr. Chairman
and the witnesses, is who is exercising oversight over this.
I understand that Mitch Landrieu, the former mayor of New
Orleans, was named by the Biden administration as a
coordinator, and I find that interesting considering the
condition of infrastructure in New Orleans, particularly their
roads and how sluggish or even inept they were in New Orleans
in handling their infrastructure issues.
And I just wonder if the needs, and there are needs out
there for replacing water systems, are going to be met in a
timely manner and in a most economically, fiscally responsible
manner.
Mr. McGoff, if you would like, you can respond to that.
Mr. McGoff. Yes, sir.
Mr. Palmer. Yes, sir what?
Mr. McGoff. The question to disburse the funds in a
responsible manner.
Mr. Palmer. Yes. So you agree you have the same concerns
about the dispersal of funds, that none of which have been
disbursed yet and that the infrastructure that has been put in
place by this administration for doing that, I think, raises
some questions in my mind about how well this will be done and
how quickly it will be done, considering that we have these
needs and we have known about these needs for a long time.
And I see Ms. Mathieu nodding in agreement. Would you like
to comment on that?
Ms. Mathieu. Yes, thank you. It is a good question.
It is a lot of money to move fast and the SRF Programs have
been around for 25 years under State oversight. That program in
my State, which I have oversight of, has a lot of measures and
metrics, and EPA I will guarantee you is on us constantly about
a term known as ULO, unliquidated obligations.
They are on us also about pace of the program, and I
suspect they will be adding five or six more metrics on us soon
that will tell us how quickly we have to move this money.
The pressure to move the money is extensive. The timing of
the lead and copper rule, the first phase, was really important
to send the signal to our water industry that it is time to get
moving, to get the lead out. That was an important move.
Mr. Palmer. Figuratively as well as literally.
Ms. Mathieu. Right. Because we needed that signal because
it sends a message that this is real. Now the money is there.
We need to move quickly.
Am I concerned that the money will not move fast enough?
Yes.
Do we have the workforce to be able to move the money? That
is a critical need. We need the engineers, the analysts, the
financial analysts to be able to do this work.
And my colleagues at ASDWA across the country are working
hard on staffing plans, and again, workforce is a concern when
it comes to this funding.
But we are up to the task.
Mr. Palmer. Well, you should also be concerned about the
permitting and other issues and how qualified the people are
who are acting in coordination positions, particularly in
respect to the ones who are overseeing the entire project and
are in getting this done.
My big concern is with the inflation rate where it is right
now, we are all talking about the price of a gallon of gas. We
keep adding money to the money supply. We will be talking about
the price of a gallon of milk.
So it bothers me that we are having this discussion about
needing more money when we have not spent the money we have,
and the longer you delay, the more costly the project becomes.
And like Mr. McKinley, I worked for two international
engineering companies, and I understand a little bit about how
long it takes to get things done and how you need to move
through the permitting process, the design. All of that has to
be done, and the longer we wait, the more expensive it is going
to get.
So, Mr. Chairman, it might be that this committee considers
exercising some additional oversight in regard to the
administration and the handling of these funds.
With what, Mr. Chairman, thank you for your indulgence, and
I yield back.
Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the representative from the State
of Illinois. The gentlelady from Illinois, Representative
Schakowsky, is recognized for 5 minutes please.
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
You know, over the last couple of years now we have been
talking about lead in drinking water, in schools, throughout
the State of Illinois, which happens to be No. 1 in the lead
service lines.
And we are very, very concerned about this effect
particularly on the health of children, the long-term,
irreversible brain consequences that can happen.
And I know that in the bipartisan infrastructure bill,
there is $15 billion, although I do remember when the President
was talking about $45 billion, and I know that maybe yet we
will still get something in legislation that passes.
And I know that all states are going to need funding to
address this lead service line issue, but I am very concerned
that Illinois, it seems, is disproportionately not getting the
amount of money. I do not know if the numbers did not come
through as our having such a huge problem.
I know that the Mayor if the city of Chicago is very
concerned. We have had to turn off water faucets in so many of
our schools right now because it is dangerous.
So I wanted to ask Mr. Olson. Does the current State
Revolving Fund consider the need for lead service line
replacements?
And is there a review of how States, individual States, are
affected that could change the amount of funding that goes to
States like Illinois?
Mr. Olson. Thank you for the question. It is a very
important one.
As you mentioned there are $15 billion in the bipartisan
infrastructure law that is supposed to be dedicated to
replacing these lead pipes, and Congress did pass the America's
Water Infrastructure Act in 2018 that says that each State and
EPA are supposed to assess how many lead service lines they
have and how much it is going to cost to replace.
The disconnect is that it is not clear that that assessment
is going to be done in time to affect how the money is
allocated at least for the next fiscal year. We are very
concerned about that and urge EPA to set that money aside, that
$15 billion, and allocate it based on need and get that needs
assessment done ASAP.
We are hearing it might not be done this year even though
it was supposed to be done this year. So we are hoping EPA will
expedite and allocate that money based on need. It is really
important for Illinois and important for a lot of other States
that are represented in this room.
New York has the same issue. Many other States have this
issue.
Ms. Schakowsky. Yes, we are proud of being No. 1 in some
important areas, but not in having the most lead surface lines.
Yes, I wanted to ask Mr. Diaz a question about your
testimony. You stressed talking about jobs, and you were
talking about some of the apprenticeship programs, actually
pre-apprenticeship program that we need.
And I am wondering if you could discuss further how pre-
apprenticeship programs could help build the trained workforce
that we need for our clean water future.
Mr. Diaz. Yes, thank you for that, Congresswoman, and that
is a great question about how pre-apprenticeship programs--can
you all hear me now?
Ms. Schakowsky. Yes.
Mr. Diaz. Well, thank you, Congresswoman, about how pre-
apprenticeship programs fit into the greater workforce
development needs that we need to replace lead service lines.
You know, speaking with the Laborers Union in my hometown
in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, you know, they mention that pre-
apprenticeship programs, a/k/a apprenticeship program and
pathways into apprenticeship programs are just so needed to
fill the needs of operating engineers, laborers, and also
plumbers that will be actually replacing these lead service
lines.
I see that I am over time. So I will yield from my
response. I can definitely followup with some more information
for you, Congresswoman.
Ms. Schakowsky. I would like to hear that because I think
the people that would be the most benefited, too, are those
individuals who want good jobs, need good jobs, and need these
pre-apprenticeship programs.
So thank you.
I yield back.
Mr. Tonko. The gentlelady yields back.
Before we recognize the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Johnson,
for 5 minutes, the ranker has asked to be recognized.
Mr. McKinley. Mr. Chairman, during my testimony or
questioning, I referenced the increased costs that are
occurring in an infrastructure, particularly copper and PVC,
waterline pipe.
I would like the record that was prepared by the Parker
Utility Board on Friday of last week, that that be entered into
the record.
Mr. Tonko. OK. All requests to enter materials into the
record will be addressed at the end of the hearing. So we will
take care of that.
Mr. McKinley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Tonko. OK. The gentleman from Ohio is now recognized,
Mr. Johnson, for 5 minutes please.
Mr. Johnson. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
You know, drinking water State Revolving Funds are a good
example of an effective Federal-State partnership, and I know
these funds have helped finance beneficial projects in all of
our districts. This is a good thing.
But with the unprecedented huge infusion of cash from the
recent infrastructure bill, it is important that we ensure
proper oversight on where and for what these funds are now
being used.
Mr. McGoff, I appreciate your mentioning Ohio in your
testimony with a great example on how these funds can be used
for a wide variety of small and large projects.
Looking at the 2022 project priority list in Ohio this
year, in my district, the projects range from lead service line
replacement in Guernsey County to a water tower replacement in
Columbian County, all the way up to a major water treatment
plant replacement in Washington County.
With projects like these, it is clear this program needs to
remain flexible to address the safe drinking water needs of the
extremely wide range of communities in rural Appalachian,
Eastern and Southeastern Ohio, but at the same time, we do not
want to just throw enormous, unaccountable amounts of money at
these problems without being thoughtful.
Mr. McGoff, in your testimony you talked about missed
opportunities, with the dangers of too much red tape in the
form of special categories, and one-time-only funding streams
with the example of lead service lines.
So to you, Mr. McGoff, when will we know where all the lead
service lines are?
And what will it take in reality to replace all of these
lead service lines?
Mr. McGoff. A very good question, Congressman Johnson.
And our testimony did target the need for assessment. There
are some States that have the un-assessment. Newark, for an
example of a city that has done a very good job of assessing
their lead service lines, but for the most part, because the
SRF Programs did not have the funding to direct toward
assessment, many States are just getting started with that.
And we think it is very important to assess to make sure
that we are targeting the appropriate lead service lines to
have them removed, and to have the flexibility in the funding
to do the assessment we think is a necessary first step.
Mr. Johnson. Well, obviously, replacing these lead service
lines is an important thing to do. How important is it to
appropriately set public expectations on this?
Mr. McGoff. Very important because it is a process. I mean,
you need to identify, assess, and then you need to turn the
work into contracts, and so it will take some time.
The lead service lines will not be removed in 2 years, 3
years, 5 years. It will take some time and appropriate
planning, too. Utilities should plan to do the lead service
line removal when other projects are taking place, like a water
main in the middle of the street is the ideal time to replace
the lead service line.
So proper planning is important to make sure the job is
done right.
Mr. Johnson. OK. You mentioned the difficulty of using
subsidized loans, that that may not be ideal for lead service
line replacements on private property.
Is your organization concerned that State SRFs might not be
able to use the funding given to them or that they might be
tasked with programs where the costs well outweigh the
benefits?
And if you agree with that statement, what would be a
better way to do it?
Mr. McGoff. There is a concern because of the speed in
which we need to deploy the funds. We are sitting here at now
18 months. We need to apply for the funding in the first year,
and we have to identify how that funding will be used in order
to apply for it.
So the speed is going to be quick, and communities, as is
oftentimes the case, would prefer grant funding rather than
loan funding. We in Indiana and many other States have been
targeting lead service line replacement with loan funds. We
have been trying to encourage cities and towns to take
advantage of that, with zero percent loans, and we have been
making some progress with that.
But with the speed at which we are being expected to deploy
the funds, the more favorable that funding, the better off or
the more ability we will be able to meet the timelines afforded
us.
Mr. Johnson. All right. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes virtually Representative Sarbanes
from the State of Maryland.
Welcome, sir, and you have 5 minutes please.
Mr. Sarbanes. Mr. Chairman, thanks very much for today's
hearing, and I want to thank you for your ongoing commitment to
addressing the issue of drinking water infrastructure. You have
made it a priority for many years.
In fact, you and I had the opportunity on your initiative
to visit the Ashburton filtration plant in Baltimore a few
years back, and I am grateful to the leadership that you have
exercised in this arena. So I appreciate it.
Obviously, this is a topic that affects every American
every single day. When you turn on the tap, you want to know
that clean water is coming out, that your family is safe, and
that is why these infrastructure investments are so absolutely
critical.
We know that in communities where residents have a wide
disparity of income levels, some residents can be perfectly
satisfied with the safety and reliability of their well-
maintained water supply, while just a few blocks away their
neighbors face a continuous struggle to access clean and safe
water despite being part of the same larger water system.
This situation is very prominent, particularly in urban
areas such as Baltimore, where low-income residents have for
years faced issues like lead contamination. It is a real
problem in our city.
And the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act will help
address these problems by providing robust funding to the Clean
Water State Revolving Fund, as we have discussed today, which
provides these key low-interest loans to States for investments
in water and sanitation infrastructure.
Approximately half, 49 percent, of this amount will be
distributed in the form of grants or forgivable loans and will
be invested in disadvantaged communities, as you know, these
communities which have historically borne the brunt of
substandard water infrastructure.
Mr. Adeem, in communities that have stratified income
levels in a small geographic area, how important is it to
ensure that water infrastructure resources like the SRF Program
are available to the residents who need them most?
Mr. Adeem. This is hugely important. We see this time and
time again. You just spoke about Baltimore, but we see that
these are communities, if they are not adequately addressed
with their contaminants or funding to remediate a problem, it
lasts for generations.
Mr. Sarbanes. You know, by statute States are allowed to
set their own definition for the disadvantaged communities that
are eligible for the 49 percent of the SRF fund, and that
offers some opportunity. That control over the definition can
provide targeted assistance to areas that really need it.
And EPA has provided guidance to States to update those
definitions for the purposes of allocating these funds.
Some States' current definitions of disadvantaged
communities would omit urban communities like those I described
earlier, where low-income neighborhoods are considered part of
larger water systems that also contain more affluent
neighborhoods.
And so on average, they would be deemed not to be in need
of this water infrastructure support. So that is a challenge
that we have to address.
Ms. Mathieu, in order to meet the required distribution of
49 percent of the SRF allocation going to disadvantaged
communities, is it likely States are going to have to update or
redefine which communities qualify as eligible for these funds?
Ms. Mathieu. Yes, thank you for the question. It is an
important one.
I can speak to our State, and in the offices today we are
revising and looking at how we would revise the terminology to
help the people that need it the most. To come up with a better
definition of disadvantaged communities is important to us.
During the time of COVID, for the last two years, as a
health department, many of us have worked on COVID related
issues. I myself went out to a number of vaccine clinics and
other things, and I helped out where I could.
But one thing that we found that was quite interesting is
the terminology that the CDC utilizes. It is known as SVI,
social vulnerability index. And this index is different than
the way we have traditionally looked at distressed communities
or defined them, you know, within the SRF Program.
So we are looking at the metric and all metrics, frankly,
of environmental justice, the EJ definitions, the social
vulnerability definitions, our disadvantaged and distressed
community definitions, and we are looking to better define
where we could help the people that need it the most.
So that work is ongoing, and from what I know of my
colleagues in our association of ASDWA, is that every State is
working on this right now to have a better definition.
Mr. Sarbanes. Thank you very much. That is very helpful.
Mr. Chairman, I think this just shines a bright light on
how we have got to make sure these definitions and other
technical dimensions of how the money flows out and is invested
are aligned with our intent, the purpose behind the
infrastructure investment that we have made. I think we can
accomplish that, and I appreciate your bringing attention to it
in today's hearing.
Thanks very much. I yield back.
Mr. Tonko. I appreciate that assessment and could not agree
more.
The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Georgia. Oh, I
am sorry. I now recognize the gentleman from Utah, Mr. Curtis,
for 5 minutes please.
Mr. Curtis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member.
I would like to bring up a point I have not heard discussed
today, and I do it carefully because I do not want to imply
that there are not serious needs that need to be addressed,
particularly among those who can lease afford to pay for it.
But as I view the situation, during the 20th century,
Federal grants and public works programs largely built out
today's water infrastructure, and in my view this Federal
subsidization and other political choices have led to
artificially low water rates and water consumption.
Now, Utah is in the State's longest drought, and we are
struggling to get people motivated to conserve water, and we
talk about water as if it is free. Like it is an analogy,
right, as compared to water if it is free.
I was a former mayor and dealt with an aging water system
in my city, and I worry that a lot of our efforts to support
cities are well intentioned but actually make infrastructure
worse in the long run, like creating a backward incentive for
cities to wait for Federal funding instead of being proactive.
Mr. Olson, you referred to a decade old automobile, and it
made me think about my children. If I had given them a car and
they did not change the oil and they did not do any maintenance
on it, would I give them a new car when that car was worn out
or would I give them a lecture about maintaining the car?
And I am just worried that our cities were set up in a
situation that actually incentivized bad behavior and those who
did invest in infrastructure as a city or a municipality or
State are probably less likely to get help from us now because
their needs are less.
Mr. McGoff, is it possible that too much Federal
subsidization of local infrastructure has created a city where
municipalities, counties, and States have not been building the
cost of maintenance into water rates?
And Ms. Mathieu talked about how expensive this is, but it
becomes less expensive if we look at this over decades and
decades of water users contributing to the cost.
Mr. McGoff, could you comment on that?
Mr. McGoff. Certainly. Thank you, Congressman.
Many States, Indiana included, are now requiring asset
management plans be part of the finance packages that they
receive.
So recognizing your comments, we wanted to make sure that
we are good stewards of Federal resources, and we now do
require utilities and many States are starting to adopt the
same philosophy that utilities do manage their assets
appropriately.
And through the Safe Drinking Water Act there is the
subject of technical managerial requirements that are
associated with managing a utility, and we certainly look at
those as we are closing financing with those communities.
Mr. Curtis. Thank you.
Thomas Payne said what we obtain too cheap we esteem too
lightly, and I think that applies to water users as well as
communities who did not pay, right, for their systems.
Mr. McGoff, nearly half of the supplemental funding in this
program in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act is
directed to principal forgiveness or grants in contrast to
subsidized loans, the traditional instrument of the SRF
Programs.
How big of a change is this?
And are there any concerns you might have of this becoming
a more permanent aspect of the programs?
Mr. McGoff. Because the base program is still being funded
and the supplemental funding for the base program is
continuing, the additional subsidization we are looking at is
in addition to, and it is a 5-year window to target those most
in need.
So we do not see this as being a long-term concern.
Certainly we are believers in a loan program that recycles
loans in and back out to communities as long as the base
program continues, as we did with ARRA. We can adjust and be
good stewards of this specialized funding, if you will, to
target in this instance lead service line and emerging
contaminants.
Mr. Curtis. Thank you.
Let me come back to something that was touched on earlier
that I want to go back to, and that is this concept of
homeowners. I believe most circumstances, certainly when I was
mayor, the homeowner owns the pipes from their home out into
the street.
Are we giving adequate consideration to homeowners who
rarely have the funds, right, to replace those pipes?
And what are we overlooking, if anything, here, and what
should we be talking about in the case of homeowners?
It does not matter if all of the pipes are perfect up to
their home if it is lead from there into their taps.
Mr. McGoff. And that would be the consideration for having
additional subsidization not just targeted disadvantaged
community, but if additional funds in the lead service line
replacement were available for additional subsidization or for
grant funding, then those homeowners----
Mr. Curtis. We are going to get cutoff from the Chairman
here. I see him reaching for his mouse.
So let me just conclude by saying I think in addition to
that even though they can afford it, they rarely know that they
have the problem or how to do it, and certainly we need to be
looking at an educational component as well.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield my time.
Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from New York,
Brooklyn. We have Representative Yvette Clarke. You are given 5
minutes to ask questions please.
Ms. Clarke. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I thank our
ranking member, Mr. McKinley, for convening us today for this
important hearing.
And let me thank our witnesses for your testimony.
Access to clean drinking water is a basic human right. I
think this is something that at least most of my colleagues can
agree to, and yet here we are in the year 2022, and the right
is still not a reality for too many folks in our Nation,
particularly when we look at lower income communities,
communities of color, and rural communities.
This is a major injustice not only because nobody should
have to worry about whether their drinking water is safe, but
because we also have the technology to modernize our
infrastructure and guarantee clean water for each and every
American.
If we have the ability to do the right thing, then we also
have the responsibility to do the right thing. This is why I
was proud to cast my vote in favor of the Infrastructure
Investment and Jobs Act, which makes the largest down payment
on clean drinking water in our Nation's history.
One of the key beneficiaries of these investments will be
children, and up to 400,000 schools and childcare facilities
who have risk of exposure to lead service lines.
Mr. Olson, can you briefly speak toward why lead
contamination in drinking water is so acutely dangerous to
children and why it is critical that we address this
contamination at schools and daycare locations?
Mr. Olson. Thank you for the question, Congresswoman.
Schools and daycare centers are an underrecognized source
of lead exposure. Certainly drinking water is one. Also paint
is something we should talk about separately.
But we actually looked at the data in New York State, which
was collected. New York is one of the few States that required
pretty comprehensive testing schools, and they found over 80
percent of the schools statewide had lead levels that in at
least one of their faucets or fountains that exceeded New York
State's then existing action level.
So that is a lot of schools, a lot of kids drinking a lot
of this water that is lead contaminated, and it can have
lifelong impacts.
The problem with lead, as we all know, is there is no safe
level, and a little bit of lead can cause harm for the child's
entire life, learning disabilities, lower ability to earn
money, and a lot of irreversible health impacts.
Ms. Clarke. Very well. This issue is extremely concerning
to me, and that is why my Safe School Drinking Water Act
included in the House-passed bill, Build Back Better Act, would
support the installation of filtered water fountains at
children and childcare programs across the Nation, with a focus
on underserved school systems.
These water stations will take advantage of the latest
filtration technology capable of removing lead from drinking
water.
Mr. Olson, do you agree that this program would be an
additional important step in protecting children from
contaminated drinking water at schools?
Mr. Olson. This is absolutely a crucial program. It is
something that needs additional funding, however. I know the
reconciliation bill that this body passed would include
additional funding that can be applied to that, but it has been
a really under resourced issue and something that we would
really like to see major investment to address in schools.
And I will just point out one thing, which is those
filters, your approach of filtering, it is much less expensive
than ripping out all of the plumbing in the school building,
and it is more efficient because it will immediately provide
safe drinking water to the kids.
So we strongly support that approach.
Ms. Clarke. Wonderful. Thank you.
Last, I want to turn to the existential threat of climate
change. As we have seen in Brooklyn with Hurricane Ida and
Super Storm Sandy, one of the major climate impacts we are now
having to deal with is more frequent and powerful storms that
wreak havoc on our infrastructure.
That is why the infrastructure law established two new EPA
programs on water system resilience and sustainability.
Mr. Adeem, can you speak to why this Federal support is so
crucial to cities as they upgrade water infrastructure to deal
with the realities of climate change?
Mr. Adeem. Thank you, Congresswoman. A crucial question.
Yes, just looking at the last storm and I would say
Hurricane Ida, living in a large urban City like Newark, one of
the oldest cities in the country, aged infrastructure cannot
sustain the capacity of these frequent rain events, seven
inches of water over a 2-hour period. There is nowhere for it
to go in large urban cities versus rural areas where water can
recede.
Ms. Clarke. Ms. Mathieu, is there anything you would like
to add?
Ms. Mathieu. Yes, thank you.
An excellent point. Storm Sandy taught us a lot in our
little State. It hit us really pretty hard, as well as New York
and New Jersey.
So one of the things that we have recently started is a
Climate and Public Health Office. We applied for the BRACE
Grant under CDC, and we are now proud to say in Connecticut
that we are a BRACE State finally.
So we want to focus on the people that are harmed the most.
We find that, again, it is the same people that are harmed in
disadvantaged communities that are exposed to heat islands,
heat stress, and other issues.
And we are very pleased to get that work started, but we
have to scramble to put the funding together to start to focus
on climate change and public health because there are a lot of
impacts that we are seeing, and we are going to work really
very hard on that.
Air quality is really very important and so is water.
Ms. Clarke. Well, my time has expired, Ms. Mathieu.
Ms. Mathieu. I am sorry.
Ms. Clarke. Thank you so much.
And I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Mathieu. Sorry, sir.
Mr. Tonko. Sorry about that.
The gentlelady yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
Representative Carter, you are recognized for 5 minutes please.
Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank all of you for being here and for indulging in
this.
Mr. McGoff, I want to start with you, and I want to discuss
the very small and rural water systems.
I am from Georgia. There are two Georgians. There is
Atlanta, and there is everywhere else, and I represent
everywhere else.
So I am talking about the small towns. A lot of my district
in South Georgia is small towns, and as we discussed all during
this hearing, that brings with it unique water challenges.
In fact, I had a small town of 300 people just two months
ago that inquired about how they could get some funds to drill
a well. They need help.
As I mentioned earlier, I was a mayor at one time, and
these towns, especially these small towns, they do not have
this expertise that they need.
How do you think, Mr. McGoff, that States can help assist
these communities that have never used the SRFs?
And how can they use their expertise to assist?
Mr. McGoff. Thank you, Congressman.
And we do recognize that. I spend quite a bit of my time in
small towns personally visiting with the small-town officials
to try to educate them on our process.
Many States have professionals whether it be engineering
professionals, finance professionals and/or the Alliance for
Rural Water, RCAP, some other agencies. Many of the SRF
Programs regularly engage with those professionals as well as
the agencies to inform them of the resources that we can make
available to small communities.
And so I think each State has the ability to tailor our
financial resources to where their needs are within those
particular States, and from my experience, the small
communities are being heard and being served in multiple ways.
Mr. Carter. Do you think States need more flexibility in
order to help these communities?
Mr. McGoff. The current flexibility we have works. It is
the unknown. I know that the substantial guidance that was
received from EPA suggests, pays a lot of attention to
disadvantaged community and defining disadvantaged communities.
So in the past the SRF Programs, I think, have proven their
ability to provide funding to get it out the door to the
appropriate places, and as long as we can continue to do what
we have done in the past, we feel confident that we will be
able to take care of it.
Mr. Carter. Well, let me ask you something. In your
testimony, you highlighted how statewide strategies for
inventory in lead service lines and testing for contaminants is
limited.
What are other challenges aside from just funding that we
need to work on with lead service line replacement projects?
Mr. McGoff. Because the lead service line replacement
specifically and the emergent contaminants are new for the SRF
Programs, they are not currently in our or on our fundable
ranges or in our project priority list, and in order for us to
access funding through EPA, we need to get them on those lists.
So that's the target for those.
And in the past or in ARRA for traditional wastewater/
drinking water projects, we already had fundable lists that
included those types of projects.
So there will be a bit of a challenge with these new
targets, if you will. The greater flexibility we have from EPA
to identify those, get them on our project priority list,
submit them for funding would be helpful.
Mr. Carter. Let's just say we are successful, wildly
successful in getting these lead lines removed and replaced
with non-lead ones. Are we done with the issue or is there
more?
Mr. McGoff. With respect to the lead issue and for the
service lines going into the home----
Mr. Carter. I was about to say that, you know, that is
still a problem, right?
Mr. McGoff. The removal of lines into the homes, I guess,
after the Prentice Plumbing, we would not be aware of what is
actually happening inside the premise, but the filters and
other things could address it.
Mr. Carter. Well, we cannot simply ignore it. I mean, any
suggestion?
Mr. McGoff. I think through the assessment we will come up
with some of those suggestions because as we assess, we will
build a knowledge base of what is needed to take care of the
problem.
And so I think, as we have testified, the assessment is a
very important starting point for us.
Mr. Carter. OK. Just one last thing. Are there any other
areas that Congress should be watching during the
implementation? Because they may need some statutory
corrections. Anything else that you know of that we need to be
aware of we might be working on with this?
Mr. McGoff. Apart from what has already been mentioned in
my testimony, I think that is what we find to be of most
importance especially since time is short for the SRF Programs
to make application for this funding, being 18 months is all we
have to work with at this point in time.
Mr. Carter. Look. I know it is run through the State. I
know all too well because, as I mentioned, I was a mayor for
eight years, and our city quadrupled in size during those eight
years.
We would not have been able to do it had it not been for
having water and sewer available, and safe water was important.
We used the SRF loans, and we depended on the State, and it
helped us tremendously.
So I hope everyone here realizes, and on the committee,
that this is extremely important to these small communities and
these growing communities.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will yield back.
Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes virtually the Representative from
California. Representative Barragan, you are recognized for 5
minutes please.
Ms. Barragan. Thank you, Chairman Tonko, for holding this
important hearing on the importance of upgrading America's
drinking water infrastructure and how the infrastructure law
that President Biden and Democrats bought will help.
Mr. Olson, the investment in the infrastructure law to
clean up PFAS is long overdue. In my district, Southgate, a
majority Latino community needs funding to remediate water
treatment systems to address PFAS contamination.
However, for communities with limited resources, accessing
Federal water infrastructure funds can be difficult because
they are often given out through loans from a State Revolving
Fund and must be paid back.
How important is it for the EPA and States to focus on
steering the infrastructure's law, set aside funding for grants
or for forgivable loans to disadvantaged communities?
Mr. Olson. It is a great question, and it is something that
is absolutely crucial is to make sure that the money that is
set aside in the new bipartisan infrastructure law will go to
those communities that need it most in the form of either
grants or forgivable loans.
And the good news is that about half of that State
revolving fund money is going to go to those disadvantaged
communities through those kinds of provisions, and also there
is specific direction for the PFAS money also that needs to go
to those disadvantaged communities.
So I think things like you are describing really should be
able to get that money. The problem is going to be helping them
apply for the money, getting them the information, the
engineering help, as Mr. McKinley was talking about, to
actually hold together a good, strong application.
A lot of these communities just do not even have the
resources to apply for the money in the first place. So that is
going to be key, is getting the technical assistance from the
States and from EPA to those disadvantaged communities to help
them apply and get the money.
Ms. Barragan. Director Adeem, following up on that
question, to meet the goals of Justice 40, what additional
steps should the EPA and States take to reduce any unnecessary
impediments to disadvantaged communities receiving water
infrastructure funds and technical assistance needed to pursue
them?
Mr. Adeem. Excellent question, Congresswoman.
I think the States should be more aggressive in meeting
with those disadvantaged and environmental injustice
communities and overburdened communities, rural communities,
just having dialog with them to know up front what they are
looking for, what their needs and the resources that the State
Revolving Loan Funds can provide, that technical assistance,
that engineering assistance that sometimes exists but may be
limited, but to let those systems know that is available.
Ms. Barragan. Thank you.
Mr. Adeem. It would be a huge step to moving those programs
forward.
Ms. Barragan. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Olson, as you highlight in your testimony, addressing
underinvestment in our water infrastructure is only part of the
challenge. We also need to strengthen the Safe Drinking Water
Act and set pollution control standards on water polluters.
Why is this so important for clean water, and what are the
key steps that Congress and the Administration can take?
Mr. Olson. Well, thank you for the question.
One key issue is that the Safe Drinking Water Act, frankly,
is broken, and I am hoping the committee will spend some time
looking into that. It has been a problem for years. EPA has not
been able to adopt new standards for things like PFAS that we
have known about for years.
So that is one issue. In addition, I think a key problem
has been that with this underinvestment, EPA has been reluctant
to adopt rigorous standards for some of the contaminants, and I
am hoping that that starts to change.
We really need to fix the law and to make sure that we are
making the kind of investments that are actually going to make
it possible for this to happen.
Ms. Barragan. Well, thank you.
We certainly are taking your suggestions on what we can do
to fix it.
Director Adeem, my last question is for you.
In Newark, your city council passed a law to give your
department the authority to go into private rental properties
without the owners' consent to replace lead services lines.
Why was this property access important to your work in
disadvantaged communities and what actions the EPA and States
can take to support rental property access in order to meet the
administration's Justice 40 goals for the lead service line
replacement?
Mr. Adeem. Thank you, again, Congresswoman, for this most
important----
Ms. Barragan. This is about property access.
Mr. Adeem [continuing]. For this important question.
And in the city of Newark, as we have made known, the city
of Newark is a city of over 315,000 residents. Seventy-four
percent of those residents are renters. They do not own their
own home, and tenants that live in those properties there are
always onboard to getting their lead service line replaced.
But the owners can be a financial institution, an LLC that
does not have an interest in replacing the lead service line.
So part of us reducing exposure to lead, we thought the
ordinance played a huge role in making our program effective
and efficient and save money and time by letting us go by a
block-by-block approach and just have anyone give us right of
entry to a home we are replacing that service line, allowed us
to replace over 23,000 lead service lines today.
So that legislation will be a crucial move forward for any
utility that is looking to replace lead service lines.
Ms. Barragan. Thank you.
With that, Mr. Chair, I yield back.
Mr. Tonko. The gentlelady yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from the State of
Washington and also the ranking member of the full committee,
Representative Rodgers. You are recognized for 5 minutes
please.
Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, everyone, for being here.
Ms. Mathieu and Mr. McGoff, your testimony discusses small
rural cities and towns and States that the Association of State
Drinking Water Administrators has consistently highlighted
because small communities can be equally disadvantaged.
Why is it important for versatility and flexibility in
defining and meeting these small and rural communities' needs?
Ms. Mathieu. As I think it has been stated here before,
small communities struggle. A small system can be a system of,
say, 41 homes.
I recently met with a new owner. Many of these systems are
owned or controlled by a homeowner's association. They are a
group of volunteers that have full-time jobs or maybe two jobs,
and they get together on a weekly basis trying to manage a
water system.
So as you can imagine, that is difficult to do, and I
recently met with one in the small town of Lebanon, 41 homes, a
new person who took on all of this responsibility herself. She
is a young mother with four kids, just had COVID, but wanted to
meet with us.
So we met with her in the town hall with the town's First
Selectman, and we talked it through for a couple of hours, the
needs that she has.
A lot of it is financial. The rates have not been raised in
years, maybe decades. Full cost pricing, as I think one of the
gentlemen was getting at, really is not there for the smaller
system. They have not raised the rates.
So we in our State two years ago, we passed the law
requiring small systems that serve under 1,000 people to
produce an asset and physical management plan. Keep it simple,
draft a plan, know what you have, know how old your
infrastructure is, know what your rates need to be.
She in this small, small system has now started to step up
the rates. She has worked with her community. She has
communicated with her community, and they are all in agreement.
It is not easy. Then for her now to take on a loan for the
SRF, that is another step, and we are going to work really very
hard to get our engineers and our analysts to meet, you know,
as Mr. Adeem had said. Get out into the community and sit down
and meet with them. And talk with them directly. It is really
important.
Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you.
Mr. Adeem. And thank you, Congresswoman.
And I agree. It sounds like we spent the same time in these
small towns, having similar conversations.
The beauty of the SRF Programs is in their flexibility.
Each State can tailor their programs to address the needs of
their State and to meet both urban, large environment or
utilities, as well as small towns and small utilities.
So I think that is the hallmark of the SRF Programs, is in
the flexibility.
Mrs. Rodgers. OK. As a followup, your testimony focused on
ensuring Infrastructure Improvement and Jobs Act funding is
efficient, effective, and streamlined to lower the paperwork
burden on the stakeholders. I think that that is a great idea.
I notice that your testimony also calls out challenges and
barriers faced by communities, many without expertise in
navigating requirements like Buy America, Build America, and
Federal prevailing wage requirements.
Why do you call out for the development of waivers for
these requirements in limited circumstances?
And what did your officials learn from the use of waivers
to some of the requirements in the 2009 American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act?
Mr. McGoff. The smaller towns, smaller utilities are the
least equipped to deal with red tape, if you will. They need
additional resources and/or professional assistance.
We in Indiana hired labor standards administrators for
those utilities to take care of that red tape, and it did come
at an expense. Thousands of dollars were spent to provide that
service for the small communities.
So it can be done. It just takes additional resources and
certainly hand-holding to get those communities through the
process.
Mrs. Rodgers. Well, and I will let you answer also.
Ms. Mathieu. I would say the same.
Mrs. Rodgers. I would love to hear what are some of the
specific challenges to Buy America, Build America?
Because I think we all are anxious to see that happen, but
what is the reality on the grounds?
Ms. Mathieu. Added costs, affordability of the loan. A
small system like the one I just described.
Mrs. Rodgers. Can you give me some insights as to what we
are facing?
Ms. Mathieu. I do not have the details. Maybe----
Mr. McGoff. Uncertainty. It takes States some time to get
up to speed on new requirements and then educate our borrowers
and the professionals.
Mrs. Rodgers. Do we have the supplies in America that you
would need?
Mr. McGoff. Well, that is uncertain. If it can be
implemented along the lines of AIS, then we understand AIS, but
if it throws additional requirements to us, that is where the
uncertainty is.
Mrs. Rodgers. OK. Thank you all for being here.
I yield back.
Mr. Tonko. The gentlewoman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Virginia,
Representative McEachin. You are recognized for 5 minutes, and
thank you for joining us virtually.
Mr. McEachin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate the
opportunity to participate in today's hearing.
The bipartisan infrastructure law will provide
approximately $30 billion in investment over the next five
years to improve our Nation's water infrastructure.
Additionally, the Justice 40 Initiative should ensure the
funds are accessible to small and disadvantaged communities to
ease efforts in replacing lead service lines and addressing
emerging contaminants like PFAS.
This hearing today is critical. As money begins to flow to
States and localities, we must ensure that in the
implementation of new funds that we decrease the pollution
burden on low-income Americans and communities of color because
all Americans deserve access to clean water regardless of race
or income.
Mr. Adeem, first of all, I want to salute you and the city
of Newark for replacing all of your city's 23,000 lead service
lines in three years. Particularly I appreciate this was done
with no cost to residents, as low-income renters are some of
the most vulnerable populations.
In order to provide lead service replacement to renters in
the city of Newark, the city asked your State legislature to
allow the use of public funds on private property. I know you
have spoken of this somewhat in terms of Ms. Barragan's
question, but are there other challenges that came with lead
service lines and replacements on private property that you
were not able to discuss with Ms. Barragan?
Mr. Adeem. Yes. Thank you for your question. Thank you,
Congressman.
In the city of Newark, there is legislation around you
cannot use public money on private property because you may be
doing an improvement to that property which would create some
type of assessment.
In the city of Newark, we have also found out that when you
start putting a price on replacing lead service lines, it is an
opt-in program. Many homeowners that own their home or a
company that does not live in the city there on the property,
does not participate in removing lead service lines.
So having legislation in place that you will not provide an
assessment on someone that cannot afford it anyway helps us
expedite the replacement efficiently and effectively.
Mr. McEachin. Thank you, Mr. Adeem.
Mr. Diaz, let me ask you. As you know, the EPA is currently
working to propose rules on PFAS pollution by 2023. What rules
would you like to see proposed on PFAS contamination?
Mr. Diaz. Thank you for the question, Congressman McEachin.
I would say that those kinds of suggestions are out of my
wheelhouse, but I would like to add that, you know, as you
know, lead is not the only public health concern, and
contaminated water exposes communities to harmful chemicals
like PFAS and also arsenic.
And you know, more than 27 million Americans get their
water from systems that violate health standards, and again,
low-income communities and communities of color are
disproportionately impacted by this contaminated water.
The money in the bipartisan infrastructure law is a $10
billion down payment on the cleanup of PFAS and urgent
contaminants, but continued investment will be needed, as well
as further research.
Thank you.
Mr. McEachin. Thank you.
Let me open that question up to Mr. Olson or Ms. Mathieu,
if I did not pronounce your name too badly. Are there
particular rules that you would like to see proposed by EPA
concerning PFAS contamination, either one of you?
Mr. Olson. Yes, I will start briefly. Thank you for the
question. It is crucial.
We would like to see EPA actually regulate the class of
PFAS. They are proposing to just regulate two out of 9,000
PFAS. So we know PFOA and PFOS are two that should be
regulated, and EPA is moving on that.
But they are short of like shark's teeth, right? I mean you
have got two of them that we are going to regulate, but you
have got thousands of them literally behind those two that are
being regulated. If we do not deal with the whole class, we are
never going to get this problem under control.
And what we have seen in State after State, city after city
is that we are not just seeing one or two PFAS. We are seeing a
whole lot of different PFAS in a complex toxic mixture that
people are being exposed to.
So we need to crack down on the whole class.
Ms. Mathieu. And I would add to that, to Mr. Olson's point,
I would wholeheartedly agree that we are happy to see that EPA
is moving in the direction of setting hopefully maximum
contaminant levels for OA and OS, but in our State we are
seeing prevalence of many more.
And once we start testing, you will find it. And the
unfortunate thing is you might find it in school drinking water
because of septic fields and other things.
So I would agree that, No. 1, if I had, you know, things
that we could ask of EPA to continue to move forward with at
least OA and OS and move that along as quickly as possible, you
know, reviewing all the science and the data, but also help us
where we need the help the most with all of these other
contaminants.
To get a better handle on that is incredibly important as
we find them more and more in our State.
Mr. McEachin. Thank you so much.
I have run out of time, and I yield back.
Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Crenshaw, for 5
minutes please.
Mr. Crenshaw. Thank you. Thank you to the Chair. Thank you
to the ranking member, and thank you to all of the witnesses
for coming today on this important hearing.
Look. I think even in the most limited government,
conservatives do think that the government has a role in
keeping everyday Americans safe and with safe drinking water.
And there are communities in my district, for instance,
like Tamina, that do not have clean water. My office is
dedicated to helping that community get the water that it
needs.
But along that same theme, there is a key component in
keeping drinking water safe, which is chlorine, and last year
there was a brief supply disruption in the production of
chlorine that resulted in several communities sporadically
losing access to chlorine products and requiring an abundance
of boiled water notices across the United States.
Administrator Regan was so concerned about the communities
losing access to chlorine that he actually sent an urgent
letter to the chlorine manufacturers, reminding them that
chlorine is used in the overwhelming majority of water systems
and that they need to prioritize getting those shipments out
the door.
I will submit this letter for the record.
But that same EPA also advocated so strongly against the
processes that create chlorine in the first place. Support
chlorine but just not how to make it.
There are only two ways of making chlorine. One uses
asbestos and one uses PFAS. EPA is working on a draft rule that
bans asbestos, and this committee has worked on a plan. We have
passed it out of this Congress to effectively ban PFAS or at
least create such extreme liability for producing it that many
companies will simply choose not to do it.
Mr. Adeem, you have got a water system. You use chlorine,
do you not? And what do you make of this? What do you make of
this?
Mr. Adeem. Thank you, Congressman.
Chlorine is crucial to our treatment process to provide
safe drinking water. It is a disinfectant that is widely used
across the country to disinfect water.
We did see last year some of the manufacturers were having
delays in processing and shipping chlorine, especially early,
the first quarter of 2021, around that.
Mr. Crenshaw. And can you import cheaper chlorine from
abroad?
Mr. Adeem. I am not sure. I never looked into that.
Mr. Crenshaw. The answer is no. You are not allowed to
import chlorine.
So you would have to buy it locally, and if there is a
scarcity or if it just becomes prohibitively expensive because
we crack down on the processes to make it, what do we do?
It is a rhetorical question. I do not think you know the
answer.
The point I am making is it is a problem, and we cannot
regulate in silos. We have to regulate with the entire picture
in mind, and I think some of these pursuits have been reckless
or shortsighted.
It is also worth noting that chloring is not just a
disinfectant for water systems. It is a foundational chemical
for fertilizer and medicine as well. It always feels good to
ban chemicals that you do not understand, but the question is
will it do any good.
No. You are monitoring often about feelings, not facts. In
this case, you could have serious consequences. Health care
will be more expensive. Food will be more expensive. Water will
be more expensive. That is what happens when you create
scarcity via excessive government regulations: increased cost.
And so I ask the committee today with inflation being the
No. 1 problem facing everyday Americans, do we do away with
this shortsighted crusade to effectively ban the very chemicals
that we need the most?
I still have some time left, and so, Mr. Olson, you were
just talking about the need to crack down on PFAS chemicals.
How do we do that without having the second and third order
consequences that I just mentioned?
Those are very real consequences. We talked to the
industries that make these chemicals that we absolutely need.
So how do we thread the needle?
Mr. Olson. Well, I was speaking to the need to make sure
that they are not in the drinking water, to filter it out of
the drinking water before people drink it.
But I think there is a need to go toward reasonable
controls on PFAS production, and the vast majority of PFAS can
be replaced with other compounds.
So firefighting foam is one example where it is in
widespread use, and now all over the world a lot of airports,
for example, are phasing out or have phased out PFAS-based
firefighting foam.
So in a lot of the big uses there are alternatives. There
may be some crucial, absolutely essential uses that need to be
retained until we can find out if there is an alternative, but
the basic problem is we are seeing a lot of profligate----
Mr. Crenshaw. And I just mentioned one of them, but those
companies that make the PFAS membrane that will create
chlorine, they will not do it when they are faced with trillion
dollar liabilities because of being regulated under CERCLA.
So is that the right step to take?
Mr. Olson. Well, what I will say is if you are
contaminating somebody's drinking water with PFAS, you ought to
be responsible for----
Mr. Olson. But they are not. They are making chlorine.
Understand there is more to the supply chain than just--
nothing here is touching the drinking water. The PFAS I not
contaminating the drinking water in this case. We are talking
about how to make chlorine, which is the opposite of
contaminating the drinking water. It is what allows you to have
clean drinking water.
Mr. Olson. I understand. What I am referring to is a lot of
the actual manufacturing of the PFAS has caused pretty
widespread contamination in North Carolina and several other
States.
Mr. Crenshaw. I am out of time.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back. You are welcome.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from California, Dr.
Ruiz. Congressman, you are recognized for 5 minutes please.
Mr. Ruiz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing
and for bringing attention to the important investments we made
in clean drinking water through the bipartisan infrastructure
act.
Water is life. Access to clean drinking water is a human
right and a common good for all, and it is a priority me for
two reasons.
First, as a physician and public health expert, I know
firsthand how important clean water is for our communities'
health and for children's development. No matter if a child is
growing up in downtown Detroit exposed to lead or in a
farmworker trailer park exposed to arsenic in my district in
rural California, they must have access to safe and clean
drinking water.
Second, over the last few years a number of communities in
my district have been exposed to water contaminated with
dangerous levels of arsenic.
I want to be clear. There is no greater environmental
injustice than children having to drink contaminated water that
can increase their chances of developing neurological
illnesses, heart disease, diabetes, and cancer.
I have been working on this issue since 2019 when the EPA
issued an emergency order against Oasis Mobile Home Park
located in Thermal on privately owned fee land in the Torres-
Martinez Tribal Reservation in my district.
Since then the EPA has announced seven additional mobile
home parks in my congressional district whose water exceeds the
maximum contamination level for arsenic, which was naturally
occurring in the groundwater in their well water system.
We must do everything to protect the health of my
constituents, including getting these farmworker mobile home
parks linked up with the local water district so they do not
have to rely on these wells pumping unsafe water.
Mr. Olson, in your testimony, you mentioned a study that
found that socioeconomic status and race were correlated with
exposure to contaminants like arsenic and are also correlated
with their water system being in noncompliance with safe
drinking water standards.
What can we do to correct this environmental injustice?
And how do we ensure that these vulnerable communities are
not exposed to these contaminants and are protected by Federal
standards?
Mr. Olson. It is an absolutely crucial issue, and that is
one reason we are really glad that the bipartisan
infrastructure law targets at least 49 percent of this new
funding to disadvantaged communities.
Now, it is going to be up to your State of California. It
is going to be up to each individual State to make sure that
money actually goes to the communities that need it, and what
we have seen in case after case is and I just heard earlier
this week about a situation here State Revolving Fund money was
going to a golf course community, to expand a gold course
community's drinking water supply.
So we want to target the communities that really need it.
Mr. Ruiz. See, that is the reason why we have disparities.
That is the reason why farmworkers get to drink arsenic in
their water, yet you have development of these posh resorts in
other areas.
And this is a problem in California.
Let me ask you another question. You know, I proudly
supported the bipartisan infrastructure act, which contained
$11.7 billion in funding for the State Revolving Funds that you
just mentioned, which provide loans and other assistance for
water projects. This is a fund that could be used for
consolidating water systems and help bring clean drinking water
to my constituents in these farmworker mobile home parks in the
Eastern Coachella Valley.
However, in the State of California, there is a rule that
prohibits utilities from using rate payer funds for non-rate
payer projects like those in the farmworker trailer parks in
Eastern Coachella Valley which prevents those mobile home parks
or water districts like the Coachella Valley Water District
from accessing the Federal loan portion of the State Revolving
Fund for water consolidating projects, like they can in other
States.
So with this in mind, how can we help communities under
this restriction access the increased money we provided in the
infrastructure law for the State Revolving Fund, particularly
for water system consolidation projects?
Mr. Olson. Well, I would love to talk to your office. I do
not know the details of the California rules, which surprises
me honestly. I know Community Water Center in California has
been working on trying to address some of the very issues you
are talking about. I would love to followup with you on that
because that is a very important issue.
Arsenic should not be in anybody's drinking water.
Mr. Ruiz. Absolutely not. And we put $11.-some billion in
the State Revolving Funds. This is a fund pool or pocket that
could be used, but we cannot bring those funds that we just put
money into.
So we have to address this barrier in the State of
California to bring the money into consolidating these
projects.
And so with that I yield back my time.
Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back.
And the Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Delaware,
Representative Blunt Rochester. You are recognized for 5
minutes, and thank you for joining us virtually.
Ms. Blunt Rochester. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman and
Ranking Member McKinley, for calling this hearing.
And I also want to thank all of the witnesses for your
testimony today.
The bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act is an
important step to provide long needed improvements in drinking
water quality and accessibility, and we are already seeing the
benefits of this legislation in Delaware.
Earlier this month, Governor Carney announced that Delaware
agencies would start accepting applications for grants and
loans for drinking water and wastewater system improvement
across the State. Using the historic funding from the
infrastructure law to the existing Drinking Water State
Revolving Fund and Clean Water State Revolving Fund, along with
the recently established State Clean Water Trust, to support
these opportunities.
Water accessibility and affordability in the United States
had been a mounting crisis for years, and the infrastructure
law gives us an opportunity to make real and lasting
improvements across our drinking water systems.
But our investments cannot end there. The Environmental
Protection Agency estimates that maintaining and upgrading the
Nation's drinking water and wastewater systems will cost more
than $750 billion over the next 20 years.
We need to continue to work together to ensure that every
person in this country, regardless of race, income, or zip
code, has access to clean, reliable, and safe drinking water.
This is a fundamental need that we can and should deliver to
all Americans.
My first question is for Mr. Olson. In your testimony, you
highlighted the recommendation to create a low-income water
assistance program, and last year I introduced H.R. 3293, the
bipartisan Low-Income Water Customer Assistance Program, along
with my colleagues, Representatives Katko, Dingell, and Tlaib.
This legislation was included in previous past packages and
would establish programs at EPA that would assist low-income
households to maintain access to drinking water and wastewater
services.
Can you discuss why these types of financial utility
assistance programs are so important?
Mr. Olson. Thank you for the question.
Yes, we have actually been supportive of low-income water
assistance. We have this for heat. We have low-income heating
assistance, but we do not have a low-income water assistance
program.
There is a little bit of a pilot program that was created,
but it really has not been financed, and it is something that I
think is crucial.
The other crucial thing to do is make sure that water rates
are structured in a way that will help lower-income people. So
we favor restructuring of water rates as well so that there may
be lifeline rates for very low-income people.
So that it is a combination of low-income water assistance
and reform of water rates.
Ms. Blunt Rochester. Great. Thank you so much for also
mentioning the LIHEAP Program.
I am following up on Representative Carter's question. A
lot of today's hearing is focused on public water
infrastructure, but nearly two in ten Delawareans use private
wells, and some communities in the State are in such remote and
rural areas that even if they wanted to connect to a public
water system, they are unable to do so.
What are States doing to reach more remote communities that
are not on public water systems?
And how can Congress help support those homes that are not
on traditional water lines?
Mr. McGoff. Is that a question for Mr. Olson?
Ms. Blunt Rochester. Yes.
Mr. Olson. OK. I will start it. It looks like Ms. Mathieu
may also have something to say.
But I think it is really important for States to make this
a priority, and it is something that I know that for years it
has been debated about exactly what has to happen for private
wells.
Right now the Safe Drinking Water Act does not protect them
at all, and it is ending up that so many States are realizing
USGS is showing that there is widespread contamination of these
private wells with arsenic, with bacteria, with PFAS.
We really need to address this problem, and currently the
Federal laws really do not reach them. It has been left to
States.
Ms. Mathieu. And I will add to that.
Ms. Blunt Rochester. Yes.
Ms. Mathieu. If I may, I could add to that. In Connecticut,
there are 325,000 private wells. The only tests that are done
is during the first time when that well is drilled.
We are trying in Connecticut to pass a law through our
legislative session right now to require, at the very least,
testing on property transfer, at the very least.
Now, that is not everything. We really do believe private
wells should be tested more often, and there are substantial
issues, sodium chloride, uranium, arsenic, iron, manganese,
people face every single day.
A lot of these sources, a lot of these wells are not tested
at all. We really truly believe that that water should be
tested.
Ms. Blunt Rochester. Great. Thank you.
I have another question that I will submit for the record
for Mr. Diaz about apprenticeships, but I want to respect
everyone's time.
And thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
Mr. Tonko. You are most welcome. The gentlelady yields
back.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
Representative Soto, you are recognized for 5 minutes please.
Mr. Soto. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
We have a duty in the Congress to provide clean water for
every American. My test is pretty simple. If it is not fit for
my family, it is not fit for any family in Central Florida.
When we see the American Society of Civil Engineers, they
have given us a C-minus in the most powerful, wealthiest
country in the world. When I look at areas in my district, we
have in St. Cloud, Florida resin buildup that has made water
brown. We have neighborhoods like Kissimmee where even my
neighbor just the other day had a corroded pipe going into our
neighborhood that has to be replaced.
East Orlando, Kissimmee, Haines City, Winter Haven, Lake
Wales, all aging pipes from the 1880's to the early 1920's,
with some of them built in the 1950's.
Add in the septic tanks and other water leaks affect the
water quality of our lakes as well, and you see there is a big
challenge ahead for Central Florida.
I have the fastest growing district in the Nation. So it is
only getting bigger from there, but I am excited that help is
on the way. The infrastructure law, $55 billion for drinking
water, wastewater, and stormwater, $30 billion for drinking
water, helping State Revolving Funds that have been talked
about so much here; nine billion to remove PFAS, 15 billion for
lead.
We appreciate two of our Republican colleagues on this
committee for supporting the bill, as well as all Democrats. We
need to move forward on this.
Mr. Adeem, it would be great for you to help us paint a
picture for my constituents. For pipes that were built from the
1880's to the 1920's that are 100 to 120 years old, what do
those look like right now and how does that affect water
quality?
Mr. Adeem. Thank you, Congressman, for that question.
They are old. They are brittle. The C factor is
tuberculation buildup on old cast iron water mains or, you
know, in my city we removed in the early 1990's probably one of
the last wood water mains. It was great to see.
But this infrastructure has exceeded its lifetime. We have
pipes dating back to Abe Lincoln, when President Lincoln was in
power, the President when we ran our distribution system.
It is time to upgrade those systems.
Mr. Soto. Thank you for mentioning the old cast iron pipes
because that is exactly what flooded in our neighborhood next
to a constituent's daughter's bedroom as it was bringing water
in for the neighborhood and for fire hydrants.
Ms. Mathieu, it would be great for you to also paint a
picture of what 100-to 120-year-old pipes look like and then
add in that some of them were made from lead. How does that
affect communities?
Ms. Mathieu. So we have a lot of those aged mains in our
State, a lot in the Northeast. All of those need to be replaced
over the next 10 years.
We also have wooden water mains that are being replaced in
our State. The unfortunate thing is that there are so many of
them to replace, and in our State we have about 40 medium-size
cities, and many of those struggle financially. There are
between 40 to 50,000 people.
They are also dealing with stormwater, sewer water, CSOs,
you know, disconnecting the stormwater to sewer water, as well
as drinking water.
This infrastructure funding, this influx to drinking water
infrastructure is timely. It is incredibly important to working
with those communities, those 40 communities that serve larger
populations, that have populations within them that are
disadvantaged, that need the help, that need the investment in
not only their pipes but their treatment, their pump stations,
and all the other mechanisms that run that system.
Mr. Soto. I am glad you mentioned midsized cities. I have a
lot of them that are around 50,000 people, like a St. Cloud or
a Kissimmee or Winter Haven, Florida. You mentioned them in
Connecticut, too.
What would it cost to do a basic upgrade of aging pipes and
water systems in a midsized city of 50,000?
If you want to defer to Mr. Adeem, by all means.
Mr. Adeem. Thanks, Congressman.
It would normally depend on the length of water main or
sewer main that they have, the length and the size, but it is
millions of dollars, probably billions of dollars.
Mr. Soto. Well, thank you for that.
When I think about wooden pipes and cast iron pipes that
are--we do not have wooden ones in Central Florida. We are a
little newer than that, but we have cast iron pipes that are
corroded that when they are dug out of the ground, you cannot
believe that drinking water for our families in modern times
was going through such an antiquated piece of piping.
So thanks for your testimony today. Together we can get
this done for America.
And I yield back.
Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Arizona. Mr.
O'Halleran, you are recognized for 5 minutes please, and thanks
for joining us virtually.
Mr. O'Halleran. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
members, for this ensuring that every American has access to
clean drinking water hearing. What a novel idea.
Now, this is a critical issue across America, but even more
so in Northern Arizona where tribal lands and rural lands have
continued to be left behind.
I often talk about the digital divide, but there is also a
drinking water divide in our country. In my district, 40
percent of homes on the Navajo Nation do not have access to
clean drinking water.
This problem is compounded by the historic injustices of
environmental degradation on tribal lands, and the government's
failure to clean up the over 500 abandoned uranium mines on the
reservation.
These Super Fund sites directly limit the availability of
clean drinking water for thousands of Navajo residents and put
at risk huge aquifers in the Western United States.
For far too long the government has stood in the way of
tribes' ability to protect our citizens from harmful
contaminants.
Mr. Olson, tribal communities face unique challenges. How
can we support tribal communities so they can access clean
drinking water?
What resources in the bipartisan infrastructure law can be
used toward that goal?
And beyond funding from the law, what else can Congress do
to help these communities access safe drinking water?
Mr. Olson. Thank you for that really crucial question.
I mentioned in my testimony how tribal communities in so
many cases have in some cases no drinking water at all, no
sanitation at all. They have to carry their water.
In a lot of other cases, they have contaminated water.
A key is certainly funding. Another key is technical
assistance because a lot of these communities, they do not have
the wherewithal to even put together an application to get the
money.
So we need to have money that is specifically set aside for
the tribes is one key aspect, and then we also need the
technical assistance to help them actually apply for the funds
and to actually implement and to operate and maintain these
facilities.
And I would agree with you. What has gone on in the Navajo
Nation with uranium mining contaminating large swaths of the
tribal area is inexcusable, and the Federal Government really
owes a lot to that community to clean it up.
Mr. O'Halleran. Thank you, Mr. Olson.
The bipartisan infrastructure law makes historic
investments to the United States drinking water restructure,
including $9 billion to remove PFAS contaminants from drinking
water, a serious issue faced in the Tucson water system.
The law also includes $30 billion for water infrastructure,
and this funding is badly needed throughout the Western United
States and America.
Last week my staff visited a small town in my district,
Kearny, and saw the decaying water infrastructure firsthand.
The residents cannot drink the water. Cleanup and replacement
of drinking water infrastructure is often prohibitively
expensive, making it unrealistic that small towns like Kearny
can foot the bill.
It is an historic mining area also.
Ms. Mathieu, you mentioned in your testimony the challenges
towns and communities with very small populations have with
applying for funds through the drinking State Revolving Funds.
How can States, tribes, and the EPA work to ensure these
small communities are able to upgrade their drinking water
infrastructure?
What does a successful partnership look like in
implementation of these funds?
And how can we work with the States especially to make sure
that their laws are in compliance with the intent of Congress?
Thank you.
Ms. Mathieu. Thank you. Thank you for your question.
The smallest systems struggle the most. They struggle with
compliance with the Safe Drinking Water Act, just the most
basic things.
I think a number of panelists have said it. They need
direct technical assistance, and that may not be my engineers
who are regulators. That may be the rural water associations,
the circuit riders, this technical hub.
And in not just one time and hold the night meeting and
leave, but to stay there. You know, I have talked to many
people who look at us as, you know, we are the bad guys. We are
the regulators.
But you have to meet them in their neighborhoods. You have
to talk to the people, and you have to understand what their
concerns are, and again, a lot of it is financial. They do need
technical help in just completing the applications.
And I think Mr. Adeem also said----
Mr. O'Halleran. Ms. Mathieu, I do have limited time, and I
do want to just say----
Ms. Mathieu. I am sorry.
Mr. O'Halleran [continuing]. Mr. Chairman, we have to find
a way to make sure the States address the intent of what we are
trying to accomplish here for rural America and tribal lands in
America and not just concentrate on these other areas that
already have good drinking water, and they are just trying to
improve it a little bit more versus what we see day in and day
out in many areas of our rural America.
Thank you very much. I appreciate it.
Mr. Tonko. Point well made.
The gentleman yields back.
And the Chair now recognizes virtually the Representative
from the State of Florida, the gentlelady, Representative
Castor, is recognized for 5 minutes please.
Ms. Castor. Hi, Chair Tonko, and thank you to our panelists
very much for discussing clean drinking water today.
I mean, clean drinking water is central to the health and
prosperity of families across the country, making sure that
they can thrive and the bipartisan infrastructure law is an
enormous achievement for President Biden and all of us, but
most importantly, it will help our communities back home.
So, Chair Tonko, this oversight hearing is very important.
I appreciate you organizing it.
Especially in the wake of the fact that we know we have
aging pipes. It is not lost on us that the American Society of
Civil Engineers had graded drinking water infrastructure with a
C. It is worse in a lot of areas due to aging infrastructure.
In my neck of the woods, in the Tampa area, we consistently
have water main breaks and having to replace service lines.
And now we know we also have more responsibility to get the
lead out of the piping, to replace the lead pipes, and address
the PFAS and other chemicals.
But we also need to make sure that these substantial funds
as they are distributed across the country, that they go to
make communities more resilient; that our drinking water
infrastructure is resilient to the rising costs and impacts of
the climate crisis.
And, Mr. Diaz, in your testimony, you noted the importance
of EPA's implementation guidance for ensuring equity in climate
resilience. EPA has said that States should prioritize
disadvantaged communities and support projects that apply the
best available and most geographically relevant climate
information projections and standards, such as the Federal
flood risk management standard.
Communities across the country are already experiencing
those climate fueled rising costs and impacts, whether it is
sea level risk or more frequent and costly storms.
So how can Congress help States and communities access
information about climate risk and vulnerability to ensure that
projects will be resilient into the future, to make sure that
they are making cost effective decisions?
And how can States prioritize the needs of environmental
justice communities in State plans and funding allocations?
Mr. Diaz. Thank you for that question, Congresswoman
Castor.
You know, climate change has a great strain on our Nation's
water infrastructure, and the clean drinking water State
Revolving Loan Funds are the main sources of funding for
States, not only to update and maintain water infrastructure,
but also to assure that this infrastructure is resilient to
climate change.
One study from the National Association of Clean Water
Agencies estimated that States will need an additional 448 to
$944 billion by 2050 to reengineer water systems to cope with
sea level rise, extreme weather events, droughts, and floods.
The EPA estimates that just the capital cost of clean
drinking water infrastructure over the next 20 years is about
$750 billion.
We have an historic infusion in funding in the bill and
somewhere in the ballpark of about $23.5 billion for drinking
water and clean water State Revolving Loan Funds, and that is
split equitably.
This is a massive step and provides a significant down
payment on the investment needed to upgrade our water systems.
Ms. Castor. Well, and thank you very much.
And, Mr. Olson, you have testified about the importance of
addressing climate risk to water infrastructure including
extreme weather and droughts and groundwater depletion,
saltwater intrusion. You recommend increasing the use of
integrated water resource management strategies to help with
water supply and flooding and water quality in a more
integrated way.
How can Congress help promote that thoughtful strategy on
integrated water resource management?
Mr. Olson. Obviously, funding is part of it and is urgently
needed, and unfortunately, we are going to be facing, I think,
a nationwide crisis as we see more and more of these extreme
storms and more of the drought conditions we are seeing in many
parts of the country.
So I think funding is part of it. Assistance in identifying
where the problems are worse; we are seeing a lot of coastal
areas like your district where you are seeing saltwater
intrusion becoming a significant issue in many of these coastal
areas, and as climate change happens, we are going to see more
of that.
So I think help with planning and technical assistance with
planning and dealing with that are going to be key aspects of
it. But without the funding, you are not going to solve this
problem.
Ms. Castor. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Tonko. You are most welcome.
The gentlewoman yields back.
The chair now recognizes the gentleman from California who
joins us virtually. Representative McNerney, you are recognized
for 5 minutes please.
Mr. McNerney. Well, I thank the chairman.
I thank the witnesses for hanging in there. I may be the
last member. So thank you very much.
I am very proud of the historic investment that we have
made with the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act to improve
the drinking water and health of our systems.
However, the American West is in the mega drought, at least
112 years, the worst in 112 years. 2022, in fact, has seen the
driest January and February on record. Farmers are facing
severe water cuts. Wells are drying up. Some communities have
already run out of water.
So we have to achieve long-term drought resilience, which
requires long-term, dedicated investments. If you do not have
water, you do not have to worry about water quality.
So our water systems lose about 14 to 18 percent of treated
water in leaks in the system, and an additional amount is lost
through inefficient fixtures.
Mr. Diaz, you spoke of the energy and financial
implications of wasted water in your written testimony. Would
you elaborate on the benefits of improving water efficiency and
addressing water loss?
Mr. Diaz. Certainly, Congressman.
You know, the question is spending all this money to
replace our water infrastructure truly fiscally responsible,
and you know, in terms of lead service line replacement, you
know, investing in lead service line replacement not only
prevents lead poisoning and creates jobs, but also saves
taxpayers money in the long run.
In terms of wasted water and, you know, what the bipartisan
infrastructure law investments do to help us preserve water
systems through preventing water main breaks and leaks, it is
an investment that is truly needed.
I do not have an adequate response to your question in
detail, but I would like to followup with your office to
provide some more insight.
Mr. McNerney. Very good. I appreciate that.
Mr. Olson, would regular audits and improved data
collection help reduce loss in drinking water systems?
Mr. Olson. Yes. We certainly believe that one key is to
have water loss accounting so that water systems are actually
tracking.
I actually looked into one system, a large system in Puerto
Rico that said that they were losing 50 percent of the water
that they pumped into their system as unaccounted for.
So what we are seeing is pretty widespread problems. That
is an extreme example, but we heard earlier just today in this
hearing that as much as 30 percent of water is being wasted or
lost, and that is just an unsustainable situation.
We need to tighten up those pipes, replace the old pipes.
We have heard about 100-plus year old pipes. They need to be
replaced and tightened up, and we will actually save money over
the long term if we do that.
Mr. McNerney. Well, given the water-energy nexus, I mean,
losing one and wasting one is wasting the other as well. So
very important in terms of water availability and climate
change.
Ms. Mathieu, a 2014 GAO review found that 40 out of 50
State water managers expected shortages in the next decade, and
that additional uncertainty is likely with climate change.
What additional resources do drinking water administrators
need to plan for or need to plan for scarcities and shortages
especially in the drought-prone areas?
Ms. Mathieu. I think what is mission critical for public
water systems, to have plans, to have long-term plans, to test
their sources of supply and understand what their safe daily
yields are, and then not to do that once 30-years ago, but to
do that maybe every couple of years so that you understand the
impacts of climate change.
I think a lot of the impacts are not understood or known,
and I think many utilities maybe across the country need to do
more planning and invest in that planning.
Mr. McNerney. OK. Mr. Olson, in California's Central Valley
where my district is located nitrate pollution is becoming
increasingly common in groundwater. Many communities have lost
their wells to nitrate pollution
and are now relying on water delivery.
What kind of strategies are needed to address and mitigate
legacy pollution in source water and groundwater?
Mr. Olson. Well, there are basically two things that need
to happen. One is we need to control the sources of nitrate
pollution, which we are not doing a very good job of in so many
communities. Over-application of fertilizer or sewage can be
contributors.
And we also, frankly, need to invest in fixing the nitrate
problem where there is a legacy contamination. That means
pretty expensive treatment. Some utilities like Des Moines,
Iowa have had to spend tens of millions of dollars to clean up
their nitrate contamination.
And some smaller communities especially are going to need
help in paying for treatment because it is not cheap.
Mr. McNerney. OK. Well, thank you.
My time has expired. Mr. Chairman, I am going to yield back
to you.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you.
The gentleman yields back, and I believe that completes the
list of members that have chosen to ask questions of our
witnesses.
I do, on behalf of the subcommittee, thank all of our
witnesses for joining us for today's hearing. A tremendous
information exchange, and thank you for the challenges you are
making our way to make certain that we move forward with
greatest progress.
I remind members that pursuant to committee rules, they
have ten business days by which to submit additional questions
for the record that would be answered by our witnesses.
I ask that our witnesses please respond promptly to any
such questions that you may receive.
Before we adjourn, I have a list of items that have been
requested for unanimous consent to enter the following
documents into the record:
A letter from the National Rural Water Association; A
letter from the Rural Community Assistance Partnership; A
letter from the American Water Works Association; A letter from
the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies; A letter from
industry associations; A replacement ordinance notice; A letter
from the Department of Environmental Protection of the State of
New Jersey; Inventory source data from the Parkersburg Utility
Board of West Virginia; and a letter from EPA Administrator
Mike Regan.
Without objection, so ordered.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. Tonko. With that, at this time the subcommittee hearing
is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1:19 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]