[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]