[Senate Hearing 117-333]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]




                                                        S. Hrg. 117-333

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DRINKING WATER AND WASTEWATER INFRASTRUCTURE ACT: 
         STATE PLANNING FOR FULL LEAD SERVICE LINE REPLACEMENT

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

                             FIELD 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 21, 2022--Chicago, IL

                               __________

  Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works
  
  
  
                [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
  
  


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


                                 ______
                                 
                                 

                     U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

48-284 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 21, 2022

                           OPENING STATEMENT

Duckworth, Hon. Tammy, U.S. Senator from the State of Illinois...     1

                               WITNESSES

Kim, John J., Director, Illinois Environmental Protection Agency.     5
    Prepared statement...........................................     8
Cheng, Andrea, Ph.D., P.E., Commissioner, Department of Water 
  Management, City of Chicago....................................    13
    Prepared statement...........................................    15
Gore, Anthena, Strategist, Water Programs, Elevate...............    18
    Prepared statement...........................................    22
Williams, Justin, Ph.D., Policy Manager, Metropolitan Planning 
  Council........................................................    26
    Prepared statement...........................................    28




 
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DRINKING WATER AND WASTEWATER INFRASTRUCTURE ACT: 
         STATE PLANNING FOR FULL LEAD SERVICE LINE REPLACEMENT

                              ----------                              


                        THURSDAY, APRIL 21, 2022

                               U.S. Senate,
         Committee on Environment and Public Works,
                          Subcommittee on Fisheries, Water,
                                              and Wildlife,
                                                       Chicago, IL.
    The Committee, met, pursuant to notice, at 4:43 p.m. CDT in 
Presidential Rooms B and C, Shedd Aquarium, Chicago, Illinois, 
Hon. Tammy Duckworth (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.
    Present: Senator Duckworth.

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

    Senator Duckworth. Welcome to this meeting of the Senate 
Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Fisheries, Water, 
and Wildlife. Good afternoon.
    Thank you all for being here in the wonderful city of 
Chicago at the beautiful Shedd Aquarium for today's hearing 
with the Senate Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on 
Fisheries, Water, and Wildlife. What a fitting location for 
today's discussion on drinking water. I have to say, we could 
not have a better day.
    This field hearing will seek to examine implementation of 
the lead abatement programs in the Drinking Water and 
Wastewater Infrastructure Act of 2021, also known as DWWIA, and 
the $15 billion in funding for the national lead service line 
replacement initiative, both of which were included in the 
historic Bipartisan Infrastructure Package that President Biden 
signed into law last year.
    As I am sure many of the witnesses can attest today, there 
has been an historic lack of investment in our Nation's water 
infrastructure. This lack of investment has been especially 
profound in disadvantaged, small, rural, and tribal 
communities. At $55 billion, DWWIA and the Bipartisan 
Infrastructure Law are hoping to change this, with the most 
significant investment in drinking water and wastewater 
infrastructure in history and important programmatic changes 
that will assist States and municipalities in fixing and 
upgrading aging water infrastructure, including, this is 
especially important for Chicago, lead service line 
replacement, while also lowering non-Federal cost shares and 
increasing the use of grants to expand opportunities for more 
communities to access funding.
    President Biden's national lead service line replacement 
effort will disperse funding to the States via the Drinking 
Water State Revolving Funds, to be used exclusively for lead 
pipe removal efforts in every State.
    Now, according to the Biden administration, this investment 
is considered a down payment on the estimated $45 billion it 
would take to replace all pipes in this country. And I will 
continue to work to make sure that Congress follows through on 
the rest of this lead removal funding.
    Lead pipes are a health crisis in our country. According to 
the CDC, there is no known safe level of lead for children. 
Despite lead service lines being banned nearly 35 years ago, as 
of 2019, roughly half a million children under the age of 6 
still had elevated levels of lead in their blood. We cannot 
continue to put our children at risk of permanent brain and 
kidney damage. We must figure out how to replace these pipes in 
an equitable and efficient manner. We must facilitate 
collaboration between States, municipalities, and the Federal 
Government to finally make lead free drinking water a reality 
for all communities.
    The issue of lead contamination is no new challenge to my 
State of Illinois, and it is a cause that is very near to my 
heart. Illinois has more known lead service lines than any 
other State in the country, and Chicago has more than any other 
city. To put this in perspective, Newark, New Jersey, had 
around 23,000 lead service lines before they were able to 
replace all of them. Chicago has over 400,000, exponentially 
more.
    According to a Chicago Tribune article, between 2015 and 
2020, tap water measurements in dozens of Illinois homes showed 
hundreds and sometimes even thousands of parts per billion of 
lead. These levels were comparable to those found by 
researchers during the Flint, Michigan, crisis. To make matters 
worse, this lead contamination is most prominent in Black, 
Brown, and low income communities.
    However, the State has sprung into action, and now 
Illinois, and Chicago specifically, are ahead of the curve 
compared to many States when it comes to lead service line 
replacement plans. Illinois passed several laws last year 
making us one of the only two States to mandate full lead 
service line replacement. Illinois law now requires that homes' 
lead service lines be replaced when replacing water mains, it 
requires water systems to submit a service line materials 
inventory, and requires water systems to submit an initial lead 
service line replacement plan, among several others.
    In 2020, Chicago launched its Homeowner Lead Service Line 
Replacement Program, designed to waive permit fees for 
residents who wish to replace their lead service lines, and the 
Equity Lead Service Line Replacement Program, which will 
provide lead service line replacement for eligible low income 
residents, with a priority for homes with children or elevated 
lead levels in their water. This is great progress, but there 
is still much work to do.
    These programs are progressing slowly, and significant 
roadblocks and unforeseen complications are arising throughout 
this process. Things like building codes, land easements, 
ownership requirements, financing restrictions, and funding are 
just some of the issues that our State of Illinois is dealing 
with, and other States across the country will likely have to 
face to make a lead free future a reality.
    I am hopeful that Chicago will be an example of the 
critical role Federal funding can have to increase, expedite, 
and improve the roll out of lead service line replacement 
plans. Chicago and the State of Illinois should serve as a 
blueprint for cities across the country on the steps, plans, 
and issues that they will need to consider as they deploy their 
own lead service line replacement initiatives. I hope that 
today's hearing will promote discussions that can improve the 
lead reduction plan for Chicago, and for Illinois as a whole, 
and help other States as we set out to accomplish lead service 
line replacement across the Nation.
    I am so thankful to have such a great witness panel and a 
beautiful forum of the Shedd Aquarium to discuss this critical 
issue. We must get these poison pipes out of our homes. And I 
look forward to the discussion today on how best to do that in 
an efficient and equitable way.
    I would like now to take the time to introduce our 
witnesses. First, I would like to introduce John Kim, who was 
appointed Director of the Illinois EPA on January 22nd, 2019. 
Director Kim has served in many senior roles during his more 
than 25 distinguished years at the agency under five Governors 
of both parties. He most recently served as Chief Legal 
Counsel. He has also previously served as Director, Interim 
Director, Ethics Officer, Deputy General Counsel, Assistant 
Counsel/Special Assistant Attorney General, and Project Manager 
for an IEPA-China pollution prevention project. Holy cow.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Kim. I have been there a long time.
    Senator Duckworth. You have been there a long time. Which 
is good. Institutional knowledge is a good thing.
    In 2008 and 2009, Director Kim also served as Acting 
General Counsel of the Illinois Department of Agriculture.
    Before joining Illinois EPA, Director Kim was an Assistant 
Attorney General of Illinois and was the General Counsel to the 
Midwest Environmental Enforcement Association. He received his 
Juris Doctor from Southern Illinois University in Carbondale 
and his Bachelor of Science in industrial engineering from the 
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
    Thank you for being here, Director Kim.
    I would like to introduce Dr. Andrea Cheng, who is the 
Commissioner for the city of Chicago Department of Water 
Management. She has more than 17 years of experience in the 
department, where she has worked in every aspect of the water 
purification and distribution process.
    Commissioner Cheng has overseen multiple large scale 
research projects related to corrosion control of lead and 
managed capital plan projects such as the $15 million 
construction of the department's new water purification labs. 
She developed the Nation's largest 311 lead kit sampling 
program and the city's water filter distribution program. She 
is also managing the development and implementation of the 
multi-year, multi-billion dollar plan to replace the nearly 
380,000 residential lead service lines in Chicago.
    Commissioner Cheng is a nationally recognized expert on 
issues related to water quality, and has been published 40 
times on the subject. She is a licensed Professional Engineer 
and a Class A Public Water Supply Operator with a BS in Civil 
Environmental Engineering from the University of Illinois at 
Urbana-Champaign and her MS and a Ph.D. in Civil Environmental 
Engineering from the University of Texas at Austin.
    Thank you for being here today, Commissioner Cheng.
    Next, I would like to introduce Ms. Anthena Gore, who is a 
Strategist in the Water Programs unit at Elevate, a Chicago 
based non-profit that designs and implements clean and 
affordable energy, power, and water programs to bolster 
equitable climate action. In this role, Ms. Gore oversees the 
water affordability program portfolio, leading research and 
community engagement to better understand the scale and scope 
of water affordability challenges in the Great Lakes region, 
and facilitates community education and engagement to support 
lead service line replacement. She led the team in developing 
and publishing the city of Chicago Water Affordability 
Analysis, a 2 year project extrapolating findings on 
residential utility billing data for more than a half-million 
accounts, and recommendations to the city on water 
affordability strategies.
    In her previous roles at Elevate, Ms. Gore was a sought out 
subject matter expert on energy efficiency for public sector 
buildings and electric infrastructure in distressed 
communities, for which her work was published as a case study 
by the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy. Ms. 
Gore has also served on a select team from Elevate providing 
insight to the United Nations Sustainable Development Solutions 
Network on America's Zero Carbon Action Plan, and as a 
buildings and energy lead supporting three cities in the 
Bloomberg Philanthropies American Cities Climate Challenge.
    Thank you for being here today, Ms. Gore.
    Dr. Justin Williams is our last panelist, but not least. He 
is a Policy Manager at the Metropolitan Planning Council, which 
is an 87 year old non-profit dedicated to promoting 
sustainable, equitable infrastructure and planning in Illinois. 
As Policy Manager, Justin is responsible for advancing MPC's 
policy advocacy. He provides leadership on MPC's legislative 
and budget priorities, including developing MPC's annual policy 
change agendas.
    Since 2020, Justin has led MPC's legislative advocacy on 
lead service line replacement in Illinois. He developed 
research, policy recommendations, communication materials, and 
outreach strategies that aided the passage of Illinois' Lead 
Service Line Replacement and Notification Act. Now that the 
bill has passed, he works on its equitable implementation, 
collaborating with State agencies, non-profit partners, and 
elected officials, to ensure every resident of Illinois can 
have their lead service line replaced.
    Thank you for being here today, Dr. Williams.
    Now I will recognize each witness to provide their opening 
statement.
    Welcome, Director Kim. You are now recognized for your 
opening statement.

              STATEMENT OF JOHN J. KIM, DIRECTOR, 
            ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

    Mr. Kim. Thank you very much, Chairwoman Duckworth, for the 
opportunity to present information before the Senate Committee 
on Environment and Public Works this afternoon.
    As Director of the Illinois Environmental Protection 
Agency, I am here today to provide information on the State of 
Illinois' current position in planning and preparing for full 
lead service line replacements in our communities. And I want 
to commend you on the excellent job you did in summarizing the 
State of Illinois right now, so I will be looking at some of 
the high points that you noted.
    As you did note, Illinois is believed to have one of the, 
if not the largest number of lead service lines in the Nation. 
That makes the infusion of additional Federal funding to 
Illinois' State Revolving Fund far more valuable specifically 
to allow us to continue to address full lead service line 
replacements. It is a vital task for us and something that is 
very important, although we will be discussing some of the 
obstacles and some of the challenges that we have before us.
    Your work on the Drinking Water and Water Infrastructure 
Act and the Federal infrastructure money from the Bipartisan 
Infrastructure Law, that you noted, will provide many 
opportunities for us to work with community water supplies to 
begin the process of addressing lead service line removal, with 
an ultimate goal of removing lead from drinking water in 
Illinois. We recognize this is a significant undertaking. But 
we also know that Illinois is in a unique and favorable 
position to address lead service line replacements.
    As noted, a key step for us was the passage and signing of 
Public Act 99-0922 in 2017, which is a new law advanced by a 
dedicated group of stakeholders and advocates. And what that 
law requires is that community water supplies in the State will 
be required to begin developing and reporting lead service line 
material inventories to the Illinois EPA.
    In 2021, our State legislature passed and Governor Pritzker 
signed into law Public Act 102-613, which is also referred to 
as the Lead Service Line Replacement and Notification Act. That 
act built upon the 2017 legislation and went further. It set 
clear timelines for community water supplies to complete their 
material inventories and required additional information to be 
included in those inventories. And it also called for the 
submission of lead service line replacement plans. And most 
importantly, it did set up deadlines and timelines by which 
lead service lines would need to be removed.
    The material inventories that are required under the new 
2021 law will identify, as I noted before, additional 
information that will include the total number of service lines 
in community water supplies, the materials of each of those 
service lines, the number of suspected lead service lines that 
have been identified since the last material inventory we 
submitted, and additional information.
    So based upon the information that we have received thus 
far, and the most recent material inventories submitted to us, 
over 3.8 million total service lines have been reported. And of 
those, approximately 667,000 are known to be and have been 
identified to be made of lead. We have an additional 820,000 
service lines that are of unknown material.
    Since State fiscal year 2017 to the present, the Illinois 
EPA has been working diligently to try and address this need in 
terms of providing important funding to community water 
supplies. In that time, 23 community water supplies have 
benefited from nearly $67 million in funding provided through 
the Illinois EPA's State Revolving Fund. Each of those loans to 
those communities has been provided with 100 percent principal 
forgiveness.
    Further, the Illinois EPA's Fiscal Year 2023 Intended Use 
Plan will also identify another 20 projects with another $57 
million in funding set aside to replace additional service 
lines. The additional funding that we have been talking about 
is provided both in terms of the Federal capitalization grant 
funds that we receive on an annual basis, as well as the Water 
Infrastructure Transfer Act, or Booker Act money that was 
allowed, which provided for a one time transfer from the Clean 
Water Fund to the Drinking Water Fund. That allowed for a 
transfer of approximately $170 million, and that money has been 
put to very good use, as that funding is allowing for 100 
percent principal forgiveness.
    So these actions today demonstrate that the State of 
Illinois and the Illinois EPA have been very hard at work 
facilitating ongoing lead service line replacement activity and 
importantly, planning for future projects. Illinois is prepared 
to begin utilizing Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act 
funding with the introduction of projects in our Fiscal Year 
2024 Intended Use Plan with our plan to begin accessing that 
IIJA money beginning in July 2023. Our current projections will 
allow us to complete the lead service line replacement projects 
that we have before us utilizing the WIFTA money that we 
received and are still working through.
    While we understand that additional funding such as this 
will provide significant benefits to Illinois communities, we 
also have to recognize and anticipate challenges, such as 
technical expertise, obtaining construction easements from 
individual residences, and finding qualified professionals and 
available resources that are able to actually complete the 
work.
    Applying for funding under the existing SRF structure 
involves an understanding of the technical, fiscal, and program 
requirements of the loan program. One example, an applicant 
must complete an Environmental Impact Study Review to ensure 
compliance with the National Environmental Protection Act. For 
disadvantaged communities, this kind of requirement can be 
overly burdensome and stands as a firm obstacle in the way of 
their accessing this loan money. Many communities simply do not 
have the existing resources to retain outside expertise for the 
planning and application phase.
    To begin addressing this concern, Illinois EPA will be 
utilizing a new $2 million appropriation of State funds from 
our most recent budget which will allow us to provide grants to 
units of local government for costs associated with lead 
service line material inventories and technical assistance for 
water revolving fund applications. In essence, this is seed 
money which allows communities which would perhaps not 
otherwise have the financial wherewithal to begin that planning 
portion so that they can begin to position themselves to take 
the next step to seek further funding for the actual removal 
activity.
    As noted earlier, Illinois EPA has already started the 
process of funding lead service line replacements in Illinois, 
but one thing has been made clear to us. Our experience has 
been that communities are only interested in receiving funding 
which allows for 100 percent principal forgiveness. One main 
reason for that is that communities are very reluctant to pass 
on the costs of lead service line replacements to all customers 
when not necessarily all those customers have lead service 
lines on their properties.
    In closing, Illinois is committed to getting this vital 
funding to our communities, especially those disadvantaged 
communities that would have no other resources to take on the 
challenge. In Illinois, we already have deadlines for water 
systems to complete material inventories, deadlines for 
planning, and deadlines for replacement of lead service lines. 
The last significant hurdle we face is a dedicated and adequate 
funding stream to allow our citizens and our systems to 
complete necessary repairs.
    Thank you very much, and I will be happy to answer any 
questions you may have about our program.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Kim follows:]
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8284.001
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8284.002
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8284.003
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8284.004
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8284.005
    
    Senator Duckworth. Thank you so much, Director Kim.
    I am going to ask that you pull the microphones a little 
closer to you so we can get a good recording.
    Commissioner Cheng, you are now recognized for your opening 
statement.

     STATEMENT OF ANDREA CHENG, PH.D., P.E., COMMISSIONER, 
        DEPARTMENT OF WATER MANAGEMENT, CITY OF CHICAGO

    Ms. Cheng. Good afternoon, Chair Duckworth.
    Thank you for inviting me to today's hearing regarding lead 
service line replacement initiatives. Thank you for shining a 
spotlight on Chicago and our home State of Illinois today. And 
thank you for your leadership and unwavering commitment on the 
Drinking Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Act of 2021, and 
ensuring that the Bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs 
Act includes funding for lead service line replacement. This 
historic Federal investment can jump start our work in Chicago, 
and in States and municipalities across the country. Though the 
journey is far from over, it is an honor to appear before you 
today to share our progress, and what needs to be done.
    Access to clean water should not be out of reach for any of 
our residents. When it comes to lead service lines, as you 
noted, Chicago unfortunately has the largest number in the 
country with approximately 380,000 in a dense urban 
environment. Despite that, we have been in compliance with the 
EPA's lead regulations since shortly after the Lead and Copper 
Rule was put in place in 1991.
    Chicago is a leader in lead research and testing, focusing 
on corrosion control treatment. In fact, we will be switching 
to a new corrosion control treatment next year to continue to 
reduce lead in water. Chicago also has one of the largest data 
bases of lead testing in the U.S. We have mailed out over 
100,000 free lead testing kits to residents.
    But corrosion control is only one part of controlling lead 
in water. It is time for removal of our lead service lines here 
in Chicago. And that is what Mayor Lightfoot is doing. 
Addressing this legacy issue head on is her top priority for 
our Department of Water Management.
    In 2021 we created an ambitious lead service line 
replacement plan to address this legacy issue. However, the 
costs associated with lead service line replacement are 
significant: Approximately $15,000 to $30,000 per lead service 
line replacement for a full one, including private side and 
public side. And we know that other cities who have had the 
most success with lead service line replacement offered some 
level of assistance for the private side of the lead service 
line. Again, we are grateful for this new and historic Federal 
investment to help with our lead service line replacements.
    Chicago has rolled out three lead service line replacement 
programs: A homeowner initiated program that waives up to 
$3,100 in permit fees for those who are able to do their own 
replacement, also a one block pilot of lead service line 
replacement alongside water main replacement that includes free 
public and private side, and an equity program funded by a HUD 
Community Development Block Grant which provides free lead 
service line replacement for both the private and public side 
for low income homeowners.
    This equity program is unique in that it focuses entirely 
on low income homeowners with prioritization toward those who 
have children in the home or elevated lead levels. These are 
the homes that are most impacted by lead service lines and 
least able to afford to replace them. And that's just phase 
one.
    Next, we are in the process of starting a program for free, 
full lead service line replacement for daycares. Replacing a 
lead service line in a daycare doesn't just impact one family, 
it impacts many children.
    Chicago has also been actively working on our lead service 
line inventory since 2016 by having our staff note material 
properties during field work. Our goal is to have a data base 
and online interactive lead service line inventory by 2023. In 
January 2023, our Break and Leak Lead Service Line program will 
be in full force, replacing the full lead service line any time 
there is a break or leak. We expect about 4,000 to 5,000 breaks 
or leaks per year, which means 4,000 to 5,000 lead service line 
replacements per year.
    We will also be expanding our lead service line replacement 
alongside water main and sewer main replacements in 2023. We 
are looking at where and when to replace lead service lines on 
a block level with an equity lens, looking at numerous factors, 
including income, environmental justice, and vulnerable 
population.
    While logistically challenging, doing lead service line 
replacement alongside an entire block has been shown to overall 
reduce costs for many communities. While each city has its own 
set of unique challenges on lead service line replacement, 
there is an opportunity at this moment to make real, 
meaningful, and practical progress, and there has never been 
more drive to overcome these challenges than now.
    The scale of the work ahead requires strong coordination at 
the Federal, State, and local levels, as demonstrated here 
today. Field hearings like this help drive critically important 
innovation, and I am extremely appreciative of our ability to 
testify today.
    Thank you, and I look forward to answering your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Cheng follows:]
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8284.006
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8284.007
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8284.008
    
    Senator Duckworth. Thank you so much, Dr. Cheng.
    Ms. Gore, we now turn to you for your opening statement.

                  STATEMENT OF ANTHENA GORE, 
              STRATEGIST, WATER PROGRAMS, ELEVATE

    Ms. Gore. Thank you so much, Chair Duckworth, for this 
opportunity to testify today.
    This short bio about me tells the story of what I represent 
and who I am today. I would like to add a little bit about 
where I am from. I am from North Lawndale in Chicago. My mother 
is a musician who has been blind all her life; my father, an 
electrical technician, a tradesman who really excelled so much 
at his craft that his opportunities were subverted. Thanks to 
their fighting spirit, I am an overcomer of childhood lead 
poisoning.
    These experiences underpin every point in my testimony. 
Today, I am going to focus on what it means to build resilience 
and equity into the implementation of lead service line 
replacement initiatives. Among many things that could be 
discussed, resilience and equity in lead service line 
replacement will require three things: A strong, effective 
communications and outreach network; technical assistance for 
small, rural, and disadvantaged communities and tribal nations; 
and an unprecedented transformational financial investment and 
unbiased commitment to improving local economies via work force 
development innovations.
    First, a resilient and equitable communications and 
outreach network knows how to reach people, connect them to 
resources and funding, and move actions to completion. In my 
experience, if the message doesn't reach the people, the money 
certainly will not. When I was leading a public sector energy 
efficiency outreach program that targeted what the State of 
Illinois categorized as economically distressed communities, I 
learned that most decisionmakers want to know two things: Who 
do I call, and what is the next step?
    There was plenty of material made available via one pagers, 
fact sheets, Web sites, and the like. However, communication 
moves at the speed of trust and word of mouth is still the best 
way to deliver those messages. Decisionmakers at any level want 
to hear about opportunities from people they know and trust, 
people they have good feelings about developing relationships 
with, and people that will support them as they learn about and 
develop new projects.
    For example, resilience and equity in this space could look 
like activating community based and/or centralized outreach 
teams to form relationships with publicly owned utilities and 
municipal decisionmakers to help facilitate their access to 
resources and the funding that is available. This service could 
also help fill in gaps where there are broadband challenges at 
the community scale.
    For initiative uptake at a residential level, it could be 
working with community based organizations and special service 
consultants to offer timely, relevant, and actionable 
information in multiple languages, in larger prints, via TTY 
phone services for the hearing impaired, and even in braille 
for homeowners like my mom. All of these communications and 
outreach efforts should acknowledge where a deep lack of trust 
exists between local government and community. A resilient and 
equitable communications network reaches people and enables 
them to act on and complete lead service line replacement 
initiatives.
    Second, technical assistance for disadvantaged communities 
and tribal nations is paramount to sustain and maintain water 
systems located therein, and everything else that depends on 
and interacts with those systems. In the wake of COVID-19, we 
must intentionally embrace and fortify the interdependence of 
our lives and economies.
    We cannot afford to continue extractive nor exploitative 
practices within these communities and then turn on the heel 
during unprecedented times to rely on essential workers and 
limited tangible goods coming from these communities. It is not 
fair, and it is not sustainable. Water is life, and it requires 
a circular and curative ecosystem to sustain that life. 
Technical assistance for these communities is a critical part 
of that ecosystem.
    Resilience and equity in technical assistance requires the 
understanding that though it is a technical, transactional 
activity on its face, technical assistance requires a host of 
skills: Patience, customer service, relationship management, 
emotional intelligence, cultural competency, collaboration, and 
leadership. At Elevate, we have a strong history of successful 
community engagement and outreach. We strategize with policy 
and utility leadership about their water affordability and lead 
service line replacement initiatives; we convene with water 
advocates to understand the plight of community issues; we 
visit and listen to the stories of people in their homes and 
businesses who are affected by water debt and lead in water 
challenges.
    As a person who had lead poisoning at the age of 2, I take 
pride in saying that Elevate has extensive experience with the 
childcare community, a vulnerable population to lead in water. 
We have learned how to be in community, and when to lead and 
when to let community lead us. Equitable technical assistance 
also includes understanding communities' experiences and 
orientation to their water infrastructure in order to equip 
them with information to make better decisions. For some 
communities, this is beyond only replacing lead service lines; 
this is an opportunity to better define, design, and install or 
build water infrastructure that better serves the community and 
the people, economies, and systems interacting with that 
community.
    Furthermore, the need for technical assistance to 
disadvantaged communities is vital to ensure affordable water 
rates. These communities are facing water bill affordability 
crises that range from exorbitant arrears to inability to 
respond to emergencies. Disadvantaged communities must be 
properly defined and should include input from people living 
the experience, and should be integrated into a technical 
assistance program that flags these communities to receive 
grants and principal forgivable loans instead of loans that 
would result in future rate increases and compounding stress on 
the residents.
    It is absolutely imperative that this matter is handled 
with precision and care to ensure that the messages and the 
money get to communities that need it the most. This requires 
hard and soft skills necessary to build capacity and 
operational efficiency in small, rural, and disadvantaged 
communities and tribal nations such that if we were to look 10 
years ahead, we will see a well maintained water system that 
can ensure public health and safety while meeting supply needs.
    Technical assistance is a great responsibility because done 
well, it is simply not transactional, it is a transference that 
affords the communities respect and room to realize their own 
agency, a state in which leaders are equipped and empowered to 
carry forward their unique commitments for growing and 
sustaining their residents and their businesses.
    Last, for communities to implement lead service line 
replacement initiatives, the work force must be there to meet 
the demand. When I say work force development, I mean that in 
the same way that one would talk about a lifecycle approach to 
infrastructure. The investment in human capital has to align 
with the investment in the physical infrastructure. We must 
fully assess the social infrastructure required to train 
people, retain employees, and facilitate innovation in the 
water industry.
    Two significant things are happening right now in the water 
industry. A lot of water professionals are retiring in the next 
5 to 10 years, and this is going to have a great impact because 
generally, sadly, there was an era of time across trade 
industries when people kept knowledge and information close to 
the chest for job security.
    Thinking back on how these things affected my own life, I 
remember when my father graduated from a technical institute 
and took on his job as an electrical technician. Within the 
year, he lost his job because he was too enthusiastic. He was 
tracking to outpace his supervisor in knowledge and pay; 
therefore, he was perceived as a threat to someone else's job 
security.
    According to the 2018 Brookings Institution report titled 
Renewing the Water Workforce, ``Water workers tend to be older 
and lack gender and racial diversity in certain occupations; in 
2016, nearly 85 percent of them were male and two-thirds were 
White, pointing to a need for younger, more diverse talent.'' 
What happens when newly recruited younger and/or diverse talent 
runs into the same roadblocks my father encountered?
    Workforce development must continue to account for how 
institutionalized vocational pathways intersect with race and 
socioeconomics, and other facets of identity, such as ability 
and gender. Resilient and equitable work force development 
involves building support networks that will help workers 
endure while the country reckons with its history of inequity. 
At large, this could be realized through training, mentorship, 
pay and benefits equity, knowledge transfer and retention, 
professional development, and wraparound services for those 
coming from hard to reach or citizen re-entry programs.
    For entrepreneurs and business owners, this is fair 
contracting, removing barriers to acquiring DBE/MBE/WBE/VBE 
status, better connection and engagement with local and 
domestic supply and value chains, capacity building, especially 
to acquire and maintain general business operations specialists 
like accountants, lawyers, technologists, and administrators 
who can keep the business compliant and on a path to expansion, 
and most importantly, hiring, retaining and growing the local 
work force in their communities and putting that money back 
into the communities that serve that work force.
    Again, I emphasize that water is life, and it requires a 
circular and curative ecosystem to sustain that life.
    In conclusion, we must make a transformational, holistic 
investment in people to see the outcome of safe, affordable, 
and well maintained water systems. Strong communications and 
outreach networks, well rounded technical assistance, and 
sustainable work force development initiatives are critical to 
getting the lead out and keeping the lead out of water for 
future generations to come.
    Thank you so much.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Gore follows:]
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8284.009
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8284.010
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8284.011
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8284.012
    
    Senator Duckworth. Thank you, Ms. Gore.
    Last, Dr. Williams, you are now recognized for your opening 
statement.

             STATEMENT OF JUSTIN WILLIAMS, PH.D., 
         POLICY MANAGER, METROPOLITAN PLANNING COUNCIL

    Mr. Williams. Thank you, Senator Duckworth, for the 
opportunity to speak about this important issue. And for truly, 
your tireless work to ensure clean drinking water and 
environmental justice for Americans.
    Twenty twenty-one was a remarkable year for ensuring clean 
drinking water in Illinois, for the reasons that you and others 
on this panel have already enumerated. The Federal Government 
passed the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law dedicating $15 billion 
to lead service line replacement funding. And the State of 
Illinois also took historic action. The only thing I will add 
to this enumeration is my gratitude to you, your colleagues in 
Congress, the Illinois legislature, and Governor Pritzker for 
their tremendous leadership in tackling this issue in Illinois.
    The challenge and opportunity now before Illinois 
communities is to make good on those Federal and State actions. 
Success in this matter is, I will empathize at the outset, a 
racial equity imperative. In Illinois, Black and LatinX 
residents are twice as likely as White Illinoisans to live in a 
communities that contain nearly all of this known toxic 
infrastructure.
    As a matter of environmental justice, Illinois' communities 
simply must complete this work as quickly as possible. We can't 
allow another lead in drinking water crisis like Flint's or 
Benton Harbor's to take place. We can't allow another 
generation of children to be needlessly exposed to this toxin 
in their drinking water.
    Three factors are going to be critical to the success of 
Illinois communities in rising to this occasion: Illinois 
communities need more funding, grant funding needs to be 
prioritized for communities and residents most in need, and to 
echo a comment by Ms. Gore, technical resources must be 
available to utilities to do this work.
    First, Illinois communities are going to need more funding. 
With nearly 670,000 known lead service lines, as we have 
already discussed, Illinois has more of this toxic 
infrastructure than any other State. Assuming an average cost 
of $7,056 per full replacement, it will cost over $4.7 billion 
to replace all of Illinois' known lead service lines in the 
coming decades.
    The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law is a huge achievement, 
delivering an estimated $565 million to Illinois based on 
current State Revolving Fund allotment levels over the next 5 
years. Yet that investment represents just over 12 percent of 
the funding needed in Illinois. We have a long way to go in 
ensuring sufficient funding for communities to complete this 
work. Meeting this funding need will require all levels of 
government working together.
    Second, it is imperative that until full funding of lead 
service line replacement is reached, all lead service line 
replacement grant funding needs to be prioritized for the 
highest need communities and residents. Residents should never 
have to choose between lead free drinking water and affordable 
drinking water. All residents should be assured both. The best 
way to achieve that outcome is for low income residents and 
utilities to have grant funding that covers the full cost of 
lead service line replacement, so they aren't asked to bear a 
cost of replacement they cannot afford.
    This is both an environmental justice issue and a program 
effectiveness issue. A 2020 analysis of Washington, DC's lead 
service line replacement program in which homeowners were asked 
to pay for replacement found that wealthier and Whiter wards 
were far more likely to voluntarily replace their lead pipes. 
This finding is squarely in line with USEPA's own environmental 
justice analysis of the Lead and Copper Rule, in which they 
recognized that changes to the rule ``that depend on ability to 
pay will leave low income households with disproportionately 
higher health risks.'' Grant funding needs to be prioritized 
for communities and residents with the highest financial and 
infrastructure need. That is the surest way to get all 
Illinois' lead pipes replaced and produce a more equitable 
outcome.
    Third and finally, Illinois communities are going to need 
technical support. Utilities in Illinois vary widely in their 
ability to tackle the different aspects of lead service line 
replacement, from community engagement to finding lead service 
lines to planning to construction. There needs to be assistance 
available for staff constrained and resource constrained 
utilities in the form of information, outreach from agencies, 
and guidance on best practices. Critically, there needs to be 
support for communities to help them take advantage of Federal 
funding streams, which can be impossibly complex for some 
resource constrained utilities to apply for.
    By increasing the amount of funding available, targeting 
grant assistance to communities and residents most in need, and 
providing our communities with technical support, we can see 
all Illinois' lead service lines replaced in the coming years. 
I thank you again for the opportunity to speak on this matter.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Williams follows:]
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8284.013
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8284.014
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8284.015
    
    Senator Duckworth. Thank you, Dr. Williams.
    All right, now we will turn to questions for the witnesses.
    My first question is for Commissioner Cheng. For many 
States and cities, this national initiative to remove all lead 
service lines will be the first time that they have begun to 
make a plan for lead line removal. Chicago is fortunate to be 
ahead of the curve, with several programs and a comprehensive 
plan initiated in 2020. Although there is a lot of work left to 
be done, a lot of work has already started.
    Can you tell me what steps Chicago has already taken in 
regard to their lead service line replacement initiatives? What 
future steps does Chicago have planned to further implement 
this replacement program?
    Ms. Cheng. Certainly, thank you. As you noted, Chicago 
unfortunately has the largest number of lead service lines in 
the U.S., 380,000. So because of that, we have actually been 
doing research on controlling lead in water since 1976. Chicago 
is a leader in lead research and testing. We focus on corrosion 
control treatment for lead, which is kept as a compliance with 
the Lead and Copper rules, and shortly after it was put in 
place in 1991. In fact, we will be switching to a new corrosion 
control treatment next year to continue to reduce lead in 
water.
    Chicago actually has one of the largest data bases of lead 
testing in the U.S. We have mailed out over 100,000 free lead 
testing kits. But corrosion control is only one part of 
controlling lead in water. Mayor Lightfoot has made replacing 
our lead service lines her top priority for our department.
    As a result, we created ambitious lead service line 
replacement plan here in Chicago to address this legacy issue. 
We also created a comprehensive Web site for everything from 
helping a resident identify their service line, test their 
water, request water filter kits, and replace lead service 
lines at leadsafechicago.org. We also have our initial lead 
service line replacement plan up on that Web site.
    Chicago has rolled out three lead service line replacement 
plans which set an equitable groundwork for larger programs 
that ramp up over time, a homeowner initiative program that 
waives up to $3,100 in permit fees for those who are able to do 
their own replacement. Also a one block SRF funded pilot of 
lead service line replacement alongside water main replacement 
that includes free private and public side replacement, and an 
equity program funded by a HUD community development block 
grant which provides free lead service line replacement for 
both the public and the private side for low income homeowners.
    As we noted, that equity program is unique in that it 
focuses entirely on low income homeowners with prioritization 
for those who have children in the home or elevated blood 
levels. These are the homes that are most impacted by lead 
service lines and least able to afford to replace them.
    Next, we will be in the process of starting our free, full 
lead service line replacement daycare program. As I noted, 
replacing a lead service line in a daycare doesn't just impact 
one family, it impacts many children. Chicago has also been 
actively working on our lead service line inventory since 2016 
by having our staff note material properties through its field 
work. And our goal is to have a data base and online 
interactive lead service line inventory by 2023.
    In January 2023, our Break and Leak lead service line 
replacement will be in full force, replacing the full lead 
service line any time there is a break or leak. We expect that 
to be about 4,000 to 5,000 lead service line replacements per 
year.
    We will also be expanding our lead service line replacement 
program alongside water and sewer main replacements in 2023. We 
are looking at where and when to replace lead service lines on 
a block level with an equity lens, using numerous factors, 
including income, environmental justice, and vulnerable 
population. While logistically challenging, doing lead service 
line replacement along an entire block has been shown to reduce 
overall costs for many communities.
    Again, we are grateful for this new and historic Federal 
investment to help with our lead service line replacements and 
are looking forward to working with the State to take full 
advantage of all opportunities for our residents who need it 
most.
    Senator Duckworth. Thank you.
    Director Kim, as I discussed with Commissioner Cheng, in 
many ways Illinois has had a head start in regard to lead 
abatement planning and programs. Can you discuss any steps that 
the State of Illinois has already taken to address community 
needs for lead service line replacements and other lead 
efforts?
    Mr. Kim. Yes, thank you. As noted previously, one of the 
most important things that we can do is to first get a good 
assessment of what the problem is, what the scope of the 
problem is. And to begin adequate planning, to have a better 
understanding of exactly what level of funding is needed, that 
is an important perspective.
    So the two State laws that we referenced that require in 
depth material inventories are going to allow us a much better 
understanding of exactly how many lead service lines we have, 
where they are located, and also gives us a sense of which 
communities are going to be most impacted by it. What that is 
going to allow us to do then is to continue to work with our 
partners, continue to work with our program, and continue to 
try and shape it so that we are going to be addressing those 
most urgent needs first.
    The other thing about that plan, the legislation, that is 
important is, as mentioned before, it sets in place a specific 
set of timelines. So your final inventory is due in April 2024, 
your initial plan for removal is due in 2024, and then your 
final plan is in 2027, at which point a clock begins. The clock 
is going to be determined by the number of lines that you have. 
So obviously, the greater the number, the longer the time 
period, with incremental annual amounts that are going to be 
required on an annual basis.
    Putting this kind of structure in place and continuing to 
align our available funding with those needs is the most 
important thing we can do to really put communities in the best 
position to try and not only understand what the problem is, 
but give them as many resources as possible to actually try and 
take care of those problems.
    Senator Duckworth. Are there funds for those inventories?
    Mr. Kim. Yes. As noted, one of the terms that we have with 
programs like this is we want to make sure that communities, 
that again, minority communities, the most in need, but also 
might unfortunately be the most under-resourced, that they have 
the resources that they need, the financial ability they need 
to begin that process. So as I mentioned before, we have a $2 
million appropriation from our State legislature that will 
allow us to provide grants to communities in need to allow them 
to access the technical assistance they need to complete their 
inventories, to access any kind of consulting work that they 
need to begin to look into putting their plans together. What 
we are hoping is that that is going to provide the initial 
start for them to get them on that path so that they begin to 
take on the more important work of actually beginning to do the 
replacement.
    Senator Duckworth. Thank you.
    Commissioner Cheng, 2 weeks ago I held an EPW Subcommittee 
hearing on the implementation of DWWIA and invited Mayor Baraka 
of Newark, New Jersey, to testify about their recent success in 
replacing all 23,000 lead service lines at no cost to their 
residents. He highlighted that two of the barriers that the 
city needed to address to expedite the replacement of the lead 
pipes was, first, amending State law to allow the use of public 
money on private lands, and second, allow for right of entry 
onto private property. He spoke at length about rental 
properties where the landlords could not be found, and it was 
really helpful to be able to just go right onto the property 
and begin the work.
    Do you believe, Commissioner Cheng, that these similar 
issues would be barriers to the lead service line program in 
Chicago? And do you believe we should be including similar 
changes in Chicago?
    Ms. Cheng. Thank you. First of all, I applaud Newark Mayor 
Baraka, and Water and Sewer Utilities Director Kareem Adeem, 
who have been generous in sharing their findings with us here 
in Chicago. Rising out of the midst of a lead violation and 
lawsuit, they used innovation to help their residents in 
replacing lead service lines. So we really appreciate their 
sharing their information.
    Each city and State has its own set of unique challenges. 
However, often different State and local regulations are needed 
to be complied with as part of the lead service line 
replacement. We are currently working with State and local 
officials to address regulations that we anticipate will 
significantly increase efficiencies and decrease costs. And we 
are going to continue to collaborate to make sure we handle 
lead service line replacement in the most fiscally responsible 
manner.
    One significant difference is simply the scale. In Chicago, 
as you mentioned, Chicago has over 380,000 lead service lines, 
which is an estimated cost of about $8 billion to $10 billion 
to replace both the public and the private side. Newark only 
had 23,000 lead service lines. The revenue to pay for this work 
must come from somewhere. But we also need to balance keeping 
our rates affordable to residents. We are thrilled that the 
Federal funding will help offset this cost. But it will not 
cover the full cost.
    As you are aware, the replacement of a lead service line 
may require work both on publicly owned lines between streets 
and sidewalks, and private land and property, including the 
line all the way into the home. But with regard to Newark's 
right of entry, which requires homeowners to allow entry to 
their private property, as you can imagine, it raises a complex 
set of issues. But we are exploring other avenues here in 
Chicago before we decide if requiring a right of entry is the 
right way to go.
    So far with our free equity lead service line replacement 
program and our free lead service line replacement water main 
pilot, we have indeed found it difficult to convince some 
homeowners to participate. And we are learning lessons from 
that experience. For right now, Chicago is focusing on reaching 
residents where they are with on the street community meetings 
in multiple languages, programs and neighborhood libraries, and 
more.
    Senator Duckworth. Will you touch briefly on helping water 
services cover the costs from the portion of line that goes 
from the water main to the curb stop or the meter, and where 
the property owner has to pay to replace the segment of the 
line that goes into the home? But in communities where, 
especially lower income communities, the homeowners don't have 
the ability to replace the portion that goes into the home, 
this cost is just not possible for a household to pay. But then 
if you only replace the utility owned pieces, not only is it 
less cost effective, but it can also increase lead levels 
because you are doing that work.
    What current Federal, State and local financing tools or 
options does Chicago use to help homeowners do the part that 
goes right into the home? Do you think other financing measures 
are necessary or would be helpful in that process?
    Ms. Cheng. Yes. In Chicago, we took a lot of time to see 
what worked and what didn't work in other cities, and take 
advantage of all opportunities at the Federal, State, and local 
level. We found that in order to provide equity in lead service 
line replacement, the scope of funding sources has to be 
carefully considered, to your point. So for us, this includes 
looking at water operating funds locally, our own water equity 
funds in Chicago, which we currently use for the homeowner 
initiated program to waive permit fees.
    So this is a small dollar value, this program is only about 
$150,000 a year. But it can't be used for private funding. So 
it is limited. And this funding comes from water rates, which 
we want to keep affordable.
    But if you look at our equity program, where we are using 
the HUD community development block grant, there are a couple 
of advantages. Obviously, it is a grant, first of all. So it 
can be used on public and private side, and it doesn't have to 
be repaid. But it also can be used both for in house crews or 
contractors, so you have to look at, for each funding source, 
what kind of people can do the work.
    It also covers not just the literal replacement of the lead 
service line, but also funding for outreach, basic restoration, 
removal of asbestos if it is on the lead service line 
replacement. So there is other appurtenances that that funding 
covers.
    The disadvantage of the CDBG grant is that it is very 
cumbersome for homeowners to provide the required ownership and 
financial paperwork. It can be a hindrance in completing the 
application. It also has to be homeowner occupied, it doesn't 
allow for renters. So to the issue they found in Newark, that 
is obviously a hindrance. It also requires a tier two 
environmental review, involving a review by the State Historic 
Preservation Office, which can be extensive and lengthy.
    So there are some significant downsides. But it is 
something that, it is another option that many cities may not 
have considered as well in the interim.
    Of course, there is the Illinois EPA SRF, which we have 
been lucky enough to get. Right now that is funding our lead 
service line replacement water main pilot as well as our 
daycare program. The advantage is it does not have to be 
homeowner occupied. So for that funding, it does accommodate 
renters. If they don't determine the requirements for low 
income eligibility for you, the water utility does. So that 
makes it a little less cumbersome for the homeowners. It 
doesn't require a tier two environmental review, and it is a 
very low interest rate, which is important.
    In terms of disadvantages, it is a loan unless you get the 
principal forgiveness portion of it. And you can only use 
contractors, not in house crews. And if you use the principal 
forgiveness portion, you can't use it on outreach and some of 
the things related to lead service line replacement.
    There is a 20 year repayment term right now for SRF. An 
extension to 30 years would be really beneficial to SRF 
borrowers. But overall it is a really helpful program.
    Of course, there is USEPA's WIFIA, which we are about to 
close on, and that is really exciting as well. It is a larger 
dollar value for us; we are getting $337 million over 5 years. 
And you can use in house crews or contractors. It does also 
accommodate renters. Again, they don't predetermine the low 
income eligibility requirements, and there is no tier two 
environmental review, and it is a very long term loan with a 
very low interest rate, which makes it very, very affordable, 
really great for the water utility.
    Again, the disadvantage is that it is a loan and needs 
repayment. But it is a really great tool out there.
    We have also applied for the USEPA's WIIN grants. Because 
it is a true grant; it can be used on the public and private 
side. Disadvantages are we have applied in the past, but 
because we don't have an actual violation here in Chicago, we 
are unlikely to receive it, understandably. They save that 
funding for those who really most need it. And it is a smaller 
dollar value, compared to our need.
    But of course, last but not least, we are thrilled about 
the new SRF funding coming from the Federal Infrastructure 
Investment and Jobs Act. And while this funding has only 
recently been allocated to States, we are working closely with 
IEPA to ensure that Chicago can take full advantage of these 
resources, which include both the traditional low interest 
loans and forgivable loans. We appreciate EPA's focus on 
equity. And the forgivable loans would allow us to use some of 
this funding for the private side replacements.
    However, this funding can only be accessed if a city, to a 
private city, if the State's definition of disadvantaged 
community is changed. But we are committed to working closely 
with IEPA to formulate a new definition that allows all the 
communities of a State, regardless of size, to access this 
grant funding.
    Senator Duckworth. I think that last point is really 
important, that we understand what the definition of a 
disadvantaged community is.
    Ms. Gore, your organization, Elevate, has done some 
incredible work in Illinois when it comes to tackling lead in 
drinking water. Your organization has partnered with several 
groups to test and remove sources of lead in drinking water at 
several childcare facilities, protecting thousands of children 
from the harmful effects of lead poisoning.
    I know that Elevate currently administers, with the 
Illinois Department of Public Health and Illinois EPA, LeadCare 
Illinois, which is a free, statewide lead and water testing and 
training program for licensed childcare providers. In May, 
Elevate will be launching a new program, called LeadCare 
Complete, for licensed childcare providers in the city of 
Chicago itself. The program will offer free internal plumbing 
upgrades to providers with lead in their drinking water.
    These programs are incredible and really get to the heart 
of the issue for me, which is protecting children. Could you 
talk a little bit about these programs and what grants or 
sources of funding you have used to finance them?
    Ms. Gore. Absolutely, thank you. These programs are funded 
by the EPA Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation 
Act, that is WIIN, particularly using the EPA's Voluntary Lead 
Testing in Schools and Childcare grant program. So this funding 
is a resource that creates or expands programs to test for lead 
in drinking water at schools and childcare programs in the 
U.S., and it laid the foundation for LeadCare Illinois, which 
focuses on childcares.
    So this program is administered by Elevate in partnership 
with Illinois Action for Children. In addition to free testing 
resources, LeadCare Illinois also offers providers training on 
how to test and mitigate sources of lead in drinking water. It 
has a call center available to providers to answer their 
questions and concerns.
    Since its launch in January 2021, the program has served 
approximately 700 childcare providers, of which 42 percent have 
found lead in their water. So I cannot overstate the value of 
childcare providers, who are business owners and operators as 
well, of knowing this information and having resources to 
actually do something about it, to keep their businesses 
running, and importantly, to comply with the State of Illinois' 
Department of Children and Family Services testing 
requirements.
    As you mentioned, in May, Elevate will be launching a new 
program called LeadCare Complete for licensed childcare 
providers in the city of Chicago. That will offer free internal 
plumbing upgrades to providers with lead in their drinking 
water. Again, this is USEPA WIIN grant funding, with support 
graciously from the city of Chicago.
    Prior to WIIN and the Voluntary Lead Testing in Schools and 
Childcare grant program, there were no statewide resources for 
facilities to test for lead. So we have seen lead levels as 
high or higher than front levels at some of these facilities. 
They would only have found out by accessing these free 
resources.
    So right now, I just want to extend my gratitude, and thank 
you, Chair Duckworth, for your foresight and your early, 
consistent efforts to make sure that children are safe and 
families are protected from the ripple effects of lead 
poisoning, which I personally know can be a huge burden on 
families.
    Also thank you to my colleagues, Caroline, Elizabeth, and 
Eliza, from the Elevate water team, who are leading these water 
programs are really doing the work. That early funding was a 
great step, and the expansion to do the removal and replacement 
under DWWIA, again, thank you, Chair Duckworth, is going to be 
a direction that we need to keep going in to make sure that 
these facilities have a comprehensive service that preserves 
and improves the integrity of their buildings and grounds, and 
that the threat of lead is completely removed on the site.
    Senator Duckworth. Thank you, Ms. Gore.
    Commissioner Cheng, I want to come back to you a little bit 
on the cost of removing the lead service lines. The EPA 
estimates an average cost of around $4,700 to remove each lead 
service line with costs ranging in the Nation from $1,200 to 
$12,300 per line. However, it is estimated that it will cost 
about $25,000 to replace the lead service lines per household 
in Chicago. This is more than three times the national average.
    Could you explain why the costs are so high to replace the 
lead service lines in Chicago? Are there measures we can take 
to decrease these costs?
    Ms. Cheng. Yes, thank you. Comparing one city's cost for 
lead service line replacement to another city's cost can 
sometimes be like comparing apples to oranges, depending on 
what they consider part of the scope for lead service line 
replacement. In Chicago, our cost is $15,000 to $30,000 
including public side replacement, private side replacement, 
water meter installation if one doesn't exist, private sewer 
drain replacement, basic restoration outside the home, and 
patching up where the entry hole is dug in the basement.
    However, not all cities included restoration or private 
side costs in their estimates, and most cities do not have to 
perform private sewer drain replacement as part of their lead 
service line replacement. This is because of differences in 
urban density and State regulations.
    In Illinois, the Illinois Department of Public Health 
regulates the water service lines and private sewer drains. And 
current regulations require that water service lines and 
private sewer drains be separated spatially or replaced with a 
more watertight material, regardless of the surrounding 
conditions.
    Like in many older cities, the lead service lines being 
replaced in Chicago are often too close laterally to the 
private sewer drain, triggering a requirement to either move 
the private sewer drain or replace the private drain, which 
requires large trenches. This is so disruptive to a homeowner's 
property that some will turn down completely free lead service 
line replacement because of it. In addition, it adds 35 percent 
to 50 percent to the overall lead service line replacement 
cost.
    So Chicago is working with the Illinois Department of 
Public Health to explore options for maximizing the public 
health benefit from the water line-sewer drain separation while 
acknowledging the significant health benefit from lead service 
line replacement. I am happy to announce that last month, IDPH 
announced a newly created, statewide variance so that 
additional nearby sewer infrastructure doesn't have to be 
replaced as a part of lead service line replacement as long as 
the private sewer drain is intact and not leaking.
    We are waiting on a final version of the variance which 
will hopefully come shortly, and will be a huge step for 
Chicago's lead service line programs, allowing us to use less 
expensive and faster trenchless methods for construction. 
Trenchless techniques also help us save trees compared to 
traditional trenching.
    Senator Duckworth. Thank you.
    Dr. Williams, this is the largest Federal investment in 
water infrastructure and lead service line replacement in the 
history of the country, with $15 billion going to States to 
replace their lead service lines. However, we know that it is 
estimated to cost about $45 billion to replace all the lead 
service lines across America.
    What options will need to be explored after States receive 
this initial $15 billion investment in lead service line 
replacement funding?
    Mr. Williams. Thank you for the question, Senator. It is 
really going to take every level of government working together 
to figure out how to fund the balance. Certainly, the Federal 
Government, we would love to see additional grant funding from 
the Federal Government to give to communities to help them to 
this work in a way that makes it affordable to every resident. 
I know you are working tirelessly on that, and we genuinely 
appreciate your efforts on that.
    At the State level, States are going to need to come up 
with new funding sources to help complement Federal grant 
funding. That may be in the form of bonds; that may be in the 
form of new revenue streams. I want to say that the State will 
be considering many of these options in an upcoming taskforce 
that was mandated by the Lead Service Line Replacement and 
Notification Act of 2021. The Lead Service Line Replacement 
Advisory Board is going to start meeting soon, and is 
explicitly tasked with exploring some of these options. So I 
will look forward to seeing those.
    Then at the local level, certainly there is going to be a 
need for many of the creative financing mechanisms that 
Commissioner Cheng has already talked about. Additionally, 
finding ways to bring costs down on lead service line 
replacement, so that communities can maximize the impact of 
available grant funding.
    One way that communities can do that is through 
coordination. So coordinating on the one hand, on 
infrastructure projects happening within municipal boundaries, 
so as communities do water main replacements, and as they do 
street resurfacings, they can take advantage of those 
infrastructure projects to bring the per service line costs 
down per replacement. That is going to take advance foresight 
and planning, and as we talked about already, some communities 
are going to need assistance coming up with that advance 
foresight and planning.
    But also, communities can explore options to collaborate 
and coordinate across municipal boundaries. The bottom line is 
that in Illinois, many Illinois communities are going to be 
going through this work at the exact same moment. And the more 
communities can be learning from their neighbors about what 
works well, what helps them bring their costs down, what didn't 
go so well and that they could have done better, or ways to 
engineer joint procurement agreements to potentially buy in 
bulk and bring costs down, all of these sorts of cost 
efficiencies will also be an important tool for local 
government entities.
    So it is really going to take creative approaches from 
every level of government.
    Senator Duckworth. Thank you.
    Director Kim, in your testimony you state that applying for 
funding under the existing SRF structure involves a lot of 
expertise and work, including completing an environmental 
impact statement to ensure compliance with the National 
Environmental Protection Act and other intimidating documents. 
Through my DWWIA bill, we are trying to ensure that all 
communities have increased access to funding. However, the 
process for actually applying to receive this money could be 
prohibitive for disadvantaged communities and small communities 
in particular.
    Do you have ideas or thoughts on how we can make applying 
to SRFs and grant money easier for these communities that need 
it the most and may not have the up front dollars to go through 
the process?
    Mr. Kim. Yes, again, I want to echo the other colleagues, I 
think the work that you have been doing to highlight this 
issue, the work on DWWIA, and placing the emphasis on Federal 
funding is obviously crucial to providing the fiscal side of 
that puzzle. But there are issues. For example, one of the 
points is what you raised. USEPA has existing cross cutting 
requirements which require the application of certain 
requirements for different programs, with the understanding or 
with the theory that they should be applying regardless, 
because of the subject matter being general enough.
    But really, that does create some questions. Because if you 
look at the type of work that we are talking about here, for 
lead service line replacement, it does call into question what 
the utility of something like an environmental impact statement 
would be, or compliance with National Historic Preservation Act 
requirements, the Coastal Area Protection Act. These are 
requirements that are obviously, while well intended are 
certainly applicable in certain instances.
    But a good argument could be made that these types of 
requirements are really not something that are directly 
relevant to this type of work, and therefore what they 
represent is simply one extra burden, one extra cost, and one 
extra obstacle that has to be addressed by a small community. 
Especially as you noted, when you are talking about smaller 
size communities, they simply do not have the wherewithal to be 
able to take on that kind of obligation on their own. They will 
need to access some Federal funding, either on their own or 
something provided with assistance from the State or the 
Federal level, to go out and secure that kind of assistance.
    So the more attention that can be paid at the Federal level 
to provide that kind of money, and I know that was specifically 
one of the key points of DWWIA, again, what we feel is going to 
be helpful with our $2 million appropriation where we are going 
to be applying that in grant funding to those types of impacted 
communities, those are the things we think are important.
    But taking out some of those regulatory requirements that 
are embedded within the SRF program for this type of particular 
work would be a big help. That could be done by USEPA 
considering things such as waivers of certain types of 
requirements like this, USEPA taking an extra step of providing 
some technical assistance, financial centers, things like that, 
so that they could provide some resources to these smaller 
communities or these under-resourced communities so that they 
can have that sort of leg up or that lift up to try and help 
them get to the point where they can begin to access these 
funds.
    From our perspective, what we have been trying to do is to 
anticipate these needs as much as possible. So again, in 
addition to the additional funding that we are talking about, 
our staff, we try to staff up, we anticipate the increased 
demand that we are going to be seeing from the Federal money, 
which is we think fantastic. We want to make sure that from a 
resource perspective, administrative resource perspective, that 
we are able to do that. So we have additional project managers, 
we have additional accountants. So we feel we are ready to take 
on that additional influx of work.
    As we noted, the State law does require these steps to be 
taken. But yes, those are the types of regulatory obstacles at 
the Federal level that if they were taken out or waived, would 
certainly make it a lot easier for some of these communities to 
be able to take those big, important steps.
    Senator Duckworth. Thank you.
    Dr. Williams, could you address that a little bit about 
what are some of the challenges that your communities face in 
accessing funding, and what programs you think could help 
improve this?
    Mr. Williams. Certainly. So as Director Kim has noted, 
communities vary widely in their ability to access Federal 
funding streams. Really, it happens across the whole cycle of 
the Federal funding application and monitoring process.
    So there are sort of three big areas where communities 
might need assistance in accessing Federal funding. That is 
identifying the funds to apply for, then actually completing 
the application, then reporting and monitoring. In the first 
place, there are actually quite a few Federal programs, 
thankfully, that address lead service line replacement. And 
while that is a real asset to communities, it can also be very 
confusing for a resource constrained utility and municipality 
to understand which one is the right fit for them for that 
project.
    Even within the SRF, for instance, a community may not know 
whether they are eligible for a grant or principal forgiveness 
of other assistance. They may be prohibited at the outset from 
applying because they don't really understand whether or not 
that is the right program for them.
    So in the second place, as Director Kim highlighted very 
well, communities face barriers in terms of finishing the 
application. Certainly, there are financial documents and 
planning documents that for staff in a small to mid-size 
utility, the staff may be in some instances part time. They may 
be dealing with other infrastructure priorities on their plate, 
and may have limited experience dealing with the SRF. And 
compiling all of these forms into one place, working through 
all of them, can be prohibitive. They may struggle to complete 
that and get that application into IEPA.
    Then finally, at the reporting state, many of these same 
obstacles apply. Communities may not have the kinds of data 
reporting infrastructure and experience with certain Federal 
monitoring forms that allow them to be in compliance with 
Federal reporting. A lot of this is about a mismatch of sorts 
between the complexities of applying for and reporting on and 
going through the Federal application processes on one hand, 
and constrained municipal staff capacity. Oftentimes, municipal 
staff are dealing with multiple, competing immediate 
priorities. And it can be very, very challenging for them to 
access the funding.
    I am thrilled to hear Director Kim talk about assistance 
programs that IEPA is considering right now, because it is 
badly needed for Illinois communities to help them really move 
through the entire scope of the SRF process. Helping 
communities understand which funding source is right for them 
to apply to, helping them compile all the necessary application 
forms together and complete those, and then helping communities 
understand the best way to comply with reporting requirements, 
all of that is going to be tremendously needed for Illinois 
communities in the years ahead.
    Senator Duckworth. I couldn't agree with you more. And I 
think that technical assistance and that help is needed, 
especially in communities of smaller size. So to have a 
threshold to say, well, we are going to help communities, only 
communities of a population of 25,000 or something like that, 
that is what we are going to after, that is what we consider 
the community really needs to be high, and a lot of the just 
smaller communities that perhaps are in a downward spiral where 
there is no tax base, to even come up with anything to fix the 
water problems that they have.
    Ms. Gore, to build off of what Dr. Williams was discussing 
which I think was really important is this idea of community 
outreach. But communities may not even know what they qualify 
for, or what help there is. As you said so perfectly in your 
testimony, in your experience, if the message doesn't reach the 
people, the money certainly will not. What a perfect statement, 
and I wholeheartedly agree with you.
    Can you explain, Ms. Gore, how using this technical 
assistance in a community at a hyper-local level is critical to 
helping us deliver the message about how these programs work, 
and why they are necessary, and what sorts of impacts these 
outreach efforts can have?
    Ms. Gore. Absolutely, thank you. I applaud everyone's 
comments here that the technical assistance is going to be 
critical.
    So at Elevate, we often work in partnership with 
Metropolitan Planning Council on our water initiatives. So we 
have done this kind of work in the city of Chicago and the city 
of Evanston, and we are experienced in other cities in the vein 
of water affordability and lead service line replacement. We 
are learning a great deal about just what everyday folks are 
dealing with. That is really the data rich information that 
needs to be paired with the technical expertise to really get a 
program off the ground.
    The takeaway from that work has really been that technical 
assistance is a capacity building function. It must leave 
evidence of its effectiveness. And so there should be an 
intentional community outreach and engagement plan to 
facilitate dialogue and actionable solutions. And stakeholders 
need to be engaged as early as possible.
    Technical assistance is transferring knowledge that builds 
confidence and the ability to respond to opportunities and 
threats. In the one utility, other municipal officials and 
community members are sharing their culture, their current 
state of affairs, even their vulnerabilities with these folks 
who are offering technical assistance. So it demands trust, it 
demands respect, and an unwavering commitment to journey 
through with these community leaders and not have technical 
assistance folks do the transactional in and out sort of thing.
    There is no savior complex and no poverty peddling 
necessary in this process. Community engagement and outreach is 
critical to understand attitudes, values, beliefs, perceptions, 
levers that can trigger behavior change. These things advance 
or impede where you can move as far as those threats and 
opportunities.
    That was aptly demonstrated in Newark. They had a 
significant timeline reduction because they had a very robust 
community engagement strategy, and the completion of their lead 
service line replacement was cut by 7 years. So we have seen it 
in action. It helps with values, mission alignment, working 
through that process of building trust, and productive dialogue 
for how you enter, exist, and may even leave a communal or 
business and public space. And definitely, as Commissioner 
Cheng was talking about, how you enter private and residential 
spaces. These are things that can definitely stop a program in 
its tracks.
    So I will just say that for technical assistance, again, it 
is capacity building, it is sense making and organizing, and it 
is absolutely critical to engage all stakeholders as early as 
possible to make this a resilient process.
    Senator Duckworth. Thank you. I think it is important to 
talk about what exactly we mean when we talk about a 
disadvantaged community that may need greater technical 
assistance or greater outreach.
    Director Kim, in my DWWIA bill, one of the main themes was 
bringing increased grants and lower cost shares so that small, 
rural, tribal, and disadvantaged communities receive priority 
in Federal funding programs wherever possible, and removing 
barriers for them to qualify for these funds.
    In Federal law governing the SRFs, we have definitions for 
what ``small communities'' are, and what a disadvantaged 
community is. They are defined separately from one another. A 
small community and a disadvantaged community, there might be 
some overlap, but they are defined separately, and they both 
have their own challenges. We do not require a disadvantaged 
community to be a small community, for example.
    However, Illinois EPA uses a definition for ``disadvantaged 
community'' that has a small population requirement. As Chicago 
has the most lead service lines of any cities in the country, 
it is worth noting that it would not be qualified as a priority 
here because of the size.
    Director Kim, do you believe that Illinois' definition of a 
disadvantaged community is the most accurate way to allow for 
prioritization of funds to communities most in need? And I do 
know that the State legislature has passed a law that creates a 
commission to reevaluate this definition. Would Illinois and 
Illinois EPA ever consider making changes to this definition?
    Mr. Kim. Thank you. Those are very good questions. I first 
want to note that it is important to recognize that to date we 
have not turned down any application for lead service line 
replacement in the State. All of the applications that we have 
approved have been 100 percent fiscal forgiveness. That 
includes communities that are well above 25,000 in number.
    That is because, as you note, the definition of 
disadvantaged community that is in our State Revolving Fund 
regulations is not the definition that we apply in utilizing 
our lead service line replacement work. That is because we were 
able to balance both the existing principal forgiveness 
abilities under the capitalization grants under our existing 
SRF program, and then also the 100 percent principal 
forgiveness under the WIFTA transfer money from the Booker Act. 
So between those two pots of money, the additional 20 projects 
that I discussed have all been principal forgiveness free. The 
only definition we have actually applied in those cases is 
simply that the community water supply has a connection to 
those lead service lines.
    So now, looking forward, in terms of what definition would 
serve us best, we would agree that a definition needs to be 
more attuned to the specifics of addressing this type of work. 
And so along those lines, we have already been working on 
developing a definition that we would utilize for our Fiscal 
Year 2024 Intended Use Plan and that would also be something 
that we would codify in our rules.
    As you noted, there is a State law, Senate Bill 3905, that 
does call for the creation of a commission that would work on 
exactly this type of topic. We have had a number of good 
conversations with the proponents behind that bill. I think the 
work we have done already to date and our expected timeline of 
when we would like to get that done will certainly mesh well 
with the bill's timeline. The legislation calls for 
recommendations to be provided to our State legislature at the 
conclusion of the allotted time, which is sometime early next 
year. Our goal is to have something in place from a regulatory 
perspective so that those recommendations might actually simply 
note back to our existing new definition.
    We will be taking all those kinds of considerations into 
account. But again, so far, we have turned down no community 
for lead service line replacement work.
    Senator Duckworth. That is good to know. Thank you.
    Ms. Gore, I want to talk again about this definition of 
disadvantaged community. Does it concern you that population is 
used as the first deciding factor in the Illinois determination 
of whether a community qualifies as disadvantaged? And if so, 
could you explain why?
    Ms. Gore. Absolutely. I am just overjoyed to hear that 
Director Kim is not necessarily following that to the letter, 
that you are finding workarounds, so that you don't turn down 
any communities. That is extremely important.
    But there are plenty of communities in Illinois that have 
populations below 25,000 but the average median income for the 
household is in the seventies. So it is small, but it is 
stable, and they can facilitate getting its share of funds and 
probably has a more stable government.
    So if the population is the deciding factor, that cuts 
directly into the ability to target funds to people that really 
need the assistance.
    I just have a couple of quick thoughts on this because this 
was a contentious point when I was doing my energy efficiency 
work as well. There are communities in Illinois that are 
categorized as economically distressed. So that is looking at 
property values and poverty levels that are producing these 
outcomes of weak markets and a devastated tax base. When 
agriculture, manufacturing, and heavy industrial construction 
jobs are outsourced or go away because of technological shifts, 
these communities, whether they are below or over 25,000, are 
feeling the hardship reverberating from their dinner tables to 
their city council dais. It is a real problem.
    So environmental jobs and energy and natural resources, 
water, and the hopes of other occupations can really help bring 
community and economic development back online for these 
communities, and lead service line replacement can be one of 
those catalysts. If we take a look again at some of the stuff 
at the Federal level, new market tax credits and opportunity 
zones programs help. The basic eligibility for those programs, 
they are using census tracks with income at or lower than 80 
percent area needed income, or poverty greater than 20 percent. 
But those things are not used in the definition of a 
disadvantaged community right now.
    Other factors to be taken into account include health 
equity, which is termed medically underserved areas at the 
Federal level, and FEMA disaster zones. I won't go too far into 
all of those different factors. But in the evaluation of 
particularly the opportunity zones programs, the lack of 
community engagement and the involvement have very negative 
impacts on the community, the way the community perceives the 
program and its participants, and their employment and housing 
situations as well. It is very well documented by institutions, 
by Brookings, and the Urban Institute.
    So my real question here is, why can we take all of that 
into account for folks who can form LLCs and take advantage of 
these tax havens, but when it comes to the water system and 
public health issues, crises across the Nation, none of those 
things are mentioned? It is very unnerving to me.
    So I would urge decisionmakers and leadership who are 
drafting this definition to just consider that prior and 
emerging work that has been done for the number of terms that 
we have used to describe these communities, small, rural, 
disadvantaged, distressed, and other terms.
    Just today, the River Network just hosted their last 
workshop on State Revolving Loan Funds. And there is a 
particular presentation on State Revolving Loan Fund policy 
frameworks that was presented by the Environmental Policy 
Innovation Center which provides a lot of social determinants 
for how that can be incorporated into this definition of 
disadvantaged communities. Again, look at groups like Economic 
Intervention Group, Brookings, PolicyLink, look at the 
communities in Illinois that are designating themselves as 
environmental justice communities through programs like 
Illinois Solar for All, which we administer at Elevate for the 
Illinois Power Authority.
    For those designations that they are doing at the community 
level, that is their voice. It is community based collaborative 
work, and it can be integrated into the disadvantaged 
communities definition scoping. Those collaborations reflect 
long term trust and relationship building and enables 
communities to be ready when funding comes down the line, not 
to always have to react. They can be prepared.
    And these thinkers and doers have provided, again, rich 
information, and the definition should consider social 
determinants on health, income, municipal financial fitness, 
levels of contamination, even using violations that have 
occurred at the water system through EPA to talk about, well, 
is there a capacity issue while the violation is occurring? 
Let's turn that into something that can be positive and 
actionable for that community.
    Again, there is so much information to address these gaps. 
Consider it all, and take what is needed.
    Senator Duckworth. Thank you.
    When we were writing DWWIA, the fastest way to get money to 
these States for lead service line replacement was to allocate 
the funding through the State Revolving Funds, a system that 
was already in place, so we wouldn't have to create something 
new. However, this allocation is done through a formula, and 
not based on estimated lead service line burden. And if you 
were to do it based on an estimated lead service line burden, 
obviously Illinois would qualify for so much more, because we 
have so much of the lead service lines in the country.
    Dr. Williams, can you explain how the SRFs actually work in 
reality, and how we may be able to improve this lead funding 
allocation to be more representative of the actual existence of 
lead service lines in the future across this country?
    Mr. Williams. Yes, absolutely, Senator. As you point out, 
the SRF is distributed to States based on a formula. And the 
way that formula is produced is every 4 years, USEPA does a 
process called the Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey 
and Assessment. Through that assessment, USEPA does, as the 
name would suggest, surveys and assesses how much need there is 
for drinking water infrastructure upgrades, maintenance, in the 
coming years, and then assigns a percentage value to each State 
and territory to say how much of Federal SRF appropriations 
each State and territory is going to get.
    In Illinois, our SRF allotment is under the current 2018 
needs assessment, and it is 3.77 percent. Consequently, of the 
$15 billion available for lead service line replacement through 
the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, Illinois is estimated to get 
about $565 million over the next 5 years. The first 
distribution of that has been made.
    Unfortunately, as you pointed out, that needs assessment 
from 2018 did not take into account lead service line 
replacement costs per State. And what that means is States with 
some of the highest lead burden, so we are talking about States 
like not only Illinois, but Michigan, Indiana, Ohio, Wisconsin, 
these States are getting significantly less of the lead service 
line replacement funding than their share of those national 
lead service line burdens would suggest.
    So for an example, in Illinois, Illinois is estimated to 
have approximately 12 percent of the Nation's lead service 
lines. And if Illinois were receiving a commensurate share of 
the $15 billion in funding, that would be $1.8 billion. So you 
can see that there is a pretty big gap, $1.3 billion or so, 
between the old SRF allotment currently designating funds to 
Illinois in fiscal year 2022 and the amount of funding that 
Illinois would receive if it was receiving a proportional 
share. Every year that that funding goes out according to that 
old formula is hundreds of millions of dollars that Illinois is 
not going to be able to take advantage of, although its need is 
still there.
    Fortunately, there is an opportunity to address this on the 
near horizon. USEPA is currently updating the Drinking Water 
Infrastructure Needs Survey and Assessment. This update 
currently underway by law must specifically include reference 
to lead service line replacement costs in States and 
territories. That is a straightforward way that USEPA can start 
to address this problem. It is critical that this happen as 
soon as possible in 2022, so that distributions of lead service 
line replacement funding in fiscal year 2023 can distribute 
that funding according to each State and territory's lead 
service line replacement need.
    Senator Duckworth. Thank you. That is a great explanation.
    As we are coming up on time, we will bring this hearing to 
an end. But before we adjourn, some housekeeping. Senators will 
be allowed to submit questions for the record through close of 
business on May 5th. We will compile those questions, send them 
to our witnesses and ask our witnesses to reply by May 19th.
    I want to thank all the witnesses for participating in this 
important hearing. The discussions we have had today will help 
us navigate this process more efficiently and for us to work 
together to make lead pipes in Illinois and in our Nation a 
thing of the past.
    With that, the hearing is adjourned. Thank you.
    [Whereupon, at 5:37 p.m. CDT, the hearing was adjourned.]

                           [all]