    [Senate Hearing 117-272]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                          S. Hrg. 117-272

                      IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DRINKING WATER
                         AND WASTEWATER INFRASTRUCTURE ACT:
                         STAKEHOLDERS' NEEDS AND EXPERIENCES

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

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                          SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES,
                              WATER, AND WILDLIFE

                                     OF THE

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                          ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                        ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                                 APRIL 5, 2022

                                   __________

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

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

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

                                  __________

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    47-730 PDF                 WASHINGTON : 2022

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                   COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

                        ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                      THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware, Chairman
    BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland         SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West
    BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont                 Virginia,
    SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island         Ranking Member
    JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon                 JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma
    EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts      KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota
    TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois            CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming
    DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan            RICHARD SHELBY, Alabama
    MARK KELLY, Arizona                  JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
    ALEX PADILLA, California             ROGER WICKER, Mississippi
                                         DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska
                                         JONI ERNST, Iowa
                                         LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina

                 Mary Frances Repko, Democratic Staff Director
                   Adam Tomlinson, Republican Staff Director
                                  ----------

                 Subcommittee on Fisheries, Water, and Wildlife

                      TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois, Chairman
    BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland         CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming,
    SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island         Ranking Member
    EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts      JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma
    DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan            KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota
    MARK KELLY, Arizona                  JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
    THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware (ex       DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska
        officio)                         JONI ERNST, Iowa
                                         SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West
                                             Virginia (ex officio)

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

                                 APRIL 5, 2022
                               OPENING STATEMENTS

    Duckworth, Hon. Tammy, U.S. Senator from the State of Illinois...     1
    Lummis, Hon. Cynthia M., U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming..     3

                                   WITNESSES

    Baraka, Hon. Ras J., Mayor, City of Newark, New Jersey...........     7
        Prepared statement...........................................    10
    Schimmel, Joshua, Board Member, National Association of Clean
      Water Agencies.................................................    15
        Prepared statement...........................................    18
    Bodine, Susan, Partner, Earth and Water Law, LLC.................    22
        Prepared statement...........................................    25
        Responses to additional questions from Senator Inhofe........    47
    Pepper, Mark, Executive Director, Wyoming Association of Rural
      Water Systems..................................................    49
        Prepared statement...........................................    51

    IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DRINKING WATER AND WASTEWATER INFRASTRUCTURE ACT:
                      STAKEHOLDERS' NEEDS AND EXPERIENCES

                                  ----------

                             TUESDAY, APRIL 5, 2022

                                   U.S. Senate,
             Committee on Environment and Public Works,
                Subcommittee on Fisheries, Water, and Wildlife,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Committee, met, pursuant to notice, at 10:06 a.m. in
    room 406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Tammy Duckworth
    (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.
        Present: Senators Duckworth, Lummis, Carper, Whitehouse,
    Kelly, Inhofe, and Ernst.
        Also present: Senator Booker.

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

        Senator Duckworth. Thank you all for being here for today's
    hearing with the Senate Committee on Environment and Public
    Works, Subcommittee on Fisheries, Water, and Wildlife. This
    hearing will examine one of the most pressing issues for
    communities in Illinois and throughout the Nation, water
    infrastructure.
        Last year, the Senate passed the bipartisan infrastructure
    law which included the Drinking Water and Wastewater
    Infrastructure Act, also known as DWWIA, a bill that Chairman
    Carper, Ranking Member Capito, Senator Lummis, and myself
    worked on to make a reality.
        DWWIA provides historic investments and programmic changes
    to help States, communities, and schools fix and upgrade aging
    water systems to improve water quality while fostering economic
    growth and jobs throughout the country. In fact, DWWIA is the
    most significant Federal investment in water infrastructure in
    history, and I am thrilled to see that President Biden's budget
    requested the full Federal funding of all DWWIA programs.
        While this bill is an incredible first step toward clean
    water for all, our jobs are not done. Now, we must do the work
    to ensure that these programmic changes are carried out and
    these critical funds get to the communities that need it the
    most. There has been a historic lack of investment in water
    infrastructure but especially so for disadvantaged, small,
    rural, and tribal communities that each have individual
    challenges when it comes to water infrastructure.
        Our lack of attention to these communities is not
    acceptable. We must break down barriers for funding to ensure
    every American has access to clean water no matter their zip
    code, the color of their skin, or the size of their wallet.
    DWWIA's goal is to help do just that.
        The bill reauthorizes and enhances the State Revolving
    Funds, or the SRFs, which are the most efficient tools we have
    to provide States with Federal investments that empower local
    leaders to modernize water systems, implement lead reduction
    projects, and rebuild stormwater overflow. By lowering non-
    Federal cost shares, increasing the use of grants, and allowing
    for debt forgiveness, we will help communities access Federal
    dollars that typically struggle to qualify for traditional
    loans.
        Years of lack of investment and oversight have led towns
    all across America to slide into disrepair. We have worked
    within our States to give these communities a chance at a
    normal life and funding opportunities like the programs in
    DWWIA could provide this chance.
        The bill also works to get shovels into the ground and
    support quality jobs by reauthorizing and streamlining
    financing programs like WIFIA and SRFs. However, with
    significant funding comes significant responsibility. The
    States will have to prepare for these programmic changes and
    Federal dollars, and that is no small feat.
        One of the significant water infrastructure projects that
    the States will have to plan for is the national health crisis
    of lead pipes. As the Senator with the most known lead service
    lines of any State, and with lead poisoning disproportionately
    impacting communities of color and low income communities, this
    cause is very near to my heart.
        The bipartisan infrastructure law provides over $15 billion
    for President Biden's National Comprehensive Lead Service Line
    Replacement Initiative, and DWWIA provides an additional
    authorization for more than $700 million for lead reduction
    programs like my Voluntary Lead Testing and Removal in Schools
    and Child Care Facilities Program. Yes, this national lead
    removal initiative will be a lot of work, but it will be worth
    it to protect our future generations.
        With the EPA's recent SRF implementation guidance, I am
    excited to see that they are following through on Congress's
    intent to make disadvantaged, small, rural, and tribal
    communities a priority of this water infrastructure funding,
    and we will continue our oversight to ensure that the States
    deliver on this vision.
        Today, we have an excellent lineup of witnesses to provide
    firsthand knowledge of how these programs work for their
    communities, any improvements needed, and how the changes that
    DWWIA provided will help them in the future.
        From permanent brain damage to overflowing sewage to costly
    service interruptions, our constituents are now experiencing
    the harms that result from allowing our drinking water and
    wastewater systems to age into a state of disrepair. And now is
    the time to fix this in an efficient and equitable manner.
        As Subcommittee Chair, I look forward to today's discussion
    on best practices to ensure the success of this Committee's
    long term goal of providing families in Illinois and across our
    Nation clean, safe, reliable water.
        Thank you to Chairman Carper, Ranking Member Capito, and
    Subcommittee Ranking Member Lummis for making this a priority
    for the Committee because it is absolutely a priority for me.
        I would now like to turn it over to Subcommittee Ranking
    Member Lummis for her opening statement.

             OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS,
                 U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING

        Senator Lummis. Thank you, Madam Chairman. It is so nice to
    spend time with you again like we did in the House and be back
    with you on this Subcommittee.
        Thanks also to our witnesses for being here. I very much
    look forward to your testimony and your answers to our
    questions.
        At the beginning of this Congress last year, I was honored
    to work with Senators Carper, Capito, Duckworth, and others to
    craft the Drinking Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Act. I
    am proud that that product was bipartisan and created a
    responsible and measured investment in our Nation's water
    infrastructure.
        That bill passed this Committee unanimously and later the
    full Senate by a vote of 89 to 2. It was then signed into law
    as part of the Infrastructure and Jobs Act. Providing clean and
    reliable water in this country is clearly an issue that unites
    both sides.
        As important as it is for Congress to write and pass
    legislation, we also have the important job of then following
    up with oversight to ensure the executive branch fulfills its
    duty of faithfully executing the law. That is why we are here
    today. Going forward, we need to ensure the EPA follows both
    the letter and spirit of the law as Congress intended.
        On March 8th of this year, the EPA issued implementation
    guidance for infrastructure bill funds appropriated to the
    State Revolving Funds. My comments and questions today will
    focus primarily on that memorandum.
        So, a few key points. The State Revolving Funds, under the
    Clean Water Act, are a reflection of federalism. While Congress
    sets the eligible recipients' projects in broad parameters,
    States were and are intended to be in the driver's seat. Over
    time, Federal requirements have grown more and more expansive.
    Some call that creeping conditionalism.
        The March 8th memorandum worryingly appears to continue
    this trend. For one example, EPA's language around States'
    intended use plans is concerning as neither the Clean Water Act
    nor the Safe Drinking Water Act give EPA authority over the
    development of State priority lists. The bottom line is that
    the EPA should not be substituting its own priorities, no
    matter how noble, over that of the States.
        Rural and disadvantaged communities experience different
    challenges than larger or more urban water systems. Lack of
    economies of scale, however significant they may be, lower
    income levels and higher poverty rates all contribute to added
    challenges for these communities.
        In my State of Wyoming, 97 percent of the water systems are
    small, serving populations of fewer than 10,000 people.
    Nationwide, that rate is 91 percent. Ensuring the EPA provides
    clear, defined program requirements well in advance will help
    these States and communities access Infrastructure Act funds as
    Congress intended.
        I believe it is the ultimate goal and shared goal to ensure
    communities that need the resources are the most prioritized.
    Public health and safety are enhanced when this is done in a
    most economical and cost efficient manner.
        In closing, I am proud of the work of the Subcommittee. I
    am proud of what it has done on a bipartisan basis. And I look
    forward to continuing our important oversight work on EPA and
    hopefully others within our jurisdiction as well.
        Thank you, Madam Chairman. I yield back.
        Senator Duckworth. Thank you, Senator Lummis.
        Now I would like to turn it over to our very special guest,
    Senator Booker, who has come today to introduce our first
    witness, the Mayor of the city of Newark, New Jersey, Hon. Ras
    Baraka.
        Thank you, Senator Booker, for coming to our Subcommittee
    hearing today. You may now introduce the witness.
        Senator Booker. First and foremost, I want to thank the
    Chairwoman for the invitation. And I want to thank the
    Chairwoman and the Ranking Member for your extraordinary work
    in this area. You all have been the bipartisan Cagney and
    Lacey. By the way, a lot of your young staffers are looking at
    me with a blank stare like, who is Cagney and Lacey?
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Booker. But you two have really brought together,
    in a bipartisan way, critically needed infrastructure. Your
    leadership is extraordinary.
        I see Chairman Inhofe and want to thank him for his
    friendship and partnership on many important things over the
    years. It is good to see him here.
        This is a real pleasure for me. I have been looking forward
    to this moment all week where I get a chance to introduce
    somebody I have known for more than two decades. Ras Baraka is
    a special kind of leader. He is an activist, an artist, he is
    one of the more respected leaders in our country when it comes
    to local leadership.
        And for a guy that lives still in the central ward of the
    city of Newark, he is my Mayor. His leadership has been
    exemplary in a lot of areas that really should be noted. But of
    specific interest to this Committee, the Mayor has given a
    master class in how to take on the crisis of lead in pipes. It
    is just extraordinary how he is a standout. The head of the EPA
    came to Newark really with a sense of awe about what the Mayor
    completed under his leadership in partnership with others.
        As you are going to hear a lot of detail, Newark's Lead
    Service Line Replacement Program, one of Newark's largest
    infrastructure projects to date, has successfully replaced over
    23,000 lead service lines. The successful completion of this
    ambitious, 3 year project to replace thousands of lead service
    lines, at no cost to residents, is an example, not just a
    testimony really to the Mayor's leadership, but is an example
    of how local, State, and Federal officials can come together,
    develop a comprehensive plan, and address an issue of serious
    environmental injustice and how they, through their work, have
    created a blueprint for communities working on similar
    infrastructure projects across the Nation.
        With the passage of our Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill,
    more of these projects are going to be possible. I believe the
    wisdom garnered and demonstrated by Mayor Baraka is a great way
    for us to look to what the future could be.
        It is especially important, though, I want to call out the
    leadership of Essex County Executive Joseph DiVincenzo. He has
    had a willingness to use the county's AAA bond rating to secure
    a $120 million bond that allowed the city to move
    extraordinarily quickly.
        During this time, a few years ago, I was happy that my team
    was able to work with a lot of the leadership of this Committee
    and pass legislation that would allow States to access
    additional Federal funds so that more communities around the
    Nation could upgrade their drinking water systems.
        I know that the city of Newark will be able to continue to
    lead the Nation in modernizing their water infrastructure with
    substantial and continued Federal support like we are seeing.
    And the flexibility that you wisely put in the bill will really
    allow us to make sure the investments are made, that American
    jobs are created, and the infrastructure is ultimately
    completed.
        We know that this is a national crisis that did not come
    about last year, or 10 years ago, or 20 years ago. We have
    literally had millions of children being poisoned over decades
    in our country and have failed to step up to this national
    threat.
        As you indicated, Chairwoman, in your opening remarks, lead
    is a savage potential killer. It does permanent damage to kids'
    brains. And you and I, Chairwoman, I am sure, have had the
    experience of sitting with parents with their children's brains
    being addled by lead knowing this severe violence has been done
    to their children and the urgencies that have been exposed as a
    result of our inaction.
        This is a great story for the Senate to act now. We now
    have one of the best of the best in America for talking about
    how we can do this. Because if there is anything that Ras
    Baraka has shown, it is that time is of the essence. There is a
    fierce urgency of the now.
        Money has been allocated. But my biggest concern now is the
    estimates in cities across this country, some of them with
    reports of 10-plus years to get those lead service lines
    replaced. That is unacceptable. We have got to find a way to
    learn from what Newark, New Jersey, has done and expedite this
    so that our children are free from this toxic poison.
        Again, a real cheer and gratitude for the leadership of
    this Committee on both sides of the aisle, and a lot of
    gratitude for you allowing me to come here and introduce
    someone whom I know, love, and really respect, Ras Baraka.
        Senator Duckworth. Thank you, Senator Booker. That is high
    praise indeed.
        Now, I will turn it over to Senator Inhofe, who will
    introduce our next witness, Susan Bodine.
        Senator Inhofe. Not to be outdone by Senator Booker----
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Inhofe [continuing]. Let me assure you that I have
    known the individual I am about to introduce more than two
    decades now. In fact, I saw her in Oklahoma just last week.
        Susan Bodine served as the Chief Counsel on this Committee
    when I was the Chairman; that was in 2015 and 2016. She helped
    us enact the 2015 Highway Bill, the 2016 Water Resources Bill,
    the Frank Lautenberg Reform Bill, and 65 other bipartisan laws
    coming from this Committee in only 2 years. I do not think
    anyone else can outdo that.
        On top of getting all this stuff done, it was enjoyable.
    You can see why when you meet Susan Bodine. She has been a joy
    to be around for a long period of time. She has a longer
    history with me than just what I have described. During the
    Bush administration, she was EPA's Assistant Administrator over
    the Superfund Program. We were very busy at that time, you will
    remember. She went above and beyond, directing the EPA to not
    only visit the infamous Tar Creek Superfund site, which I wish
    we could all forget, in northeastern Oklahoma. She also worked
    to clean up the water and the land. She also worked with me to
    write new legislation that helped the residents there.
        Susan, I can't thank you enough for your years of work in
    the House and in the Senate and at the EPA during the Bush and
    Trump administrations where you made sure EPA was serving, and
    I underline that, serving instead of ruling over Oklahoma and
    Oklahoma taxpayers. Great job, and I look forward to your
    presentation.
        Senator Duckworth. Thank you, Senator Inhofe.
        If the witnesses would like to take their seats. Thank you.
        I would like to introduce our next witness, Mr. Josh
    Schimmel. Mr. Schimmel is a Board Member of the National
    Association of Clean Water Agencies, or NACWA. He is also the
    Executive Director of the Springfield Water and Sewer
    Commission, a regional provider of retail and wholesale water
    and sewer services to the city of Springfield and surrounding
    communities.
        The Commission serves a population of approximately 250,000
    people in the Lower Pioneer Valley of western Massachusetts.
    Mr. Schimmel and his leadership team manage more than 225
    employees while providing approximately 30 million gallons per
    day of drinking water and treating 40 million gallons a day of
    wastewater from the communities they serve.
        Thank you for being here, Mr. Schimmel.
        Last but not least, I would like to turn it over to Senator
    Lummis to introduce our fourth and final witness.
        Senator Lummis. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        I am really happy to introduce to our Subcommittee Mr. Mark
    Pepper, Executive Director of the Wyoming Association of Rural
    Water Systems, the largest utility membership in all of
    Wyoming. In our first hearing on the Drinking Water and
    Wastewater Act last year, I showed a picture of some of the
    emergency repair work that his association circuit riders were
    doing during a winter blizzard. So he is not entirely new to
    this Committee.
        Like me, he grew up in Cheyenne. In fact, I was in high
    school with his brother. As we often say, Wyoming is just a
    small town with long streets.
        Mark has over four decades of finance and administration
    experience, 33 years in senior management, and 8 years in
    public accounting. He has been involved in surface and
    groundwater issues in Colorado, Nevada, Texas, and Wyoming
    during his career. He served three terms on the board of
    directors of his local water and sewer utility, chairs the
    Casper Area Economic Development Joint Powers Board, and has
    been appointed by the Governor to serve on numerous other
    commissions and task forces.
        Beyond his incredible wealth of knowledge, Mark is just a
    good and kind man. And we are lucky to have him testifying here
    today.
        Madam Chairman, when I was State Treasurer, I served on the
    State Loan and Investment Board. We were the board in Wyoming
    that approved Safe Drinking Water Act SRF moneys and Clean
    Water Act SRF moneys. So I have seen these funds at work. I
    have been the one who was on the board that not only granted
    these SRF funds out but saw them revolve back and work for a
    variety of communities in our State.
        I think this is a great program. It works so well in our
    small communities in Wyoming. And the great thing is, this is a
    program that works well in large communities like you and
    Senator Booker have in your States as well.
        I am just delighted we are having this hearing. Thank you
    for chairing our Subcommittee. I yield back.
        Senator Duckworth. Thank you, Senator Lummis.
        I will now turn it over the witnesses to present their
    testimony.
        Mayor Baraka, you are now recognized for your opening
    statement.

                   STATEMENT OF HON. RAS J. BARAKA,
                   MAYOR, CITY OF NEWARK, NEW JERSEY

        Mr. Baraka. Thank you.
        Chairwoman Duckworth, Ranking Member Lummis, and members of
    this esteemed Subcommittee, thank you for convening this
    important hearing on the Implementation of the Drinking Water
    and Wastewater Infrastructure Act: Stakeholders' Needs and
    Experiences.
        I would like to give a special thank you to Senate
    Committee on Environment and Public Works Chairman Carper and
    Ranking Member Capito for their leadership on some of our
    Nation's most important issues.
        On behalf of the city of Newark, thank you for the
    opportunity to provide testimony here today. I am here today
    for the 10 million American households that connect to water
    through lead pipes and service lines and the children,
    toddlers, and teenagers in 400,000 schools and childcare
    facilities who are at risk of exposure to lead in their water,
    many of whom live in places similar to Newark and whose city's
    public water pipes were installed in the mid-20th century with
    an estimated life span of 75 to 100 years.
        While we are rapidly approaching those expiration dates,
    today we can be thankful to President Biden, Vice President
    Harris, our Senate and congressional leaders, and to Chairwoman
    Duckworth who secured her entire bipartisan Drinking Water and
    Wastewater Infrastructure Act in the Bipartisan Infrastructure
    Bill. This bill is an essential tool for providing safe
    drinking water to everyone in America and is essential to
    addressing the financial devastation of COVID-19 that laid bare
    the longstanding and dangerous deficiencies in our utility
    infrastructure.
        Chairwoman Duckworth eloquently stated, ``Every American
    has a right to clean water, no matter their zip code, the color
    of their skin, or the size of their incomes.'' The difficulty
    of contaminated drinking water, like many health issues,
    disproportionately affects black and brown people in cities
    across America, but is broadly found in suburbs and rural
    communities similarly.
        Environmental justice communities which have historically
    been overburdened by pollution will only continue to face
    increased financial costs. I wholeheartedly agree with the
    Chairwoman, and am here today to discuss our experience as a
    means to support the protection and health of our Nation's
    future.
        Newark's Lead Service Line Project is unprecedented in
    terms of the scope and speed that has protected the health and
    wellness of the residents of Newark as well as portions of
    neighboring cities that we service. I am happy to attest that
    Newark's Lead Service Line Replacement Program, one of our
    city's largest infrastructure projects, has successfully
    replaced over 23,000 lead lines in less than 3 years when
    experts told us it would 10 years.
        This project helped protect the health and wellness of our
    residents and provided 500 good paying, local jobs. Workers on
    the project worked tirelessly to get this accomplished, even
    through the pandemic, to help safely complete the project.
        We identified affirmative action goals to establish fair
    access to employment opportunities and created a program
    designed to reflect the demographics of our city. In doing so,
    the program not only was of economic benefit to the city of
    Newark, but also to the State of New Jersey.
        Our city replaced all the lead service lines at no cost in
    capital outlay, taxes, or water hikes to our residents or
    customers in surrounding towns. This was critically important
    to ensure that everyone in our city had access to clean water.
    It is my hope that through the implementation of the Drinking
    Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Act we can increase grants
    and State Revolving Fund loans for communities.
        There are several components of our project that I would
    like to share today that I hope can assist our communities. As
    soon as our city realized we had a problem, we acted
    immediately and initiated a program to distribute over 40,000
    National Sanitation Foundation certified water filters and over
    110,000 replacement cartridges. We used vast communication
    models to reach our residents to ensure that those who needed
    it most were getting the information and had access to vital
    resources.
        Our program website is a repository of information for
    customers to obtain information about the entire program.
    Educational materials were distributed in English, Spanish, and
    Portuguese by city staff and local community groups.
        Since lead service lines are the property of the homeowner,
    the city had to work with our State legislature who created a
    law that allowed us to use public funds on private property for
    replacing lead service lines. This was essential to the
    project's success.
        In addition, at the local level, the municipal council
    passed an ordinance that gave the city the right of entry to
    private property to replace all lead lines. This was critical
    because nearly 80 percent of Newark residents rent, and
    tracking down property owners for access to their property
    would have been time consuming and costly.
        This lead service line project could not have been possible
    without the incredible staff of the Department of Water and
    Sewer under the leadership of Director Kareem Adeem and our
    entire staff at City Hall. Every level of government came
    together from our City Council, County Executive Joe
    DiVincenzo, Governor Phil Murphy, and Federal representatives.
    They were with us every step of the way.
        Special thanks to Senator Booker, who immediately pushed
    EPA to commit more Federal dollars to help with our response.
    More importantly, the true MVPs of this process were our
    residents, as they were our biggest cheerleaders and support
    system through this entire project. It is my hope that
    communities make their residents a part of their replacement
    projects as we did in Newark as it only enhances and adds value
    to the project as well as the community as a whole.
        In closing, I hope our story is a good example for our
    governments that full lead line replacement does not have to be
    an eternal infrastructure nightmare. With Federal funding and
    imposed deadlines, and other governmental cooperation, we have
    the power to fix it for the health and safety of our current
    and future generations. For what we do now will be our legacy.
        Thank you again, Chairwoman Duckworth, Ranking Member
    Lummis, and members of this esteemed Subcommittee for allowing
    my testimony today and for your leadership and commitment to
    our Nation's future.
        Godspeed. Forward ever. Backward never.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Baraka follows:]
        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Duckworth. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
        Now, Mr. Schimmel, you are recognized for your opening
    statement.

         STATEMENT OF JOSHUA SCHIMMEL, BOARD MEMBER, NATIONAL
                  ASSOCIATION OF CLEAN WATER AGENCIES

        Mr. Schimmel. Good morning, Chairwoman Duckworth, Ranking
    Member Lummis, and the distinguished members of the
    Subcommittee on Fisheries, Water, and Wildlife. I appreciate
    the opportunity to address the Committee here today.
        My name is Josh Schimmel. I am the Executive Director of
    the Springfield Water and Sewer Commission in Springfield,
    Massachusetts. I also serve as a member of the Executive Board
    of the National Association of Clean Water Agencies for whom I
    appear before you today.`
        For over 50 years, NACWA has represented public wastewater
    and stormwater agencies nationwide. Our national network of 330
    public agency members serves the majority of the Nation's
    sewered population and is on the front lines of public health
    and environmental protection.
        The need for water and sanitation is as essential as it is
    timeless. At a recent forum meeting, our utility leadership
    team was contemplating what projects needed to be cut in order
    to keep rate increases affordable. Our elder statesman of the
    board stopped the conversation and read the following excerpt:
    ``An abundant supply of good, wholesome water is the most
    important requisite of municipal life, and from it flows the
    most marked advantages to the community. We are in the habit of
    taking the water supply as a matter of course, and so long as
    we have had no experience from the failure of it, we assume
    that it will continue to flow on forever.''
        He then informed us all that the quote came from the
    meeting minutes of our own board meeting from 1892. With this
    anecdote, the Board of Commissioners affirmed that we could not
    afford to delay investment any longer. They recognized the risk
    associated with not renewing our infrastructure was actually
    too costly compared to the actual value provided by replacing
    it.
        The historic water infrastructure investments in DWWIA and
    the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law offer much needed respite to
    local governments working to juggle capital funding needs and
    ongoing operations and maintenance while keeping customer rates
    manageable. Clean water utilities are eager to leverage these
    Federal investments as BIL implementation gets underway.
        I want to flag a few areas in particular that we strongly
    supported in the legislation and that we are keeping an eye on
    as areas of opportunity or which may need further congressional
    attention in the years ahead. An important provision in BIL
    that has gained a lot of attention is how 49 percent of the
    dollars flowing out of the traditional SRF programs must be
    allocated by the States as additional subsidy, meaning rather
    than low interest loans, they are forgivable loans or straight
    up grants.
        Federal water investment since the 1980s has been
    overwhelmingly loans, so this is an important pivot. Any
    community would likely prefer a grant to a loan, but this
    provision will be particularly important for getting Federal
    help to highly disadvantaged communities that might not have
    the capacity for loan financing and to target areas facing
    acute needs or financial hardship.
        Because the SRFs are run though the States, each of which
    has its own protocols for how it applies additional subsidy,
    EPA has outlined recommendations for how States should consider
    targeting the subsidy to reach disadvantaged areas and
    communities that may not have benefited from SRFs in the past.
    Strengths of this guidance include encouraging States to look
    beyond singular metrics of disadvantage and to consider various
    metrics like unemployment, how water and sewer rates compare to
    the lowest quintile income, and ensuring funds reach urban
    areas of poverty as well as rural and small communities.
        While EPA has laid out guidance, much will fall to the
    States to implement. Given the significant influx of funding,
    we strongly believe that States must be innovative in how they
    apply additional subsidy, not just do business as usual. We
    recommend that Congress continue to monitor how additional
    subsidy is applied to remain open to potentially providing
    further direction to the programs as implementation advances.
        DWWIA set aside of funding for increased technical
    assistance will also help ensure that these funds are applied
    equitably and broadly. Another important provision in the bill
    is the specific allocation of Federal funds for the emergent
    contaminants, including PFAS. Clean water utilities are
    concerned about the looming costs and regulations that they may
    face to manage or dispose of contaminants like PFAS which water
    utilities passively receive and do not create or profit from.
    So the funding for utilities specifically to help address new
    contaminants like PFAS is very welcome.
        Some of the most immediate costs clean water utilities are
    seeing to proactively try to understand and limit PFAS in their
    systems include monitoring, assessments, and pretreatment
    programs, working with industry to reduce concentrated PFAS
    discharges into our systems. However, these important steps are
    not necessarily eligible uses of these funds since the SRF is
    focused on capital investments. Congressional clarity may be
    needed in the near future to ensure these funds can be put to
    use effectively.
        Last, as a community that is about to benefit from WIFIA, I
    want to applaud DWWIA's reauthorization of WIFIA and provisions
    to make the program more accessible to applicants. This past
    fall, we were awarded a $250 million WIFIA loan for our
    Springfield Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Renewal
    Program. Our project will cost $550 million, and WIFIA will
    finance nearly half of that figure. The remaining projects will
    be funded by a combination of $200 million in loans from the
    Massachusetts SRF and utility funds.
        The combination of WIFIA and SRF loans will accelerate
    capital investment and save the Springfield Water and Sewer
    Commission approximately $80 million in financing costs, which
    enables the Commission to continue to support residents in need
    through its customer assistance programs. Project construction
    and operations are expected to create more than 1,700 jobs.
        We are extremely proud of the way this package has come
    together to benefit the Springfield region. DWWIA and BIL alone
    will not close the infrastructure investment gap entirely, but
    take a critical step in the right direction toward helping all
    communities have access to financial and technical resources to
    provide clean, safe water.
        DWWIA set forth stepwise increases in core water program
    funding, which we applaud the Committee for their full
    appropriation moving forward, so that this investment sets a
    new baseline for strong Federal partnership on water. As we
    knew in 1892, and remains true today, water is the backbone of
    healthy communities and economic opportunity.
        In closing, utility executives like myself face
    environmental, financial, and technical challenges every day.
    Implementing this historic funding will take a huge lift at all
    levels of government, and with this 5 year funding period, we
    have the opportunity to make sure we get it right.
        Thank you for your time, and I look forward to any
    questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Schimmel follows:]
        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Lummis [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Schimmel.
        Ms. Bodine, we will now turn to you for your opening
    statement.
        By the way, Chairman Duckworth has just gone to vote. We
    have been called to vote, so she and I are going to tag team
    for a while.
        Ms. Bodine, thank you.

                      STATEMENT OF SUSAN BODINE,
                   PARTNER, EARTH AND WATER LAW, LLC

        Ms. Bodine. Thank you.
        I want to thank Chairman Duckworth and Ranking Member
    Lummis and members of the Subcommittee for the invitation to
    speak today.
        I also want to thank Senator Inhofe for his very kind
    introduction. It was truly an honor and a privilege to serve
    this Committee as its Chief Counsel.
        I want to focus my testimony today on some of the
    challenges that are opportunities, obviously, and challenges
    presented by the Drinking Water and Wastewater Provisions of
    the Bipartisan Infrastructure bill. First, let me say that I
    strongly support all the Drinking Water and Wastewater
    provisions in that legislation. When I first looked through it,
    I was like, wow, I recognize every one of these issues. These
    are issues that have been around for a long time and represent
    enormous challenges for local communities. And this really is
    an historic opportunity.
        But given the amount of funding that we are talking about
    here, there are going to be implementation challenges. That is
    particularly true because the Clean Water Act and the Safe
    Drinking Water Act regulations say that States have to attach
    the funding to a loan, or in this case, assistance agreement,
    within a year after receiving it. It is going to be very
    difficult to meet that deadline, for States to do that,
    particularly getting money out to the disadvantaged
    communities, which of course Congress, which of course all of
    you, made such a huge priority in this Drinking Water and
    Wastewater legislation. Forty-nine percent of the funding for
    the biggest pots of money is set aside for disadvantaged
    communities.
        Now, appropriations language makes the appropriations
    available until expended. So the appropriation money doesn't
    expire. But what it means is that if a State fails to meet the
    other deadline of attaching to the money, then EPA has the
    ability to reallocate it.
        So what I am worried about is that the result could be that
    as a result of the deadline, you might get a reallocation of
    funding away from States with more disadvantaged communities
    because of the lack of capacity to get through the loan process
    and to States that perhaps have more sophisticated communities
    who know how to get funding from the SRFs. I am just
    highlighting that. I know that wasn't anybody's intent. But the
    consequences of the deadlines could result in that.
        I have to say some of the small communities are probably
    going to have difficulty meeting some of the conditions that
    are attached to the SRF loans. It is not just lack of
    sophistication that is going to cause some of these delays. I
    have to say that I was concerned when I read the March 8th
    implementation guidance. And that is because there is a lot of
    language in there about what EPA expects the States to do. That
    includes revising the State intended use plans; it includes
    revising State definitions of what is a disadvantaged
    community.
        Now, when Congress set up the State Revolving Loan Fund
    Programs in the Clean Water Act and the Drinking Water Act,
    they definitely made them State run programs and definitely
    made them State priorities. Then there is language in the Clean
    Water Act that explicitly says priorities are solely the
    province of the State. The Safe Drinking Water Act was modeled
    after the Clean Water Act.
        So this language in the implementation guidance may be
    confusing to States. There shouldn't be any suggestion that the
    EPA could condition receipt of the funding on meeting its
    expectations, because they are not in the law.
        I also want to just note that there was a different program
    in the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Small Disadvantaged
    Communities Program, which actually was intended to be EPA run,
    because the pot of money was smaller. It was intended to hit
    the most needy communities, and let EPA find those communities
    and allocate the money and direct grants to those. Instead, EPA
    has implemented that through an allocation formula. So it takes
    the money and just spreads it very thin so it doesn't really
    actually do what it was intended to do.
        I want to quickly summarize some areas that both EPA might
    want to consider changing, and Congress might want to consider
    changing. First, EPA should avoid any suggestion that they are
    going to attach strings to the money that isn't part of the
    statute. Second, EPA should probably consider whether or not
    some technology uses are eligible. Yes, it is an
    infrastructure, I mean, the SRF and the Clean Water and
    Drinking Water SRFs are capitalization.
        But the implementation guidance says for the lead service
    line funding, that monitoring as part of the lead service line
    project is eligible, but it doesn't clearly say that that would
    include monitoring beforehand. And certainly not compliance
    monitoring but specifically monitoring for some of these lead
    issues has been a challenge. The city of Newark is a tremendous
    success story, but it did start with a lawsuit against the city
    from NRDC over monitoring and monitoring for lead.
        So this is a big challenge for cities. There are
    technologies available to help with that, and it would provide
    protection before all the lead service lines are going to be
    replaced. We have heard 10 years from Senator Booker. It will
    take a very long time. And in the interim, there are things
    that can be done to protect public health.
        Then Congress, again, not to belabor it, but you may want
    to consider some of these deadlines about when the money would
    get reallocated away, when it would go away. So again, that is
    something to look at. With lead service lines, it is going out
    by an allocation formula. Congress may want to say when the
    inventories are done there should maybe be a different
    allocation formula. Right now, it is going to everybody. It is
    eligible for doing the inventory, so that is a good thing. But
    once the inventories are done, it is going to be clear that
    some States have a bigger problem than others for lead service
    lines.
        Finally, if EPA doesn't think that some of these monitoring
    issues can be addressed under the legislation, then Congress
    might want to think about making some changes also.
        I know I am way over my time, so I am going to stop and
    take questions. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Bodine follows:]
        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Lummis. Thank you. I let you run long because your
    institutional memory is so valuable to this Committee. So thank
    you. It is great to have you here and to have you help us
    recall what some of the original intents were behind these
    programs from your experience. Thank you.
        Now I welcome Mr. Pepper.
        You are recognized for your opening statement.
        Then I will turn the gavel back to Chairman Duckworth, who
    has returned from her first vote.

         STATEMENT OF MARK PEPPER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, WYOMING
                   ASSOCIATION OF RURAL WATER SYSTEMS

        Mr. Pepper. Thank you.
        Good morning, Chairwoman Duckworth, Ranking Member Lummis,
    and members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity
    to appear virtually.
        I was in DC most of last week with small water systems
    including the Town of Ten Sleep, Wyoming, who took home the
    Silver Medal at the Great American Water Taste Test.
        And congratulations, Madam Chair, the Lake Egypt Water
    District from Illinois was crowned the Gold Medal winner of the
    contest.
        It is an honor to testify today on behalf of small and
    rural communities like Ten Sleep and Lake Egypt Water District.
    I am Mark Pepper, Executive Director of the Wyoming Association
    of Rural Water Systems, a non-profit association of 255 small
    water systems in the State. I am also testifying on behalf of
    the National Rural Water Association which has a membership of
    over 30,000 small and rural water systems.
        On behalf of small and rural communities, we appreciate the
    U.S. Congress for the enactment of the Bipartisan
    Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act or the Infrastructure
    Bill. This legislation and its approximately $50 billion in
    water infrastructure funding will be remembered as one of the
    most significant public drinking water and wastewater
    initiatives, especially in rural America.
        Congress included numerous beneficial provisions for rural
    and disadvantaged communities in the Infrastructure Bill,
    including access to new funding that will help them overcome
    their challenges and the lack of technical capacity such as the
    expansion in technical assistance, subsidized funding, or
    grants targeted at the communities with greatest need which are
    often rural and small.
        As with any large piece of legislation, it would appear
    there are a number ``who for what art thou'' language
    provisions along with ``mays'' and ``shalls,'' and the
    Administrator will issue rules and guidance that we will all
    need to work through as we endeavor to assist water systems in
    utilizing this funding. In Wyoming, much of the water and
    wastewater infrastructure is 40 to 60 years old and needs
    replacement and upgrade. This includes drinking water lines,
    sewer collection systems, water storage tanks, pumps and
    treatment systems, IT and physical safeguards.
        Additionally, our current drought is forcing many
    communities to find new water sources and driving up consumers'
    water bills. In Wyoming, our Department of Environmental
    Quality administers both Drinking Water and Clean Water SRFs.
    However, the process remains cumbersome for most rural and
    small communities to complete without the assistance of
    consulting engineers or technical assistance providers in
    getting on the department's intended use plan.
        The infrastructure law will infuse three times the
    traditional amount of State revolving funding in fiscal year
    2022, in addition to the traditionally appropriated amount
    included in the fiscal year 2022 Omnibus Appropriations Act.
    When contemplating the massive amount of new funding being
    pumped into the existing system over the next 5 years, I am
    reminded of the line from the movie Jaws, ``We're going to need
    a bigger boat.''
        We also understand the important need to eliminate the lead
    water lines for our utility systems and customer service lines.
    This will be a daunting task to perform the inventory projects
    so water systems will have the information necessary to then
    address potential replacement projects.
        To that end, our Association, as well as many other State
    rural water associations, have partnered with 120Water.
    120Water is a company that has developed predictive modeling
    and data base search tools to help all systems in compiling the
    data needed for the initial inventory.
        The revised Lead Copper Rule requires this inventory be
    completed by October 2024. Once the inventory is completed,
    systems should have the data necessary to apply for funding.
    This partnership, along with the availability of the increased
    technical assistance resources, will go a long way to achieving
    this goal.
        Many rural and small community local government leaders
    will need to be educated on the new funding opportunity as well
    as the needs of their particular water infrastructure in order
    to craft a project and submit it for funding. A project
    development circuit rider could be used to go to council
    meeting to council meeting in small communities to provide
    technical assistance for project planning and application.
        In closing, Madam Chairwoman, small and rural communities
    thank you for the opportunity to appear before the Subcommittee
    today, express our strong support of the Infrastructure Bill,
    and acknowledge the numerous opportunities this Committee has
    provided rural America to testify and be included in the
    crafting of Federal water and environmental legislation. I look
    forward to your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Pepper follows:]
        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Duckworth [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Pepper.
        Now we will turn to questions for the witnesses.
        Chairman Carper is on his way. When he gets here, he will
    be recognized for his questions. But until then, I will begin
    with my first question.
        Mayor Baraka, the city of Newark, New Jersey, has recently
    received national attention due to the success of your city's
    lead service line replacement program. I, too, want to take the
    time to highlight Newark's incredible work.
        In less than 3 years, under your leadership, the city has
    replaced all 23,000 lead service lines at no charge to
    residents. That is truly amazing. With $15 billion provided in
    the Bipartisan Infrastructure package in direct payments
    through the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund for lead
    service line replacement, all States will have access to funds
    to remove these dangerous lead pipes. But this will also
    require major planning for the States to implement this effort.
        Mayor Baraka, you have already gone through this process.
    Can you elaborate on the city of Newark's lead service line
    replacement program and speak to the steps the city and Mayor's
    office took to execute this goal? And if you can talk a bit
    about the planning process, that would be very helpful.
        Mr. Baraka. Thank you, Senator.
        First, we were dealing with three parts of implementation.
    One was the use of point of use filters that were distributed
    to residents. The other was the replacement of corrosion
    control to coat pipes. And the last but most important was the
    replacement of lead service lines. That was the three pronged
    strategy from the very beginning. Even before we got national
    attention, that was our strategy.
        The problem is that that strategy would have taken us 10
    years or more to get completed. We immediately used our GIS
    system that we had in place to identify lead service lines in
    the city that dated all the way back to 1900. We used that and
    compared it also to our consultant's information and
    homeowners' information that we put together.
        We had a project management tool called e-Builder which
    allowed us to track every lead service line in the city and
    when they were replaced. And we allowed it to be forward facing
    so residents could see when lead service lines were actually
    being replaced and they could actually type in their own
    address and see if their lead service line was scheduled to be
    replaced and when it was scheduled to be replaced in fact.
        When we thought we had an issue with the filter, we wanted
    to expedite the program. We got a $120 million bond from the
    county which allowed us to expedite this. So the money up
    front, the capital outlay was probably the most important
    piece. And we developed a public works project, the city's
    largest public works project in the history of the city. We
    involved the residents in the planning of it through meetings,
    whether virtual and in person, virtual obviously when the
    pandemic came. We had this available to our residents in almost
    every language available to our residents.
        We also established a works project so residents can begin
    to get trained so they can actually change their own lead
    service lines and put subcontracting opportunities in the
    language that allowed for minority vendors to be a part of the
    replacement of these lines as well.
        This went on for a considerable period of time. As COVID
    happened, it slowed down a little bit. But the last thing I
    want to say, which I think is important, when we first began
    this program, when it was voluntary, only 3 percent of our
    residents signed up to get their lead service lines replaced.
    They would have to have paid $1,000 to assist in that.
        When we made it mandatory and free, we passed local law and
    legislation to allow us to go on peoples' lines, onto peoples'
    property, we went from replacing 10 to 15 lead service lines a
    day to 100 lead service lines a day. So that was incredibly
    important for us to do.
        Senator Duckworth. Thank you.
        I am going to suspend my questions and turn and recognize
    the EPW Chairman, Senator Carper, who has just joined us.
        Senator Carper.
        Senator Carper. I don't recall the last time a Chairman or
    a Chairwoman suspended their questions so I could ask a
    question, but thank you for your kindness.
        Welcome to all of you. Some of you have been with us
    before, and for others, it is your first time. I want to thank
    each of you.
        I also want to thank our Chair and Ranking Member on this
    Subcommittee, Senator Lummis, for holding what I believe is an
    important hearing not just for those of us on this Committee,
    but for the folks that we are privileged to represent across
    the country. Having a full understanding of how the Bipartisan
    Infrastructure Law, which we helped write literally in this
    room, and how it is being implemented and used by communities
    is, I think, the critical next step in ensuring that these
    funds are used as we intended them to be used.
        My first question will be for each of you.
        Susan, I will start with you first. It is nice to see you
    again.
        My first question: Are the funds that are provided in the
    Bipartisan Infrastructure Law sufficiently flexible to allow
    the backlog of infrastructure projects to be addressed in your
    State, particularly in small, rural, and disadvantaged
    populations? And are you facing any implementation challenges?
        Ms. Bodine. Thank you, Senator Carper. It is great to see
    you.
        The concern I have is we are seeing a historic level of
    funding which we have not had to manage before. Congress
    decided to focus and set aside 49 percent of the funding for
    the small, disadvantaged communities.
        My concern is that those goals of reaching the money where
    it is needed the most is going to come up and hit a wall in
    terms of the obligation to get the money attached to an
    assistance agreement within a year that when they receive it
    from EPA. I think States, particularly for the small,
    disadvantaged communities, are going to have a really hard time
    doing it.
        It is great that there is technical assistance money in the
    bill to do that, but that is going to be a tremendous
    challenge. It would be a tragedy if that deadline meant that
    the money did not get to where you intended it to go.
        Senator Carper. All right. Thank you.
        Joshua, a great name from the Bible. Do you pronounce your
    last name Schimmel?
        Mr. Schimmel. Schimmel.
        Senator Carper. Very good. Would you respond to the same
    question, please?
        Mr. Schimmel. Sure. I would agree in the timing issue, but
    I would also say the technical assistance I think is extremely
    important, and the fact that the States have the ability now to
    utilize design eligibility so studies and design potentially at
    the State level would be part of the SRF program.
        I think broad interpretation of how entities can utilize
    the SRF program and technical assistance to get projects off
    the launching pad, so to speak, so design, studies, sampling,
    those are really critically important to the practitioners who
    oftentimes, as Susan had said, lack some sophistication in
    their ability to apply for these types of loans and programs.
        Senator Carper. Thank you, sir.
        I understand we have a Mayor here from the other Newark. In
    Delaware, we have a New Ark.
        Mr. Baraka. Right.
        Senator Carper. It used to be two words. People said why do
    you call it New Ark? Because it was two words. We have a mayor
    there. We're delighted to hear you. People ask me what I want
    to do next in my life and I say, I think I would like to be
    mayor of Newark or New Ark. I'm not sure which one.
        Please go ahead, same question, please.
        Mr. Baraka. I think the technical assistance is critical to
    help people navigate how to not just apply and use this money
    properly. I think to have them do that up front and during the
    process is critically important.
        But I think the major piece in this is cooperation between
    State, county, and local government. That is key. If we do not
    have that kind of cooperation, it doesn't matter, the technical
    assistance. You can have the best technical assistance in the
    world, but if there is no cooperation, then these things will
    be stalled and won't happen.
        The thing about Newark is we were able to pull all of our
    partners together from the Federal level all the way down to
    the municipal level to work. And if there are some provisions
    that even force people to do that, it would even be better
    because none of this can happen without the cooperation and
    collaboration of all levels of government.
        Senator Carper. Thank you, Mayor.
        I understand Mark Pepper is joining us from the Wyoming
    Association of Rural Water Systems.
        We have a Wyoming, Delaware, too. I go there quite a bit. I
    like to tell our colleagues from Wyoming that I was just in
    Wyoming last weekend.
        Mark, take it away; same question.
        Mr. Pepper. Thank you, Madam Chair, Chairman Carper.
        I would reiterate the issues that we are going to probably
    have with timelines. I think there are some provisions, in
    talking with RDQ, they are looking at trying to write some
    emergency rules to help implement some of this.
        So I think in TA, the technical assistance providers that
    we have used all along will be key in helping the State meet
    the needs and design those rules so that the money can get out
    to those systems that really need it the quickest. So I will
    reiterate what everyone else has said as well. Thank you.
        Senator Carper. Thank you.
        Madam Chairman, I know my time has expired. I would like to
    ask one more question just of one member, that would be Mayor
    Baraka. May I do that?
        Senator Duckworth. Please do.
        Senator Carper. Thanks.
        Mayor Baraka, I am not going to pick on you, but I would
    like to ask you another question.
        EPA drinking water and wastewater programs, as you know,
    allow States to create their own affordability criteria to
    attempt to target funds to disadvantaged communities throughout
    their States. This critical flexibility allows States to meet
    the unique needs of their vulnerable populations because what
    works in Delaware may not be what is right for Illinois or
    Wyoming.
        My question would be this. Would you please share with us
    how your State's affordability criteria has been used to
    address Newark's Lead Pipe Replacement Program, and are there
    any lessons you can share from your experience in meeting the
    needs of underserved communities? I like to say find out what
    works, and do more of that.
        Mr. Baraka. Thank you. I am used to getting picked on. I am
    a mayor.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Baraka. The great thing about our program is that it
    was free to all of our residents. There was no cost to anyone,
    so no one had to pay to get their lead service line replaced,
    not in capital costs, not in taxes, not in raising the fees.
    None of that took place, so everyone equitably got their lead
    service lines replaced.
        That was made possible because we changed the law on the
    State level that allowed us to use private dollars to replace
    public lines and because we had the up front cash capital
    outlay from the bond created by the county government on our
    behalf.
        We also during the pandemic created a moratorium on turning
    peoples' water off in the middle of that. And we gave people
    what we called opportunities of deferred payment to pay over a
    time period their water bills during this time as well. And we
    were very flexible around that, and we continue to be as we
    move through this pandemic.
        Senator Carper. All right, thank you, sir.
        I have other questions. I will submit those for the record
    if it is all right with the Chairman, unless you insist I ask
    another now. But only if you insist.
        Senator Duckworth. You are welcome to ask another now if
    you would like to.
        Senator Carper. Are you insisting?
        Senator Duckworth. I am insisting.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Carper. All right. Because she insists, my third
    question, I don't mean to appear greedy in asking questions,
    but Ms. Bodine, Susan, and Mr. Pepper, this is regarding
    technical assistance funding, something that has been mentioned
    by several of you already.
        Ms. Bodine and Mr. Pepper, the EPA's implementation memo to
    States recommends, as you know, that the State Revolving Funds
    use the full technical assistance set aside allocation. They
    use 2 percent carve outs from the annual SRF funding to provide
    capacity building assistance that can be used to help small,
    rural, tribal, and disadvantaged communities to identify needs,
    develop projects, and apply for funding.
        Here is my question. Would you please share with us how
    technical assistance has been a beneficial tool for the
    communities with which you have worked, and are there
    additional ways that we can help small, rural, tribal, and
    disadvantaged communities gain access for EPA programs?
        Ms. Bodine, would you like to go first?
        Ms. Bodine. Yes. Thank you, Senator.
        I think that the provisions in the Bipartisan
    Infrastructure Bill on the technical assistance are
    tremendously important. And I would ask Mr. Pepper to give the
    on the ground view of this. But I do believe you have provided
    flexibility in that technical assistance to allow the pots of
    money going to where it needs to go, whether it is circuit
    riders, whether it is the States who can contract the circuit
    riders and then EPA providing help as well.
        To the part of your question about how does it help, there
    are situations where small systems don't have, they literally
    don't even have operators much less the sophistication about
    how to gain access to funding. And so the circuit rider
    program, the technical assistance on the ground have always
    just been tremendously important to protection of public
    health.
        Senator Carper. Thank you.
        Before I overstay my welcome, let me ask Mr. Pepper to
    respond to the same question, remotely.
        Mr. Pepper. Thank you, Madam Chair, Chairman Carper.
        The technical assistance, the circuit rider programs has
    been a cornerstone of the National Rural Water Association and
    all of the 50 State affiliates. All of our circuit riders are
    versed in application process, are versed in project
    management, project development.
        And as Senator Lummis said, 97 percent of the systems in
    Wyoming serve under 10,000, while 92 percent of those serve
    under 500. So being able to have more technical assistance
    providers like that, and I typically have a list of four or
    five additional certified operators who would like to come to
    work for us that can then go out and meet with those small
    systems and just give them a helping hand in developing those
    projects, in developing the application process, and working
    with their engineers. It is just a lifeline that has been a
    cornerstone. I am glad to see that it was expanded. Thank you.
        Senator Carper. Thank you so much.
        Madam Chairman, thank you very much for holding the
    hearing. To you, Senator Lummis, and our witnesses, thank you
    for being here.
        Mayor of Newark, I extend a warm welcome to Newark.
    Sometime when you are on your way south on 95 and you are
    thinking, where should I stop for a break, come and see your
    sister town.
        Mr. Baraka. Thank you.
        Senator Carper. Great to see you guys.
        Senator Duckworth. Thank you, Chairman Carper.
        Now joining us by Webex, Senator Whitehouse is recognized.
        [Pause.]
        Senator Duckworth. Senator Kelly, you are recognized.
        Senator Kelly. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Since this is our first Subcommittee hearing since the
    Infrastructure Bill was signed into law, let me just quickly
    say thank you to Senators Duckworth and Lummis for all of your
    work alongside Chairman Carper and Ranking Member Capito to get
    the Drinking and Wastewater Infrastructure bill across the
    finish line. Thank you for that. It is really a big deal in the
    State of Arizona.
        Mr. Schimmel, I want to start with a question for you. In
    your testimony, you discuss the $10 billion which was included
    in the infrastructure law to address PFAS contamination. This
    is a big challenge for the State of Arizona. Both the Phoenix
    and Tucson areas have growing PFAS plumes in our groundwater
    aquifers. And as we face worsening drought conditions along the
    Colorado River, groundwater will become a more important source
    of drinking water for many communities.
        Yet, like you discussed in your testimony, I have heard
    uncertainty from water and wastewater utilities in Arizona
    about whether investment in monitoring or assessment of our
    aquifers is an eligible expense within the Clean Water SRF
    Program.
        Mr. Schimmel, can you expand on your testimony to explain
    the types of investments that utilities like yours would like
    to make to address PFAS contamination including expenses which
    may not be eligible for Clean Water SRF funding in the
    Infrastructure Law?
        Mr. Schimmel. Sure, thank you. Fortunately, my community
    does not have a PFAS issue.
        [Remarks off microphone.] I think that the importance of
    flexibility with all of this funding, whether it is technical
    assistance or through the design component of SRFs, is going to
    be critical in how communities put the structure to how they
    will address PFAS.
        Certainly as the regulations roll out State by State, the
    sampling component of that will be adopted by water and
    wastewater utilities. I think there are a lot of issues with
    PFAS, not just in drinking water but on the wastewater and
    sludge disposal as well. So there is a lot of opportunity for
    innovation in all of this.
        I do think that specifically there needs to be flexibility
    with the funding in terms of technical assistance and
    especially that design component for planning studies as well.
    That would be the concerns that I have in terms of PFAS and how
    it can be addressed as it continues to storm across the U.S. It
    is of great concern.
        Senator Kelly. Can you give some examples of those
    opportunities in innovation?
        Mr. Schimmel. Sure. I think there are treatment innovations
    on the drinking water side. Large scale treatment, we really
    haven't really seen it up in the Northeast. For surface waters,
    where we have more surface water, I think there is going to
    have to be development of the ability for PFAS treatment on a
    larger scale than we have seen for large municipalities.
        On the wastewater side in sludge disposal, incineration,
    gasification, those issues, there is a lot of room for
    innovation on how to treat PFAS or remove PFAS from the water
    stream or the air stream.
        But those are going to be extremely expensive. I would urge
    that as much focus as we have on PFAS, while it is certainly
    very important and prominent, we also cannot forget our meat
    and potatoes infrastructure, as well. There needs to be a
    balance amongst what we are looking at.
        So again, I think there is a great deal of opportunity.
    Regulations have to allow us to seek out that opportunity and
    innovate on how we treat PFAS and how we remove it. That is the
    answer.
        Senator Kelly. On the PFAS side, what do you think we can
    do here in Congress, or what do you need from the EPA to make
    the most of the funding that we have appropriated? Is there
    additional legislation that you think might be helpful?
        Mr. Schimmel. I think to some degree addressing PFAS as
    water providers and wastewater providers, it doesn't start with
    us. We receive it. It is not our PFAS. I think to the extent
    that we can start to remove PFAS from the train that we
    receive, it will be more helpful. It is much more practical to
    remove the source of the PFAS than gather it at a water system
    and try to remove it at that level. That is a very expensive
    proposition.
        Senator Kelly. Thank you.
        Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
        Senator Duckworth. Thank you.
        Now via Webex, Senator Whitehouse.
        Senator Whitehouse. Thanks very much. It is nice to see you
    chairing the hearing, Senator.
        Mayor Baraka, have I pronounced your name correctly?
        Mr. Baraka. Yes, thank you, Senator.
        Senator Whitehouse. Great, thank you.
        Fighting lead contamination takes me back a long way to
    when I was Attorney General and brought the first lawsuit
    against the lead paint industry for the public nuisance of what
    they were doing in Rhode Island and for the harms to children.
    So I am really interested in trying to figure out how you made
    this work.
        It sounds like you replaced over 23,000 lead lines in less
    than 3 years. What did the structure of that look like? How did
    you make that happen? Did you have a special entity set up for
    it? How did you finance it? How did you manage it? What were
    the metrics?
        Mr. Baraka. Thank you for that, Senator. We had, again, a
    GIS system that allowed us to access records as old as 1900 to
    begin identifying lead service lines in the city. We compared
    that with CDM Smith, our consultant, who was also identifying
    lead service lines, and community based organizations and
    homeowners to identify where lead service lines were. That was
    No. 1.
        We were able to get, use a bond from the county government
    of $120 million that added onto the money that we were getting
    from the State and Federal sources which created about a $170
    million project in the city. We then had to change the State
    law to allow us to spend that money on private property, and we
    did that. Locally, we changed the law to allow us to go on
    peoples' property without permission of the homeowner.
        Senator Whitehouse. Was that through your public works
    department? Was that through your water department; was that
    through a new entity? How did you manage it?
        Mr. Baraka. We managed it through our water department and
    a project management system that we have called e-Builder that
    helped us track the progress of every lead service line and
    when it was replaced. You can actually type your address into
    that, and it will tell you when we were coming to replace your
    lead service line.
        Senator Whitehouse. I think that is really impressive. Has
    your success been studied or written up anywhere in any kind of
    a journal or academic paper?
        Mr. Baraka. There are countless articles in newspapers now.
    I know that CDM Smith, the consultant, wrote something. But
    there is nothing at this point that I would say in a national
    journal or academic journal, no.
        Senator Whitehouse. Well, thank you for what you have done.
    You have expanded the window of possibility I think by getting
    23,000 lead lines done in 3 years. We will do our best to be as
    successful in Rhode Island.
        Thanks very much.
        Thank you, Chairwoman.
        Senator Duckworth. Thank you, Senator Whitehouse.
        I am going to resume my questions.
        One of the biggest motivators for me to draft DWWIA was to
    increase access to funding for communities who need it the most
    but often cannot access it. This has led to systematic
    inequity. In my State of Illinois, the community of Cahokia
    Heights has been experiencing horrifying sewer overflow issues
    for years and is in urgent need of repairs including replacing
    sewer pipes, pumps, and lift stations and drainage systems.
        Communities like this likely will never qualify for
    traditional loans or be able to provide a large cost share. And
    there are almost no other options for them. How are struggling
    communities ever expected to prosper economically if they do
    not have functioning drinking water and wastewater
    infrastructure? You can't build a tax base if people don't want
    to move into your community.
        DWWIA attempts to address these issues by creating a set
    aside in the Sewer Overflow and Stormwater Reuse Grant Program
    and increases the percent of both the Drinking Water and Clean
    Water SRFs that must go to disadvantaged communities for
    grants, no interest loans, and debt forgiveness. We have
    discussed some of them today already, not to mention over 40
    percent of BIL's funding can be allocated to small,
    disadvantaged rural and tribal communities.
        Mr. Schimmel, you have experience in working with all
    different types of water providers and community projects and
    communities in your role as Executive Director of the
    Springfield Water and Sewer Commission and as a board member of
    NACWA. Can you explain what you would say are the biggest
    impediments to disadvantaged water systems getting funding? And
    are there any changes in DWWIA that you think will help with
    some of these issues?
        Mr. Schimmel. Sure, thank you, Senator.
        I think one of the largest challenges is the overall lack
    of experience of small and disadvantaged communities of having
    utility providers that have utilized these programs. I think
    that is a barrier.
        I think the second largest challenge is really creating a
    rate structure that is affordable to those communities that
    supports the capital investment. We are looking at 50 years
    plus or minus of underinvestment in all of our water and
    wastewater systems. So that is a really big challenge because
    we do need to raise rates. In order to do the work, we need to
    raise the money.
        So I think the three things that are really going to help
    are the grants program. That is going to give access to
    communities that can't raise the money on their own or when
    they are not willing to raise rates. So I think that is
    extremely important.
        The technical assistance, again, that is going to help
    inexperienced borrowers get through the process, identify
    projects, and then utilize that help to put applications in to
    utilize the funding.
        Then the design eligibility, I think a lot of projects stop
    because there is no funding for design. You can pick your
    project, you can build your project, but you can't get it off
    the launching pad if you can't design it. So that eligibility
    for design and studies as part of the SRF programs at the State
    level I think is critically important.
        So those three things, the grants, the technical
    assistance, and the design eligibility in the SRF programs will
    really help lower the bar in terms of making it more accessible
    to those communities.
        Senator Duckworth. Thank you.
        Mayor Baraka, I understand that almost 80 percent of
    Newark's residents are renters. You mentioned it in your
    opening statement. And it can often be very difficult to reach
    landlords and property owners in order to access their property
    to proceed with the lead service line removal. Additionally,
    there can sometimes be legal roadblocks when attempting to use
    public funds on private property.
        I imagine numerous States, including my State of Illinois,
    will have this issue especially in urban areas and low income
    communities. Can you explain in greater detail; you touched on
    this a couple times on passing legislation and making it free.
    If you can expand a little bit more on how the city of Newark
    was able to overcome these problems, I think it would be very
    helpful. Thank you.
        Mr. Baraka. Thank you, Senator. As I spoke earlier about
    the need for cooperation between all entities of government, we
    had to communicate with our State legislature to get them to
    understand the severity of the issue and urgency of the
    problem. They helped us change the law that would allow us to
    use public money on private property. They changed the law in
    the middle of it which gave us the permission, when we got the
    bond, to use that bond to in fact change peoples' lead service
    lines. That was No. 1.
        No. 2, as you stated, many of our landlords are not local.
    When we were first doing it, before we got the bond, less than
    3 percent of folks signed up. We had to go door to door, knock
    on door to door and get the peoples' permission to come and
    change their lead service lines.
        Even with the help of multiple community organizations, we
    were getting traction but not enough. It would have taken us a
    longer, longer time to be able to get that done. So we passed a
    local ordinance using our public health emergency suggesting
    that we should be able to come on your property and change your
    lead service line without the permission of the homeowner. That
    expedited this tremendously. We went from changing 10 lead
    service lines a day to 100 lead service lines a day.
        So those two laws were very critical in helping us get this
    done.
        Senator Duckworth. Thank you.
        I now would like to now turn over both the gavel while I go
    vote on the second vote and also recognize the Ranking Member
    for her questions.
        Senator Lummis [presiding]. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
        My first question is for Ms. Bodine and Mr. Pepper.
        What is the Brooks Act? How could it impact small or
    disadvantaged communities from using these Federal funds?
        Ms. Bodine. Thank you, Senator, for that question.
        So, the Brooks Act is Federal legislation that says if
    Federal dollars are being used for a project, then for the
    design elements, it has to be a separately competed project,
    and the community has to pick from the top three most expert
    companies.
        So, you could say it is well intentioned so you don't go
    with low cost bidders on design. You could say, if you wanted
    to criticize it, you could say it is an example of an
    association essentially getting into Federal law to give them a
    competitive advantage for Federal dollars.
        Whatever your view is, the reality on the ground is that it
    does create a tremendous barrier for small communities because
    these small projects, you don't even have the big national
    architecture and engineering design firms even bidding on them.
    It doesn't make sense for small projects.
        I used to get lobbied on this when I worked in the House.
    We always raised the small community concern. It did get into
    the Clean Water Act in 2014 in the WRDA bill. And in my
    recommendations, I do recommend that Congress amend that to add
    a cost threshold. These big engineering firms, they are not
    going to bid on these small projects. It is not even an issue.
    Nonetheless, the legislation applies to them.
        Senator Lummis. Mr. Pepper, do you have anything to add to
    that?
        Mr. Pepper. Yes, ma'am; thank you, Senator.
        In Wyoming, the small communities typically have a
    consulting engineering firm that they have contracted with that
    acts in de facto as their engineering department. The engineers
    then work with the public works, put a project together, then
    it goes out to bid to the contractors who will be performing
    the actual work.
        I think that this particular provision has created an
    under-utilization of the SRF in Wyoming for that reason. USDA
    and of course State moneys, SLIB and so forth, don't have that
    provision. And it allows the communities to utilize that
    consulting engineer that they have had on staff relatively for
    a number of years and understands their system. I see it as a
    potential impediment.
        Senator Lummis. Thank you.
        Interestingly, in Wyoming, there are only 12 towns whose
    population exceeds their elevation. Think about that one. Chew
    on that for a minute.
        Ms. Bodine, what are some of the examples of creeping
    conditions in the March 8th guidance that cause concerns that
    jump out at you?
        Ms. Bodine. Certainly. Thank you for that question. It is
    true that when these SRF programs were originally set up, it
    was a shift from grant programs to State run programs. It was
    initially very much State run and only the initial Federal
    capitalization grants were considered Federal dollars.
        Now, over time, Congress has changed the law to apply
    things like Davis-Bacon and of course American Iron and Steel.
    The Infrastructure Bill also adds the Buy America, Build
    America, which we don't have guidance on yet, so it is unclear
    how that is going to apply.
        Troublingly, EPA's implementation guidance adds to that. It
    is one thing that Congress put it in, but when EPA is saying
    things like, States should tell their communities that they
    should enter into project labor agreements, for example, there
    is nothing in the statute about project labor agreements at
    all. Yes, Davis-Bacon applies, but not to project labor
    agreements, and you have right to work States. It is not EPA's
    authority or role to do that.
        Also, I know that we have heard testimony on both sides on
    the disadvantaged communities definitions and the intended use
    plans. But again, it is a State decision. I was really happy to
    hear Senator Carper say yes, it is very different in Delaware
    and Wyoming about what is a disadvantaged community. These
    really, truly have to be State decisions.
        My biggest concern was the EPA didn't say ``shall,'' didn't
    say they ``must,'' but says they expect it and that they should
    do it. I am just worried that States will view that as a
    mandate.
        Senator Lummis. If it is on a checklist, and there is a
    blank on the checklist that may trigger EPA to deny some sort
    of funding, so yes, a big concern. Thank you.
        This is for all panelists. What should Congress be doing
    going forward to make sure these Federal dollars make the most
    impact in the communities that you work for or represent?
        Mayor, would you care to take a stab at that one?
        Mr. Baraka. Sure. Thank you, Senator.
        I think some of the things that are happening are exactly
    what needs to happen. The infrastructure bill is important to
    put resources in the hands of as many people as possible and to
    get directly to the cities. I would advocate that that money
    come directly to the cities. I think cities and mayors can use
    it very quickly. We can expedite it, and you see the impact
    that we have immediately if that in fact takes place.
        And to make sure that some of this money is actually
    flexible, that folks can use it in the way that they think is
    necessary as it relates to the infrastructure in their
    community, particularly around lead service lines. It gives us
    the opportunity to use local laws and State laws as well to do
    this as quickly as we possibly can.
        Senator Lummis. Mr. Schimmel, any comments on this?
        Mr. Schimmel. Thank you, Senator.
        I agree with the Mayor. Continued funding is the single
    most important issue for all of us. I would also add that
    making sure that there is eligibility for independent utilities
    such as ours that are regional versus municipal. At points, we
    have not been eligible for certain funding that has come out
    because we are a regional entity and don't have a municipal
    governance.
        Then continuing to incentivize the State SRF programs to
    innovate in order to gain new membership into the folks who are
    utilizing the SRF programs. Not enough folks utilize it. If
    there is any way that they can incentivize, to lower the bar or
    make it easier for communities to get their hands on the
    funding, I think that would be exceptionally important.
        Senator Lummis. Thank you.
        Ms. Bodine.
        Ms. Bodine. This is an historic influx of funding. And yes,
    it is mostly being channeled through the State Revolving Loan
    Funds, which are set up for capital investment.
        Now, we have heard some of the people here today talk about
    the ability for planning. Yes, it can be used for lead service
    line inventory. But one suggestion I would make is that you
    might want to expand the eligibilities to include some
    innovative monitoring to identify problems, whether it is PFAS,
    whether it is the lead, so that you are providing public health
    protection right now. Because, as Senator Booker said when he
    spoke, it is going to take 10 years or more, for example, to
    get rid of all the lead service lines. And you have people who
    are exposed in the interim, or we do not know if they are
    exposed or not.
        So taking some small amount of that money, and obviously
    these are hugely expensive programs, you need the capital
    investment, but taking some money for some interim public
    health protection might be a good idea.
        Senator Lummis. Thank you.
        Mr. Pepper.
        Mr. Pepper. Thank you, Senator.
        Continued funding, maximum flexibility with the end result
    in mind, getting from Point A to Point B, which is upgrading
    our infrastructure, getting rid of lead lines, addressing PFAS.
    But allowing maximum flexibility in how we go from Point A to
    Point B I think is probably the determinant we are going to
    have to have going forward.
        Senator Lummis. Thank you.
        I have the luxury of the fact that the Chairman wants to
    come back from her vote, and so I get to extend the time a
    little bit and will take advantage of it.
        This also is for all the panelists. In the March 8th
    guidance, Justice40 is referenced multiple times throughout the
    document. But the EPA does not define explicitly to State SRF
    programs what exactly it is.
        Justice40 is the President's plan to have 40 percent of the
    benefits from Federal investments in climate go to
    disadvantaged communities. We have heard concerns that
    Justice40 is going to lead to a standard, one size fits all
    definition of disadvantaged communities.
        So to all the panelists, is a disadvantaged community in
    one State necessarily the same in another?
        Mayor, would you like to take that one on?
        Mr. Baraka. Sure, absolutely.
        First, I think that it is the right thing to do to identify
    disadvantaged communities who have not had the ability to
    respond to environmental issues and other issues that are no
    fault of their own except for their zip code.
        Generally, there are things that are similar throughout the
    country no matter where you live. People are discriminated
    against for very specific reasons and are victims of
    environmental disasters for very specific reasons because they
    don't have enough money.
        The disproportionately black and brown, they may be
    immigrants and move into these communities, and these things
    exist there. They are legacy kinds of environmental issues that
    exist in these communities and should be addressed in those
    communities, because they have been there forever, whether they
    are next to the water in a port or an airport. All of those
    things, because they are in big cities and rural areas, all
    those things need to be addressed.
        There are some specific things that may be particular to
    other peoples' communities that are different in other States
    and cities, there are some disadvantages that people have
    particularly based on the region they live in. While those
    things should be considered, I think it is equally important to
    understand that there is a general sense of what being
    disadvantaged is, and we cannot have one or the other, but we
    should be dealing with ``and.''
        Senator Lummis. Thank you.
        Mr. Schimmel, any thoughts to add on that one?
        Mr. Schimmel. One size does not fit all. Absolutely we have
    urban areas, Springfield in particular, a disadvantaged
    community. But I would also look to some of the rural areas in
    western Massachusetts where it is a two person shop, and they
    do everything and don't have the time to fill out the loan
    paperwork and have never done anything even close to that.
        So I think as long as there is not a one size fits all, I
    think there is a lot of different types of disadvantage, and I
    think the funding needs to be able to reach into those corners
    where it is obvious. But also, there are some areas where it is
    not so obvious, where there are other types of disadvantage.
        I think it is important that there is flexibility in all of
    this and it is not scripted as a one size fits all.
        Senator Lummis. Thank you.
        Ms. Bodine, your State and mine have Indian reservations
    which would particularly come to the fore when you are thinking
    about disadvantage in some cases. Certainly, that is true in
    Wyoming on the Wind River Indian Reservation. Would you respond
    to this question?
        Ms. Bodine. Certainly, and yes, the tribal areas present
    very unique challenges with respect to wastewater and drinking
    water. I speak that as the former head of EPA enforcement.
        To your specific question, yes, there was an Executive
    Order with a goal of 40 percent of the funding going to
    disadvantaged communities. Congress, though, has said, you have
    said already 49 percent, not 40 percent, is to go to
    disadvantaged communities from these various pots of money. So
    the issue is addressed; it is taken care of. There is nothing
    further, I don't believe, for EPA to do.
        So my concern is there will be an attempt to overlay a
    Federal definition of disadvantaged community on top of what is
    in the statute. Because the definition both in the
    Infrastructure Bill, and in the underlying Clean Water Act, and
    the Safe Drinking Water Act is about eligibility for what is
    called in the statute additional subsidization.
        So what are the communities that need this money? They need
    the extra subsidy. They aren't eligible for the loans because
    they will never be able to pay them back. Therefore, the SRFs
    won't give it to them.
        It is those definitions about where is the money going to
    go, where it is needed, where are the needs the most, which is
    specific. Whereas the broader definition of the disadvantaged
    community, it could be much broader but it may not bring into
    account some of the financial affordability issues.
        Again, you took care of it in the Infrastructure Bill with
    the 49 percent set aside. The underlying statute took care of
    it by setting up the definitions and the responsibilities for
    States to set their disadvantaged community criteria. So I
    don't think there is anything further to be done here, and the
    goal will be met.
        Senator Lummis. Thank you.
        Mr. Pepper.
        Mr. Pepper. Agreed, thank you, Senator. Reservations do
    pose a great opportunity. In Wyoming, as you know, Wind River
    has two tribes. We work very closely with both tribes. In fact,
    the president of our association is the utility manager for the
    Eastern Shoshone utility.
        Yes, I think it should be left to States for the
    definition. I guess taking a wording from a prior career of
    mine, you say potato, I say potato, I think the definitional
    aspect should be left to the States.
        Senator Lummis. Thank you all very much.
        I will return the gavel to our Committee Chairwoman,
    Senator Duckworth.
        Senator Duckworth [presiding]. Thank you, Senator Lummis.
        I just have one final question. It goes back to Mayor
    Baraka. I am a big proponent of promoting local hiring
    initiatives when awarding contracts. I think it should be a
    priority for all States, including my own State of Illinois,
    although there have been challenges.
        Your city of Newark was able to turn this program into a
    local hiring initiative creating somewhere around 600 jobs,
    where at least 250 were local hires and 85 percent were
    previously unemployed residents, which is quite remarkable.
    This is admirable, and it is such an important part of
    executing these programs. It allows the Water Infrastructure
    Initiative to not only help the health and safety of the
    community but also uses this opportunity to benefit local work
    force and the economy.
        Mayor Baraka, was this local work force hiring an
    intentional part of the implementation of Newark's lead
    program? And did you see this inclusion of local hires have a
    positive effect on your city?
        Mr. Baraka. It was deliberate and very intentional. Not
    only did we write it in the actual contracts, but we set up
    training programs for residents so they would be prepared to
    receive these jobs. So we wrote into the contract that they had
    to hire local residents and the percentage of local residents
    they had to try to hire, and they did that.
        We also put in the contract that some of the subcontractors
    also had to be local. We created a small, low interest loan, a
    forgivable loan, to small businesses so they would be able to
    pay money up front to be able to get the resources that they
    needed to actually compete for these jobs, for these contracts.
    And they did that.
        As a result of that, many Newark residents were hired as
    well as Newark businesses began to subcontract on these
    projects and are now primaries on other projects that are
    happening across the State in replacing lead service lines.
        Senator Duckworth. That is a wonderful example. Thank you.
        Before we close the hearing, I would like to recognize
    Senator Lummis for any final questions or comments.
        Senator Lummis. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
        I am going to borrow from our Committee Chair. He has this
    wonderful tradition of wrapping up hearings by asking our fine
    witnesses, what question do you wish you would have been asked
    that you haven't been asked? So if anyone cares to put in a
    closing word, now would be the time.
        Good. This is such a significant program. I am so impressed
    with the way it operates and how flexible and responsive it has
    been. I hope it can continue to be that way because our
    communities are so different. And these funds just seem to get
    to the right places and solve real problems.
        I really want to thank you, Madam Chairman, for having this
    hearing.
        And thank you witnesses, very, very much for providing your
    expertise and good advice to this Committee.
        Madam Chairwoman, I yield back.
        Senator Duckworth. Thank you.
        I think Mr. Pepper had a comment on Webex.
        Mr. Pepper. Yes, thank you, Senator. I have always been
    shy.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Pepper. I would just like to respond to a question on
    PFAS and emerging contaminants that Senator Kelly brought up.
    We have the Source Water Protection Planning Program within our
    associations. We deal with watershed planning protection plans
    as well. And I think there is funding that flows through the
    USDA, FSA for source water protection. There is also the NRCS
    that has funding and a requirement for source water protection.
        I think as it relates to groundwater sources, both in
    Wyoming and in Arizona, Senator Kelly, I am an NAU graduate up
    the road in Flagstaff, we are ready and have been doing some of
    that all along. And as it relates to the emerging contaminants,
    that is a portion of the Source Water Protection Program, is
    looking at potential contaminants and mitigation efforts
    regarding that.
        So I think the funding that is available within the
    Infrastructure Bill for emerging contaminants can probably be
    expanded and combined hopefully with some of the FSA and NRCS
    money and can help to address the PFAS issues quicker and with
    more breadth. Thank you.
        Senator Duckworth. Thank you.
        Ms. Bodine.
        Ms. Bodine. May I just follow up on what Mr. Pepper just
    said? When Senator Kelly was talking about emerging
    contaminants and PFAS, I went to the implementation guide to
    see the eligibilities just to refresh my recollection. The
    money is going through the SRFs. So it is capital investment
    for the new treatment technology, new treatment facilities,
    identifying new sources, consolidating. It does include
    planning and design.
        But to the point I have made with respect to the lead, it
    doesn't include identifying the problem. So it is capital
    investment after you have already identified the problem, but
    it doesn't include the finding, doing maybe the more
    sophisticated, innovative technology to find the problems. That
    is just a consideration.
        Clearly the real cost, the big cost is on the
    infrastructure investment. That is what the money is dedicated
    to because that is what the SRFs are intended for.
        But again, when we are dealing with some of these newer
    issues, like the emerging contaminants or frankly the old
    issues where we have people being exposed to lead in drinking
    water for years and years and years, we may want to consider
    some expanded eligibilities, again not for the bulk of it but
    just for some of it.
        Senator Duckworth. Thank you.
        In the Army we used to say, any alibis?
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Duckworth. As there are no more questions, we will
    bring this hearing to an end. But before we adjourn, some
    housekeeping. I don't know if we received any submissions while
    I was gone but I would like to ask unanimous consent to submit
    for the record a variety of materials relating to today's
    hearing. Without objection.
        [The referenced information was not received at time of
    print.]
        Senator Duckworth. Senators will be allowed to submit
    questions for the record through the close of business Tuesday,
    April 19th. We will compile those questions, send them to our
    witnesses, and ask our witnesses to reply by Tuesday, May 3rd.
        I want to thank the witnesses and Senators for
    participating in this important hearing.
        With that, the hearing is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 11:49 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

                                     [all]