[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]