[Senate Hearing 118-22]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                                                        S. Hrg. 118-22

                   IMPLEMENTING IIJA: PERSPECTIVES ON
          THE DRINKING WATER AND WASTEWATER INFRASTRUCTURE ACT

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

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                              COMMITTEE ON
                      ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                             MARCH 15, 2023

                               __________

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


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

                                
                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
52-512 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2023                    
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------      
        
        
        
               COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                  THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware, Chairman
          SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia, Ranking Member

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland         KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont             CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island     MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon                 PETE RICKETTS, Nebraska
EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts      JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan            ROGER WICKER, Mississippi
MARK KELLY, Arizona                  DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska
ALEX PADILLA, California             LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina
JOHN FETTERMAN, Pennsylvania

               Courtney Taylor, Democratic Staff Director
               Adam Tomlinson, Republican Staff Director
                            
                            
                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

                             MARCH 15, 2023
                           OPENING STATEMENTS

Carper, Hon. Thomas R., U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware..     1
Capito, Hon. Shelley Moore, U.S. Senator from the State of West 
  Virginia.......................................................     3

                               WITNESSES

Fox, Hon. Radhika, Assistant Administrator, Office of Water, 
  Environmental Protection Agency................................     6
    Prepared statement...........................................     9
    Responses to additional questions from Senator Carper........    18
    Response to an additional question from Senator Fetterman....    23
    Responses to additional questions from Senator Capito........    25
    Response to an additional question from:
        Senator Cramer...........................................    28
        Senator Lummis...........................................    30
    Responses to additional questions from:
        Senator Mullin...........................................    30
        Senator Sullivan.........................................    32
Hayman, Randy E., Commissioner and CEO, Philadelphia Water 
  Department.....................................................    70
    Prepared statement...........................................    73
    Responses to additional questions from Senator Carper........    82
Sigmund, Thomas W., President, National Association of Clean 
  Water Agencies, Executive Director, NEW Water..................    90
    Prepared statement...........................................    93
    Responses to additional questions from Senator Carper........   161
Emery, Katheryn D., Director, Division of Water and Waste 
  Management, West Virginia Department of Environmental 
  Protection.....................................................   166
    Prepared statement...........................................   168
    Responses to additional questions from Senator Carper........   175

                          ADDITIONAL MATERIAL

Letter to Senator Charles Schumer et al. from the American 
  Sustainable Business Network, March 6, 2023....................    45
Letter to Senators Carper and Capito from the California 
  Association of Sanitation Agencies, March 15, 2023.............   188
Letter to Senators Carper and Capito from American Rivers, March 
  14, 2023.......................................................   192
Testimony of the Council of Infrastructure Financing Authorities, 
  March 15, 2023.................................................   220

 
 IMPLEMENTING IIJA: PERSPECTIVES ON THE DRINKING WATER AND WASTEWATER 
                           INFRASTRUCTURE ACT

                              ----------                              


                       WEDNESDAY, MARCH 15, 2023

                                       U.S. Senate,
                 Committee on Environment and Public Works,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m. in 
room 406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Thomas R. Carper 
(Chairman of the Committee) presiding.
    Present: Senators Carper, Capito, Cardin, Markey, Kelly, 
Cramer, Lummis, Sullivan, and Ricketts.

          OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER, 
            U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE

    Senator Carper. Good morning. Let me call this hearing to 
order.
    We are here today to examine the implementation of the 
Drinking Water and Wastewater portions of the Bipartisan 
Infrastructure Law. As you will recall, this historic 
bipartisan law is helping to deliver clean drinking water to 
millions of households and schools across our country.
    Before we do that, let me start by saying how grateful I am 
to both panels of witnesses that are joining us today, 
including representatives of drinking water, clean water, as 
well as small and large utilities. We are particularly 
appreciative that Assistant Administrator Radhika Fox, who 
leads EPA's Office of Water, has joined us.
    Welcome.
    To all of our guests; we have a lot of folks, Senator 
Capito, I don't think we have had that many photos before a 
hearing in a long time. We want to remember this day.
    Yesterday, the Biden administration took a major step in 
addressing the presence of toxic forever chemicals known as 
PFAS in our drinking water. This announcement was some 20 years 
in the making. It is an issue that is very important to, as it 
turns out, to West Virginia and to Delaware, and frankly, to 
all the other 48 States across the country. I want to commend 
the President; I want to commend Administrator Regan, Assistant 
Administrator Fox, and all of EPA for proposing a thoughtful, 
science based, national drinking water standard for PFAS.
    This critical step to protecting our drinking water comes 
on top of the President calling for significant investments to 
protect our public health and environment in his proposed 2024 
budget released last week. In his budget, the President 
requested more than $12 billion for EPA, $1.9 billion, a 19 
percent increase from the 2023 enacted level. More than $4 
billion of that proposal is reserved for water infrastructure. 
That includes an additional $219 million for grants to reduce 
the amount of lead in drinking water, to test for and remove 
lead in schools, and to replace lead pipes.
    This budget builds on the Committee's work in the 
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law to invest in our nation's water 
infrastructure, which brings us to the topic of today's 
hearing: Oversight of the implementation of the drinking water 
and wastewater portions of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.
    As we have discussed, Democrats and Republicans on this 
panel, it is not just enough to enact landmark legislation like 
this, but it is important that it be appropriately implemented 
and that we exercise our responsibilities with respect to 
oversight. That is part of what we are doing here today.
    Our work on this Committee to improve our water 
infrastructure is personal to me. We have some folks here from 
West Virginia who have joined us; welcome.
    If you're from West Virginia, raise your hand. If you would 
like to be from West Virginia, raise your hand.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Carper. Almost everybody, for the record.
    Our work in this Committee is to improve our water and 
infrastructure. As I said, it is personal to me, rooted in my 
faith and my family's history in Raleigh County, West Virginia. 
Some of you may recall that Matthew 25 calls on all of us to 
actually care for those that are in need, the least of these, 
to give those that are thirsty something to drink. For me, this 
includes that ensuring that Americans have access to clean, 
safe, and reliable water services.
    Some of you may recall, I was born in Beckley, in a coal 
mining town in the southern part of the State. For 2 of those 6 
years that we actually lived there, my first 6 years of my 
life, we lived alongside a stream. Our Ranking Member has heard 
of Beaver; she's been to Beaver right outside of Beckley many 
times. There is a creek that goes through there called Beaver 
Creek. My sister and I lived alongside Beaver Creek.
    We would play along the banks of that creek. We would try 
to catch small fish, sometimes frogs, and we were never allowed 
to eat any of them. Nor were we allowed to drink the water from 
Beaver Creek. That is because many of the nearby septic tanks 
were not well maintained, and as a result raw sewage and other 
pollution could seep into that creek. At the time, our 
situation was not too different from that of many other small 
communities in West Virginia and across the country.
    In the years that followed, our Government has responded to 
this water crisis by creating grant and later loan programs 
that made it easier for communities across our country to build 
and upgrade drinking water and wastewater treatment systems. 
Over time, these programs languished and were in dire need of 
updating.
    That is why I, along with our Ranking Member, Senator 
Capito, Senator Cardin, Senator Lummis, Senator Duckworth, 
Senator Cramer, and many other members of this Committee and 
off this Committee joined forces to address this need. We 
worked in an overwhelmingly bipartisan way to draft the 
Drinking Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Act. You will 
recall that our legislation included historic investments in 
EPA's State Revolving Funds. Those funds were the primary 
vehicle for State and local governments to finance water 
infrastructure projects throughout America.
    We advanced our legislation out of Committee unanimously 
and later passed it out of the full Senate by a vote of 89 to 
2. If the American people are looking for bipartisanship, they 
need look no further than this Committee and its work on 
infrastructure. This water bill, combined with our Committee's 
historic highway legislation, roads, highways, bridges, served 
as the foundation of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, which 
President Biden signed into law in November 2021, a happy day 
for all of us.
    The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law invested an unprecedented 
$55 billion, $55 billion, that's billion with a B, to improve 
drinking water and wastewater systems in communities across our 
country, and it was paid for, fully offset. This remains the 
single largest water infrastructure investment in our nation's 
history. Let me repeat that: This remains the single largest 
water infrastructure investment in our nation's history. Now, 
EPA has the responsibility of putting these dollars, these 
investments, to work for all of the American people.
    Today's hearing is an opportunity to gain a deeper 
understanding of how this process is going. This hearing will 
allow us to explore future opportunities to improve the way we 
invest in our drinking water and wastewater infrastructure. 
That includes investigating how the Bipartisan Infrastructure 
Law programs are benefiting communities with the greatest need 
and what additional authorities or changes might be needed to 
make the program function better.
    I like to say, everything I do, I know I can do better. And 
as proud as we are of this legislation, we know that we can 
still improve on it further. For example, is there more that 
could be done to adapt these programs to changes in our climate 
and our population and the age of our infrastructure?
    As I said earlier, we look forward to hearing from our 
distinguished panels of witnesses today. Before we do, let me 
turn to Senator Capito for her opening remarks.
    Senator Capito, you are recognized.

        OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, 
          U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA

    Senator Capito. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank all of 
you for being here today.
    I would like to thank Assistant Administrator Fox for not 
just being here today but for the lines of communication that 
you have kept open, as you promised in your hearing when you 
came before this Committee. You have stayed true to your word. 
I certainly appreciate that, from my perspective.
    I would also like to thank you for finally, after many 
years of me banging the gavel and the gong and also with the 
Chair to set that safe drinking level for PFAS. That is going 
to have many impacts across the country. Certainly, safe, 
clean, and healthy water is at the top of the list for all of 
us.
    This Committee values your perspectives on the challenges, 
and other witnesses' as well, facing this nation's water 
infrastructure, as well as your insights on implementing the 
effective solutions to these challenges. Today's hearing is 
focused on a topic that is of critical importance, and the 
Chairman has covered much of this, to the health and well being 
of our communities, our environment, and our economy: Clean and 
efficient drinking water and wastewater systems.
    All Americans deserve this. We deserve to have reliable, 
affordable water and sanitation. I am very proud of the 
bipartisan work of this Committee that we accomplished in the 
last Congress to address America's drinking water and 
wastewater investment backlog. It is such a backlog. The DWWIA 
Act, as we call it, was written by this Committee and is a key 
pillar of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. It 
created new programs, opportunities, and support to address 
current water infrastructure needs and ongoing challenges in 
small, rural, and disadvantaged communities.
    In this hearing, we will explore the current state of our 
nation's water resources, the challenges that we face in 
protecting them, and how we can implement policies in the IIJA 
to help ensure that every person has access to clean drinking 
water. I look forward to hearing from our expert witnesses and 
engaging in a thoughtful and productive discussion on this 
crucial issue.
    The IIJA authorized $55 billion in funding, as the Chairman 
said, the largest investment ever, for a range of water 
infrastructure programs, including grants for small and 
disadvantaged communities, funding for lead service line 
replacement, and support for innovative water technologies, as 
well as funding for wastewater treatment and stormwater 
management. These funding opportunities provide new resources 
to address the current challenges facing our waters 
infrastructure.
    Many communities, certainly in our States, are grappling 
with aging infrastructure that is in need of repair or 
replacement, while others are dealing with emerging 
contaminants like PFAS that require specialized treatment 
technologies. At the same time, small, rural, and disadvantaged 
communities often lack the resources and technical expertise 
needed to address these challenges, leaving us very vulnerable 
to water quality problems and public health risks.
    IIJA programs offer a wide range of funding opportunities 
to help address these challenges, from grants and low interest 
loans to technical assistance. These funds can support critical 
infrastructure upgrades including the replacement of lead 
service lines, the construction of new treatment facilities--I 
have actually toured some of these, as I think you have--and 
the implementation of advanced treatment technologies.
    Additionally, the funding can support capacity building 
initiatives, including work force development. Every water 
system I go to is really down on the numbers of people who are 
interested in working in water, but also the retirements that 
we are seeing across the board in the work force is really 
putting a strain on our systems. So we need to help there. We 
need to help communities build the expertise needed to manage 
and maintain their water systems, and frankly, we need to get 
the next generation excited about this as an opportunity and a 
career of the future.
    Despite these significant funding challenges, ongoing unmet 
needs in small, rural, and disadvantaged communities still 
remain a concern. As they have said, they lack some of the 
technical expertise. As we work to implement these programs, it 
will be important to ensure that the resources are targeted to 
the communities that need them the most and the necessary 
technical assistance and training programs to support them.
    As the EPA begins to deploy these significant financial 
investments in our infrastructure, I have concerns about how 
the agency is planning to implement some of the directives from 
Congress. We were very explicit in our bills, I think. The 
Biden administration has prioritized its environmental justice 
agenda. But it has not been shy to pull in, I think, political 
factors as they are doing that that are unrelated to water 
quality and health, key conditions for how this money should be 
spent, and even funding for States as it is reviewed by the 
agency. I am concerned that projects will not be considered 
based solely on needs related to the explicit statutory 
directives of safeguarding human health, keeping rates 
affordable, and protecting the environment.
    While all of us support empowering communities through 
economic development, it is important that we recognize that 
Federal investments to the Safe Drinking Water Act and Clean 
Water Act, as amended by the IIJA, should be directed to 
projects where the needs are most acute and in line with what 
Congress directed the agency to do in the statute. We shouldn't 
be sidetracked from responsibly investing in our aging 
infrastructure because we have such a historic bipartisan 
success here.
    Water systems do not align neatly with the Administration's 
effort to use census tracts to define EJ communities or 
politicizing the distribution of funds. We have run into this 
in West Virginia in some of the definitions. Congress was 
clear: Funding through DWWIA should encourage State flexibility 
through funding pots like the SRFs, and other grant programs 
should prioritize the need.
    Funds were firewalled between systems of various sizes to 
make sure that rural communities, small towns, and big cities 
all got their fair share without taking too big a slice of the 
pie. The EPA should implement these programs pursuant to the 
congressional intent, which resulted from some hard fought 
bipartisan compromises.
    I am committed to working on these issues that are so 
important to me, the citizens of West Virginia, and our 
country.
    I will close by saying what everyone in attendance knows: 
Water infrastructure investments are critical to public health, 
environmental health, and economic development. I want to see 
these new investments create a better quality of life, create 
more jobs, and drive the kind of quality of shared health 
benefits that we all care about.
    I also want to welcome in the next panel Kathy Emery from 
the great State of West Virginia and also Raleigh County. She 
is here with her husband Roy, her son Taylor, who goes to West 
Virginia University, and her other son is a graduate student at 
West Virginia University, as well.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Carper. Thank you.
    To our visitors from Raleigh County, my grandfather, great-
great-great-grandfather was one of the co-founders of Raleigh 
County. Our family was present at the creation. It is a special 
honor to have you here with all of us today.
    I ride back and forth on the train just about every day to 
Delaware. The other day I was talking with someone, and he used 
these words to talk about integrity. He said, integrity, if you 
have it, nothing else matters. Integrity, if you don't have it, 
nothing else matters. And the same, I think, could probably be 
said of water. If we have it, we have good, clean drinking 
water, it is not that nothing else matters, but that is hugely, 
hugely important to sustain life.
    As Governor, and I know my other colleagues have spent a 
lot of time on economic development and job creation in their 
States, I never talked to a business large or small who was 
looking to locate or expand a business who was interested in 
doing so in a place that didn't have good, clean drinking 
water. It is just critical in order to be successful in job 
creation and maintaining those jobs.
    With that having been said, it is now time to hear from our 
first panel. Joining us today is Radhika Fox, Assistant 
Administrator for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's 
Office of Water. In her role, Assistant Administrator Fox works 
to ensure that drinking water is safe, wastewater is safely 
returned to the environment, and surface waters are properly 
managed and protected.
    We thank you for the work that you do. You are recognized 
and may proceed at this time. Thank you so much for joining us.

STATEMENT OF HON. RADHIKA FOX, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE 
           OF WATER, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

    Ms. Fox. Thank you so much, and good morning, Chairman 
Carper, Ranking Member Capito, and members of the Committee. I 
am so honored to join you to provide an update on EPA's 
implementation of historic water infrastructure investments 
through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.
    Really, I just need to start by saying thank you. It really 
is the bipartisan leadership of this Committee that was so 
instrumental in securing over $50 billion to invest in clean 
and safe water in communities across America.
    I also want to take a moment to express my gratitude to the 
incredible career staff at EPA who are really the ones 
implementing this. I have some of the leadership from the 
Office of Groundwater and Drinking Water here with me today. It 
is really because of their dedication, their technical 
expertise, their hard work that we are delivering on the 
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law as promised to the American 
people.
    So let me give you a brief report out on how implementation 
is going at the EPA. Congress provided the majority of the 
water funding through the State Revolving Loan Funds program, 
the SRFs, about $43 billion. In March 2022, EPA issued our SRF 
implementation memo. That document established key priorities 
consistent with the legislation that has really been our north 
star for how we have been implementing this bill.
    The key priorities that we outlined in that SRF 
implementation memo were, one, to provide flexibility to States 
in meeting their local water needs, increasing investment in 
disadvantaged communities, making rapid progress on lead 
service line replacements, addressing PFAS and other emerging 
contaminants, advancing climate adaptation and mitigation, and 
supporting good jobs here in America.
    We engaged very closely with the States as we developed 
this implementation memo. We have a State SRF work group. And 
that has really set the foundation for a robust partnership 
with the States in implementing the Bipartisan Infrastructure 
Law.
    So here we are about 1 year later, and I am delighted to 
report that 47 States and six Tribes and territories have 
received nearly $5 billion in SRF funding in the first year. 
That is a big number, and I want to talk for a minute about 
what that means for people and for local communities.
    For example, because of these investments, Sierra Vista RV 
Park in Arizona will be able to remove arsenic and nitrates 
from their drinking water. Local government leaders in Sussex 
County, Delaware, will be able to connect hundreds of homes to 
a regional water system, which will also protect nearby marshes 
along the Delaware Bay. And in Pittsburgh, we are going to 
remove nearly 1,000 lead pipes in low income and working class 
neighborhoods.
    Those are just a couple of examples of the thousands of 
projects that are going to be funded by the SRFs. That is the 
real deal that we are delivering to America because of the 
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.
    Let me touch on a couple of other highlights. The 
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law also established the Emerging 
Contaminants and Smaller Disadvantaged Communities Grant 
Program. Just a few weeks ago, we announced the first $2 
billion funding available through that on a non-competitive 
basis available to all the States that want those resources. 
Very excited about that.
    The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law is also investing nearly 
$2 billion through the agency's Geographic National Estuary and 
Gulf Hypoxia programs. These investments are so wonderful. They 
are supporting conservation, restoration, infrastructure 
programs to protect some of our nation's most treasured waters, 
the Chesapeake Bay, the Great Lakes, the Mississippi River 
Basin, the Gulf of Mexico, the San Francisco Bay, really just 
quite remarkable.
    We are also working, because of the Bipartisan 
Infrastructure Law, to ensure that our groundwater is safe. We 
are providing $50 million to help States develop and implement 
underground injection control classics program to support 
carbon capture and sequestration. We have a letter of inquiry 
on that process underway, where States can seek these resources 
if they want primacy of the program. We are going to be 
awarding funds to States by the end of this year.
    I want to conclude my remarks by emphasizing something that 
both you, Senator Capito, and Senator Carper said, and that is 
that we are really dedicated to ensuring that all communities 
benefit from this investment. We know there are too many small 
communities, too many rural communities, too many underserved 
urban distressed areas that have not received their fair share 
of Federal funding. We can and we must do better. That is our 
focus at EPA.
    In addition to all of the work to get these resources out 
to States and local communities, we have been standing up the 
most significant technical assistance program, because we think 
that is what will change the odds for communities who haven't 
been able to get their fair share. We are actively working in 
communities across the country from McDowell County, West 
Virginia, to Lowndes County, Alabama, to communities all across 
the country. We have 29 environmental finance centers who are 
providing free technical assistance to communities that want 
it. We have our Closing the Wastewater Access Gap initiative, 
we have our Lead Service Line Accelerators.
    All of these technical assistance programs are helping 
build that local community capacity to make sure we are 
unlocking these resources for every community, so that every 
community has clean and safe water.
    Let me end where I began, which is to say thank you. Thank 
you so much for the opportunity to steward these resources. It 
is because of Congress and President Biden that you have 
created a transformational moment right now, a transformational 
opportunity for the water sector. I want you to know that EPA 
is working hard, we are working strategically to deliver on the 
vision that you set in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. We 
are working to make sure that water funding benefits all 
Americans, no matter where they live, how much money they have 
in their bank account, or the color of their skin.
    I want to thank you again for the opportunity to serve the 
American people in this way. I look forward to today's 
discussion. Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Fox follows:]
    
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Senator Carper. Thank you very much for being here today, 
and for your leadership, and the hard work that has been done 
and is being done within EPA especially on these issues.
    Again, we want to say to our staffs who are sitting behind 
us and those who are back in their offices how much we 
appreciate their work on these issues as well.
    Senator Capito, my Ranking Member here, I want to say again 
how proud I was of our Committee last week with our hearing on 
the derailment in East Palestine. I thought it was a wonderful 
hearing, and bipartisan and penetrating and something that sets 
the stage for making sure that the people of East Palestine and 
that part of America are treated the way we would want to be 
treated. I am very, very proud, and thank you for all of that.
    Let me start with some questions, if I can, for Ms. Fox. We 
have mentioned PFAS a time or two in today's hearing. I want to 
return to it. EPA yesterday released, as we know, the proposed 
drinking water standard for six types of PFAS chemicals. I want 
to commend you and Administrator Regan for your leadership in 
proposing a standard that is based in science and a standard 
that protects the public to the maximum extent possible.
    These forever chemicals are prolific throughout the 
environment. Under President Biden's leadership, EPA has taken 
another significant step to address their presence in our water 
with yesterday's decision.
    Question: Ms. Fox, can you please give us some more 
background on the standard and explain the next step for the 
agency's action in this regard?
    Ms. Fox. Thank you for the question, Senator. I want to 
thank you and Senator Capito and other members of this 
Committee who have kept us focused on getting this drinking 
water standard proposed. I was talking to Senator Capito 
yesterday, and said, in the 2 years that we have had 
conversations, I don't think there is a single time that we 
spoke where you don't ask about this. We are really, truly 
thrilled to be at this key milestone.
    The science on PFAS is clear. Exposure, even at very low 
levels, is very harmful to human health. What we also know 
about the science is that people are exposed to PFAS from a 
variety of means, from their air, their land, and their water. 
But when PFAS is in drinking water, we know it is one of the 
most significant contributors to the harmful health effects 
that people face. So as we think about making progress on this 
critical issue for the American people, having a national 
drinking water standard that keeps PFAS out of our drinking 
water, that is one of the best things that we can do as a 
nation from a human health perspective.
    We are very proud of the proposal that we announced 
yesterday. It is based in the latest peer reviewed science, and 
science is evolving rapidly as it relates to PFAS. It is 
grounded in the latest peer reviewed science. It also learned 
from the dozen States that already have established MCLs for 
PFAS in drinking water.
    As you said, Senator, the proposal calls for regulating six 
PFAS. We are proposing to set an MCL, maximum contaminant 
level, of four parts per trillion for PFOA and PFOS. Four parts 
per trillion is the level at which we can detected PFAS in our 
drinking water. We have laboratory capacity to do that.
    We also are proposing to regulate four additional PFAS as a 
mixture. These four PFAS are known to co-occur in drinking 
water. This is GENX, PFES, PFNX, PFE, an alphabet soup of PFAS. 
But with those four, we are setting a hazard index for those 
four PFAS.
    Also, some of the other features of the rule proposal that 
we are very pleased with is the public notification 
requirements, which is so important, so that the American 
people can know. We have developed a flexible approach to 
monitoring and compliance, recognizing that water systems are 
in different places.
    The next steps are a 60 day comment period. So we are very 
much looking forward to engaging with our State co-regulators, 
local water systems, community organizations, to get feedback 
on this proposal. We are really working hard to get to a final 
rule by the end of 2023 or very early in 2024.
    Again, I thank this Committee for your wonderful leadership 
on PFAS.
    Senator Carper. You are welcome. It is a shared 
responsibility.
    As you know, we all are on multiple committees. One of my 
committees is having what we call a business session right now. 
They need me there for a quorum. I have asked Senator Capito if 
she would preside in my absence, and she has graciously agreed 
to do so.
    Keep an eye on Senator Cramer in my absence. I know that is 
a big job.
    Thanks for your responses to my question, and Senator 
Capito, I will be back as fast as I can. Thanks so much.
    Senator Capito [presiding]. Thank you.
    Assistant Administrator Fox, you and I talked about this 
yesterday on the phone. This is a bit in the weeds. You came 
out several months ago, or maybe a year ago, with what was 
called a health advisory level for the PFOAs which were so low 
that, unmeasurable, systems were unable to measure as to what 
the EPA was saying would be a health advisory level.
    You come back now with the MCL, which I am really pleased 
that we are here today to talk about that, at 4. It is 
significantly higher than what you previously said the health 
advisory level would be.
    I asked this question, how did you base, what science was 
the basis for these health advisory levels. Yesterday I got, or 
the day before, an 1,800 page response from you and the EPA, 
which was difficult to go through because it had a lot of 
attached reports and everything with it.
    What I am worried about is the risk communication. What 
does this mean to somebody who is actually trying to determine 
if their system is safe, and how it is going to impact the 
health and the drinking water standards? I am going to submit 
questions to you in writing, because this is going to get a 
little bit technical, and I don't want to take up all my time 
on technicalities. So if you could respond to those when I send 
them, I would very much appreciate that.
    Ms. Fox. Yes, I would be happy to.
    Senator Capito. Great, thank you.
    Let me ask again on the PFOA and PFAS issue, we have set 
the drinking level, we are going to probably have requirements 
for systems to test to this level and compliance. There is 
going to be a lot of instances of what we would call passive 
receivers, somebody who, basically a water system who receives 
the water from a source and passes the water on, and maybe the 
level is a little bit higher. I am worried about the liability 
issues. I know you are not in charge of CERCLA, but have you 
all thought about this and what kinds of issues we might be 
addressing here at the Congress in terms of the passive 
liability issue for PFAS?
    Ms. Fox. You are correct, thank you for that question. On 
the CERCLA hazard designation, that is of course in our Office 
of Land and Emergency Management. But one thing that is 
particularly exciting about how we are approaching the issue of 
PFAS at the agency is we really are taking a whole of agency 
approach. The Office of Water team has engaged closely with the 
Office of Land and Emergency Management on these issues of 
passive liability. Certainly, drinking water systems, 
wastewater systems, PFAS has entered these systems, and they 
are not the responsible party.
    So as that CERCLA hazardous designation rule continues to 
move forward, the agency is thinking about enforcement 
discretion and what is appropriate, just as we do with other 
CERCLA designations.
    Right now, though, is such an exciting moment to be moving 
this drinking water rule forward, because we also have the 
resources in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, we are working 
very actively with States and local communities to make sure 
the $9 billion that you all dedicated to addressing PFAS and 
emerging contaminants is out there, that water systems are 
accessing those funds, getting these treatment technologies in 
place. I think that is going to make a huge difference as we 
move forward.
    Senator Capito. What would you say to every State in terms 
of the retention of the flexibilities that are built into the 
systems on the revolving funds? Once those revolving funds 
leave DC and go to our States like West Virginia, is all the 
responsibility in the State then? That is what I would prefer. 
How do you see that?
    Ms. Fox. I really see it as a partnership. We have been 
very clear in our implementation memo around the Bipartisan 
Infrastructure Law that we value the flexibility that States 
have always had with the SRS. Senator Capito, if you look at 
the thousands of projects that are on these intended use plans, 
they are so diverse. They are funding drinking water, 
wastewater, stormwater, small projects, big projects, 
cybersecurity.
    The States are very much in the driver's seat in selecting 
the projects that really meet the needs of their residents. I 
think we have preserved that.
    It is also a partnership. It is our obligation for 
oversight and to make sure that States are utilizing various 
resources in a way that is consistent with the legislation and 
the statute. An example of that is around disadvantaged 
communities.
    One of the things that we talked about in the SRF 
implementation memo is, we summarize that of course, States are 
the ones that determine definition of disadvantaged 
communities, both on the Clean Water SRF side as well as the 
Drinking Water SRF side. To be helpful, in that implementation 
memo we laid out criteria that tend to be good criteria that 
States are utilizing in those definitions, and then ones that 
may be more problematic. And what is so exciting is that a 
number of States sort of chose to amend their definition of 
disadvantaged communities. So we are seeing this trend line of 
those definitions really being consistent with the statute, the 
Safe Drinking Water Act and Clean Water Act.
    Ultimately, it is a partnership, but yes, absolutely, the 
States are in the driver's seat in selecting the projects that 
best meet the needs in their borders.
    Senator Capito. I appreciate that answer. I think part of 
your answer went to what my opening statement was saying, that 
the States need to be in the driver's seat, the States are 
going to be able to make the best determinations. I think what 
we have seen, not just at EPA but also over at Transportation, 
is the Administration is putting the foot on the pedal here in 
certain instances, and suggesting certain parameters that then 
lead to our States wondering if we don't go the way that EPA is 
saying, then are we going to have some kind of, I don't want to 
say penalty, but are we being guided by other issues that 
really, if we were doing it on our own, we wouldn't be doing it 
quite this way. I think that is a cautionary tale.
    Senator Cramer.
    Senator Cramer. Thank you, Senator, and thank you, 
Administrator Fox, for being here.
    I have a lot of things to thank you for, so bear with me as 
I do a little bit of that. First of all, I don't think it can 
be overstated how important your trip to North Dakota was in 
2021. And while we had a robust discussion about the WOTUS 
rule, and I will want to ask you some things about that here in 
a little bit, probably the most fun was nerding out a little 
bit with the locals and the State water people, going through a 
water plant. It was wonderful.
    Most importantly, you listened to people and related to 
them. I thank you for that trip. It meant a lot, both the 
nerding out and the WOTUS stuff.
    I also want to thank you, since then you have remained 
connected. You have always been available when I have had a 
question. I have tried to answer the calls when you make them, 
and every now and then we just bump into each other. I think it 
is important that people see that relationships matter, even 
where there is disagreement. And I appreciate that.
    You and your team clarified some things for my constituents 
in pretty short order, for a massive bureaucracy like yours. I 
want to thank you for that as well. As you know, working with 
the SRF, the State Revolving Fund provisions of the 
Infrastructure Bill, our State agency that oversees SRF, along 
with a variety of other stakeholders, of course, in the water 
sector, raised concerns over the effective date of the Build 
America provisions.
    In particular, there were different effective dates for 
WIFIA and SRF. Of course, these obviously are different 
programs; Same agency, but different programs, but similar 
goals. That kind of confusion oftentimes relates to gas, and 
sometimes people just throw up their hands and give up.
    But after a couple of inquiries with State officials, your 
team reconciled the effective dates. Imagine that. A good, 
simple solution to the issue. It is going to allow projects in 
North Dakota, and I presume other places, but in North Dakota 
it has moved forward. I want to thank you and your team for 
clearing that up. It is good public service.
    I do want to ask, and I know this isn't about Waters of the 
U.S. necessarily, but we don't get the opportunity often 
enough. I know that Administrator Regan will be in front of us 
for the really tough questions. We will both spare you those.
    I wanted to bring up a couple of issues, because at that 
same meeting in 2021, we heard from stakeholders. And since the 
agency unveiled the rule, I have heard from a lot of those 
stakeholders, constituents and others, who are concerned that 
the new rule really embodies some of the same government 
overreach of the 2015 rule. I know there are some distinctions, 
and you certainly are going to clarify some of them, I am sure.
    Anything that defers to the bureaucracy, we just get 
concerned about, because we have never really met a regulatory 
agency that didn't regulate when given the opportunity.
    But also concerning was the rule's shift in applying the 
burden of proof. This is a very specific issue, the burden of 
proof on the landowners for proving that their land is non-
jurisdictional, so on these jurisdictional questions. Can you 
explain why it does that? The previous rule, the Trump rule in 
its preamble states emphatically that the burden of proof is 
not on the landowner but rather on the agency. Your rule seems 
to have flipped that. Can you explain that to me a little bit?
    Ms. Fox. Yes, I am happy to. I just want to thank you for 
your hospitality. It was a wonderful visit to North Dakota. And 
I appreciate the feedback about the team's work with your State 
SRF program.
    I have to say, Senator, North Dakota is doing a fabulous 
job with implementation of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law 
resources. They have already taken all of their CAP grants for 
year one. They are moving fast on their intended use plans.
    So it has been a great partnership. There are going to be 
some great, great projects that are funded in North Dakota. I 
can't wait to come back out for some of those groundbreakings 
as well.
    On Waters of the United States, thank you for the 
opportunity to clarify this question that you raised. And thank 
you for hosting me in North Dakota. We just received so much 
valuable information from the wide array of stakeholders you 
brought together on Waters of the United States.
    I am really proud of where we landed on this rule. I think 
both in my confirmation hearing, and Administrator Regan, when 
he had his confirmation hearing, we both talked about how our 
priority was to stop the ping-pong with Waters of the United 
States, and to put forward a balanced rule that provided clear 
rules of the road to farmers, to ranchers, to landowners, to 
developers. And we have done that.
    Our rule is not the Obama Clean Water Rule. It is a much 
more narrow definition of Waters of the United States than the 
Obama Rule. It is not the Trump Navigable Waters Rule either, 
which as you know was vacated by multiple courts, and it was 
off the books as of August 2021.
    One of the things that we really focused on in the 
development of our rule was practical implementation 
considerations. That is what I heard when I was in North 
Dakota. And on this landowner question, a couple of things that 
I would share. One is that as part of our 2023 rule, we have a 
whole landowners guide that makes it very easy for landowners 
to understand what is, if a permit might be needed or not.
    We also have worked closely with Army Corps where they can 
provide free jurisdictional determinations to any landowner 
that asks for them and to do that quickly. So that is a key 
feature.
    One of the things I am most proud about as far as our 2020 
rule is we also clarified what is out. So in the rule, we 
codified eight exclusions that we heard in places like North 
Dakota are very important, for example, with prior converted 
cropland. This is something that so many farmers and ranchers 
have said, it is confusing.
    So in the rule, we have made that a categorical exemption, 
very clear. And w We partnered very closely with USDA on that 
because we thought it was also really important that our 
definitions between the different agencies are aligned. That is 
why USDA is so supportive of this particular rule.
    Finally, again, the focus on implementation versus fighting 
about the definition at the Federal level is really a priority 
moving forward. One thing that we did is, as we issued our 
final rule, we also issued a series of implementation 
memoranda. Some of them are between EPA and Army, where we are 
doing trainings to make sure that there is a consistent 
understanding of this definition.
    We also have a coordination, an MOU with USDA, again on how 
do we make sure some of these programs are aligned for the 
agriculture community.
    Senator, I believe we have delivered on what we said we 
would do. No more ping-pong, let's find the center, let's give 
people clear rules of the road as it relates to Waters of the 
United States. Then also to make sure we are protecting those 
vital water resources. I hope you see that we have struck that 
balance. We certainly have tried.
    Senator Cramer. I appreciate that. I am sure I am the last 
Republican who will ask you about waters today.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Cramer. Thank you.
    Senator Capito. Thank you.
    Senator Cardin.
    Senator Cardin. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate it 
very much.
    Let me thank the Administrator. Thank you for your 
leadership on these issues. I appreciate the engagement you 
have had with our office. These are exciting times. We have 
opportunities that we have not seen in generations to deal with 
our water infrastructure.
    We all know the current status of our water infrastructure, 
whether it is drinking water or wastewater, it is not where it 
needs to be. We consistently get grades that are unacceptable. 
I use Baltimore City as an example. Baltimore City had the best 
drinking water system in the world 100 years ago. 
Unfortunately, some of those pipes are still underground today 
and are being used.
    So we have challenges in Baltimore; we have challenges 
throughout our country. One of the major parts of the 
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and increasing the resources 
going into the State Revolving Funds was to direct your efforts 
to traditionally underserved communities, communities that have 
an affordability issue with regard to doing the necessary 
infrastructure that is critical to drinking water and 
wastewater treatment.
    Tell me how you are going about reaching those communities 
that have had challenges in the past being able to afford the 
necessary improvements to their water systems, carrying out the 
intent of Congress.
    Ms. Fox. Thank you for that question. We are doing a couple 
of things. One is, one of the most exciting features of the 
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law is that you all provided about 49 
percent of resources must be spent for, be put out as grants 
and principal forgiveness in disadvantaged communities. I think 
your vision in designing the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law has 
unlocked so much potential.
    The challenge, Senator, is that disadvantaged communities 
often don't have the financial capacity to access the loan 
aspect of the SRFs. So by putting so much money out as grants 
and principal forgiveness, you have removed one of the critical 
barriers that these communities face.
    But we know that just having the resources available isn't 
enough. That is why we have stood up the ambitious technical 
assistance program alongside the capital projects that we are 
funding. We have built out our environmental finance centers; 
we have 29 of them. Every region, EPA region, has an 
environmental finance center as well as national ones. They are 
basically available to any community that wants technical 
assistance in order to access the SRF funds.
    As we design that technical assistance effort, I thought 
about when I worked at a local water utility, I was at the San 
Francisco Public Utilities Commission, and there we had access 
to all of the best engineering, design, financial planning. A 
disadvantaged community doesn't have access to those things, 
but they need that in order to get these SRF funds.
    So we are basically making that available to any community 
that wants them. We just opened up our TA web page, so I would 
love to share that information with the Committee so that you 
can share it with your constituents.
    We are going to be helping thousands of communities access 
these SRF dollars. Really, that is the core of the strategy, 
providing that technical assistance support, so that these 
disadvantaged communities can build their technical, financial, 
and managerial capacity.
    Senator Cardin. I want to follow up with you as to how that 
is being implemented. We have jurisdictions like Baltimore City 
where the ratepayer support is just inadequate to deal with the 
needs that we have, because of income. Then we have communities 
like Smith Island, which are so isolated that they just don't 
have the population to be able to support the water that they 
need without greater assistance.
    So we have different needs in our State. I am sure that is 
true throughout the country. Technical assistance would be 
critically important. But also making sure the resources get to 
those communities. Please keep us informed, and I will be 
working with you on that.
    I want to ask you one other question about the low income 
water assistance program. We provided $3 million in the fiscal 
year 2023 omnibus for you to conduct a low income water 
assistance needs assessment. Senator Wicker and I have worked 
on the realities that water bills are beyond the capacity of 
many ratepayers today. We have a low income utility assistance 
program under LIHEAP, but we think there is a need for one 
under water. How are you implementing that needs assessment?
    Ms. Fox. Thank you for that question, and you are 
absolutely right. This issue of water affordability, even 
though the $50 billion in funding from the Federal Government 
will make a huge difference, water affordability is a growing 
challenge in communities across the country. In my former role 
as CEO for the U.S. Water Alliance, I helped create this water 
equity and affordability network.
    As to the assessment, we are currently, we are going to 
partner with HHS in the development of that assessment, since 
they are managing the LIWAP program. We are currently designing 
the methodology for that assessment, and it is going to get 
underway very soon. And I am happy to keep your office, Senator 
Cardin, and Senator Wicker's offices up to date on how that 
assessment is going.
    In addition to that, we are working closely to support HHS 
as they continue to administer the LIWAP program, which we are 
so grateful was developed by this Congress.
    Senator Cardin. Thank you. I would appreciate it if you 
would keep me informed.
    Madam Chair, I have a unanimous consent request on behalf 
of the Chairman. I ask unanimous consent to enter into the 
record a letter from the American Sustainable Business Network 
which represents more than 400 businesses that rely upon clean 
water. This diverse coalition of businesses includes breweries, 
mattress companies, and farms. The letter expresses opposition 
to efforts they used in the Congressional Review Act to 
overturn the 2023 WOTUS rule.
    Senator Capito. Without objection.
    [The referenced information follows:]
    
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Senator Cardin. Thank you.
    Senator Capito. Senator Lummis.
    Senator Lummis. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
    Welcome, Administrator Fox.
    I was so pleased to hear Senator Cramer compliment you on 
the relationship that you formed with problem solving in North 
Dakota. I am hoping you can help me similarly with a couple 
issues I have today that I would like to discuss with you about 
sanitary survey results.
    My office has heard repeatedly from constituents that are 
frustrated with delays from the EPA on sanitary survey results. 
I have close to a dozen towns or small water systems that have 
waited, some as long as 26 months, to get survey results that 
were conducted in the summer of 2020. These delays make it 
really difficult for these communities, because some are 
getting results not long before a new survey is required.
    Can you commit to getting the survey results out within 
better timeframes? Ideally it would be 60 days after 
completion. But these surveys take a long time for these 
communities to fill out, especially small water systems. And 
then there is a delay, and they need the feedback sooner, 
because as soon as they get these results, they are going on 
into another survey.
    Ms. Fox. Thank you so much for making me aware of this 
issue. Yes, you have my commitment that I will personally look 
into the 12 water systems that you mentioned that are waiting. 
The sanitary survey, you are right, Senator, it is a very 
important tool that States and local water systems and the EPA 
utilize. And local water systems need that information in order 
to make key operational maintenance management decisions.
    So yes, I will commit to looking into the situation with 
these 12, as well as just looking more broadly into the 
timeline for returning that information.
    Senator Lummis. Thanks very much. I really do appreciate 
that.
    I also have another question about the topic of sanitary 
surveys. Madam Chairman, I would like to enter into the record 
a letter, asking unanimous consent to enter into the record a 
letter to Administrator Regan dated January 25th, 2023, 
concerning the EPA's memorandum to State drinking water 
administrators on public water systems cybersecurity.
    Senator Capito. Without objection.
    [The referenced information was not received at time of 
print.]
    Senator Lummis. Thank you. This letter addresses the EPA's 
plan to add cybersecurity requirements to the sanitary survey 
program. Now, we all agree that cybersecurity is incredibly 
important for water systems. But it is doing it as part of the 
sanitary survey program that has raised issues.
    The organizations that signed the letter I just entered 
into the record have called that plan ill advised, impractical, 
and not designed to meaningfully improve system resiliency. 
EPA's approach is also legally flawed. That is what the letter 
says. And then they go on to ask for the EPA to recall the 
memorandum.
    The signatories to that letter include the American Water 
Works Association, National Association of Clean Water 
Agencies, National Rural Water Association, U.S. Conference of 
Mayors, National Association of Counties, and others. So 
obviously, this has received a lot of review from local 
governance, and they are concerned about just using this survey 
as the source for gathering that information.
    Can you talk about what outreach was done concerning this 
memorandum?
    Ms. Fox. Yes, I am happy to do that. Senator, you are 
absolutely right, that cybersecurity threats to water systems, 
it is a growing concern that is happening with more frequency. 
There are bad actors out there, and this is a significant 
vulnerability to our water systems.
    We believe that in order to protect our water systems from 
cyberthreats, we have to take a multi-faceted approach. That is 
exactly what we have been doing at EPA. For example, we have 
been encouraging water systems to consider using SRF funds to 
do those cybersecurity upgrades. In the President's budget, he 
has requested additional resources for a grant program to help 
water systems get in compliance. We do many, many trainings and 
resources that are out there all the time.
    We feel that this implementation memo that I recently 
issued is also a critical part of the solution. The sanitary 
survey is really the primary tool by which a State can really 
assess the operational capacities of a local water system. 
Given the critical nature of having good cybersecurity 
practices, we felt that this needed to be, in this modern age, 
one of the operational considerations that States look at in 
these surveys.
    We had a very robust process. We actually asked one of the 
Association of State Drinking Water Administrators, we had a 
work group process with them. They reviewed the memo. We had 
many, many consultations all along the way. And we are not just 
issuing a memo without support. There is a whole series of 
resources that are being developed, key questions that can 
easily be added by the State to these sanitary surveys. So we 
think this is very doable, very achievable, a good, key step 
forward to protect our water systems from cyberthreats, which 
again are growing.
    Senator Lummis. I would encourage you, because of the 
letter that was addressed to Director Regan, to have more 
conversations with the local implementers. Because it is a 
pretty broad association of locals that are saying, the 
sanitary survey program is just the wrong tool to have this 
dialogue.
    Clearly, there is some sort of disconnect going on between 
the local implementers and EPA on this. So I would ask for your 
careful reconsideration or at least extending your dialogue 
with those folks.
    My time is up, Madam Chairman. I will submit a question 
about drinking water loss in municipal systems due to faulty 
and leaky infrastructure, and ask for a response in writing.
    Thank you so much for being here.
    Ms. Fox. Thank you, Senator.
    Senator Carper [presiding]. Senator Lummis, thank you for 
those questions.
    Next, we have been joined by Senator Kelly.
    Senator Kelly, good morning, and welcome.
    Senator Kelly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Good morning, Administrator Fox. It is nice to see you here 
today. And thank you for the conversation we had yesterday.
    I want to start off by discussing the recently finalized 
rule by EPA and the Army Corps on the definition of Waters of 
the United States. As you know, there has been a push by some 
in Congress to use the Congressional Review Act, a CRA, to 
repeal this rule. You and I discussed some of my concerns here, 
and those of Senator Sinema. The two of us sent a detailed 
letter to EPA and the Corps last week with some specific 
implementation questions.
    But I want to talk for a minute about what would happen if 
the CRA passed. We are going to have a vote on it. So if it 
passed, I want to start with a few yes/no questions.
    So if the 2023 WOTUS rule were repealed, would the Trump 
era Navigable Waters Protection rule take effect?
    Ms. Fox. No, it would not. Because it was vacated in August 
2021, by a Federal court.
    Senator Kelly. And would the 2025 Obama era WOTUS rule take 
effect?
    Ms. Fox. No, it would not.
    Senator Kelly. So my understanding is the rule that would 
be in effect would be something similar to the pre-2015 WOTUS 
guidance, is that correct?
    Ms. Fox. That is correct, Senator.
    Senator Kelly. And that guidance, my understanding is that 
it relies on the same types of significant nexus test as the 
WOTUS rule that EPA and the Army Corps finalized this January, 
is that right?
    Ms. Fox. Yes, but there are key differences in how we 
approach it.
    Senator Kelly. Can you explain those differences?
    Ms. Fox. Yes, sir. The CRA, if it were to pass, it would as 
you said put us back to the pre-2015 definition of Waters of 
the United States. That definition is broader than our 2023 
rule; our 2023 rule is more narrow in the definition of Waters 
of the United States. It is more uncertain. So there would be 
key challenges.
    With a CRA, you can't sort of take parts of the rule that 
work and parts that don't that people might have concerns 
about. It wipes out the entire rule and puts back in place the 
2015.
    So we would, for example, on the question of the two test 
significant nexus, and relatively permanent, in our 2023 rule, 
significant nexus is much more narrowly defined than in 2015. 
And it would be utilized only in a very small number of waters, 
whereas it would be much more broad in the 2015 versus the 
2023.
    Another challenge if the CRA would pass is that many of the 
exemptions and exclusions that I was talking to Senator Cramer 
about just a moment ago, those would all be voided out. And 
because the CRA says that agencies cannot ever adopt a rule 
that is similar in the future, we may never be able to ever 
bring back things like prior converted crop or exemptions for 
artificial ponds, things like that. So it would really create 
confusion, uncertainty, and void the very common sense aspects 
of the rule that we worked so hard to put in place.
    Senator Kelly. So the things we did in the 2023 rule, that 
actually made it narrower?
    Ms. Fox. Yes.
    Senator Kelly. If we go back to the 2015, and we do it 
through the CRA process, in the future we couldn't use those 
same items as you just addressed to get a narrower definition 
of Waters of the United States?
    Ms. Fox. That is correct. Agencies are prevented from 
issuing anything that is similar.
    Senator Kelly. So this took us a while to sort through. It 
is not an obvious thing, how sometimes you can, through a CRA 
process, you are trying to get an outcome that might be 
narrower, and in fact you have some unintended consequences. 
And I think that is the case here. Is that your sense?
    Ms. Fox. That is absolutely the case. We would be throwing 
out a narrower definition of Waters of the United States. We 
would be throwing out all of the implementation direction that 
we provided. We would be throwing out the collaboration memos 
between USDA and EPA and Army Corps that will help with good 
implementation. We would be going back to a broader definition 
of significant nexus.
    It would create a great deal of uncertainty in communities 
across the country. We believe it would lead to delays in 
permitting important projects, permitting infrastructure 
projects, developing happening on land. And so it is not the 
right tool.
    We can always improve on Waters of the United States. We 
welcome that conversation with this Committee. We are also 
laser sharp focused on doing implementation work in a way that 
addresses the regional differences across the country. We would 
lose all of that if this rule gets CRAd.
    Senator Kelly. Thank you, Administrator Fox.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Carper. Thank you, Senator Kelly, for that line of 
questioning. Some important points were made there.
    Ms. Fox, thank you for your responses to them.
    I mentioned this earlier; one of the things that this 
Committee looks forward to is certainty and predictability. 
That has always been the case, and I think it is the case 
still.
    Senator Ricketts, you have been patient. Thanks a lot for 
joining us.
    We have been joined by Senator Sullivan as well.
    Thank you, and you are recognized for your questions.
    Senator Ricketts. Thank you very much, Chairman Carper, 
Ranking Member Capito, thank you very much, and Administrator 
Fox, thanks very much for joining us.
    Having been Governor, one of the things that I am very well 
aware of is water infrastructure and how challenging it can be, 
as Senator Cardin said, not just for big cities but also 
especially in Nebraska, small, rural communities. Obviously, 
the EPA has, on Tuesday, released its first national standard 
for six PFAS levels for drinking water. Small water systems, 
again, often don't have the technical capability for dealing 
with these and implementing these sorts of monitoring 
requirements.
    How do you plan to assist small water systems, especially 
in rural areas, for doing the testing and compliance for being 
able to comply with this rulemaking?
    Ms. Fox. Thank you for that question. This is a huge 
priority for us in the Office of Water, how do we broadly make 
sure that smaller water systems, rural systems benefit broadly 
from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and everything that we 
are doing on this question of PFAS specifically.
    There are a couple of things. One is that we have recently 
started our UCMR 5, which is an ongoing monitoring program. 
Historically, larger water systems do that. It is harder for 
smaller systems. We advocated for resources so that smaller 
systems could do that. Because of the generosity of Congress, 
we have resources now to work with smaller systems on that.
    In the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, there is a new $5 
billion grant program that is dedicated to small systems and 
disadvantaged communities to basically look at issues of PFAS 
and other emerging contaminants. So that is going to be 
resources that are dedicated to the very communities that you 
are asking about, Senator. Those resources can help other grant 
programs, so you don't have to pay anything back. They can use 
that for testing, for remediation, implementing treatment 
technologies. So that is going to make a huge difference.
    What we have learned in our work across rural America is 
that just getting resources, making resources available isn't 
enough. You have got to support smaller systems, rural systems, 
in building their technical, financial, and managerial capacity 
to be able to both get that grant or get that loan, and then be 
able to implement it well.
    That is why we are spending so much time building out the 
technical assistance infrastructure. We have 29 environmental 
finance centers. We have actually increased our contracts with 
National Rural Water and with RCAP, the Rural Community 
Assistance Program, because they have direct touch points in 
rural America. So they are going to be doing even more 
technical assistance in these areas.
    So that is some of what we have underway. And we think it 
is really going to change the odds in rural America.
    Senator Ricketts. So how would a smaller community be able 
to access some of those resources you are talking about?
    Ms. Fox. We have just put up a technical assistance web 
page on our website. I would be happy to share that information 
with your office.
    Senator Ricketts. Please do.
    Ms. Fox. Then also, we are working very closely with the 
States. Many States also have technical assistance programs. So 
we are trying to coordinate. Your environmental secretary, your 
SRF State manager, they are going to know the communities that 
are out of compliance; they are going to know the communities 
that are keeping them up at night as it relates to clean, safe 
water.
    So we are asking them. We are building this list of 
communities. And then we are not waiting for people, for a 
community to come to us. When we hear from a State or a local 
water system that something is of concern, we are having our 
technical assistance providers actively reach out to them. So 
we have to go to the community, not just wait for them to ask 
for help.
    Senator Ricketts. Great, thank you. I am running out of 
time here, so I am just going to talk about another thing we 
were talking about with some of the investments for these 
communities. The intent of these funds was to help communities 
that need the most to be able to get the resources. My 
understanding, though, is that some communities feel like there 
have been other priorities put in there with regard to climate 
rather than safe drinking water.
    Is that something you feel is being pushed in the 
legislation? That was not Congress's intent. Or do you feel 
people are just taking this the wrong way? What is your 
response when you hear some of those criticisms?
    Ms. Fox. I do think it is a misunderstanding, Senator. We 
have been very clear in our implementation memo and in all of 
our discussions that the States are in the driver's seat in 
making decisions around the SRF program. Because they know what 
communities need those resources the most.
    So we have been clear on that. We certainly encourage 
climate considerations. But it is not a requirement. Certainly 
in places like Oklahoma, drought is a top concern. So, 
certainly projects that are going to help water supply 
diversification and conservation ground water re-use and 
recharge, these are things that are going to really matter in 
communities.
    But no, the States are in the driver's seat as far as 
selecting projects.
    Senator Ricketts. Great. Thank you very much.
    Ms. Fox. Thank you.
    Senator Carper. Senator Ricketts, thanks for joining us.
    Senator Sullivan, good morning. Welcome.
    Senator Sullivan. Ms. Fox, I want to start with a chart 
here that I have trotted out a lot in this committee room. This 
is a chart of life expectancy in America and in Alaska in 
particular for the last 25 years, from 1980 to 2014. Do you see 
where the blue and dark blue is? That is life expectancy going 
up a lot. Actually yellow, orange, red, actually life 
expectancy has decreased, that is really sad in America. Mostly 
that has been due to the opioid epidemic that has killed so 
many Americans.
    But my State, particularly in the rural regions, the North 
Slope, interior, Aleutian Island chain, has had the largest 
life expectancy increases of any place in the country in the 
last 25 years, up to 13 years in many of our rural areas. So 
that is a great indicator of policy success.
    Why do you think that happened? That is a hard question. 
But 1980 to 2014, what else happened in Alaska during that 
time? I will just answer. It is not an easy question.
    So we had a very big boom in resource development, oil and 
gas, mining. So when I get upset about these issues, when 
Federal agencies try to shut down resource development in my 
State, it is literally a matter of life and death. The 
communities in rural Alaska that have benefited from that, they 
are living longer. And I don't know if there is any policy 
indicator of success more important than are the people you 
representing living longer.
    Would you agree with me?
    Ms. Fox. Yes.
    Senator Sullivan. Anything more important than that?
    Ms. Fox. No.
    Senator Sullivan. No, I don't think so, either.
    So one of the things that is frustrating, we just went 
through this Willow process, the vast, vast majority of the 
Alaska Native people were supportive. The national media hated 
to write that story. They kept canceling the voices of the 
indigenous people of Alaska. But we finally got it out there.
    And one of the big reasons is because of this. They know it 
is jobs, pride, things that most communities take for granted 
like running water, flush toilets. You get infrastructure, you 
get jobs, you get revenues, you can do those things that, in 
parts of my State, people haven't had access to for a long 
time, maybe ever.
    So let me talk about a related area. But it is all in this 
area, too, it is mining. Unfortunately, the Administration on a 
number of mining projects, the Ambler mining district in 
particular, we did a 7 year EIS, $10 million. The same day the 
President held a critical mineral summit at the White House on 
the importance of cutting our dependence on foreign critical 
minerals like from China. They reversed that EIS in Alaska.
    Now, that was the Department of Interior, Secretary Haaland 
seems hell bent on reversing everything, despite that chart. 
Kind of remarkable that she would be doing that. But the EPA 
recently finalized this 404(c) action on Pebble, the preemptive 
veto action, but you said, ``It is also important to note that 
the EPA's action does not apply to current or future resource 
development projects in Alaska.'' Similarly, Administrator 
Regan said, ``By no means is this decision meant to send any 
signals beyond this specific project.''
    Can you begin by recommitting to me that EPA won't use 
404(c) as a precedent to stop future Alaska projects, or 
importantly, anything that has already previously been 
permitted in Alaska? Keeping this in mind. Because when you do 
that, when Deb Haaland recently reversed the Ambler decision, 
she actually yesterday reversed the King Cove Road decision, 
there is no Native project that people in Alaska care about 
that she doesn't reverse, the Native people, by the way, again, 
stunning to me. But can you recommit to what you and the 
Administrator already said with regard to mining projects in my 
State?
    Ms. Fox. Yes, and Senator Sullivan, it is good to see you 
again. I was just thinking, seeing your map, the last time we 
were together was at the Bethel Airport, this past summer when 
we were both visiting an Alaska Native village that was working 
on a water infrastructure project. So it is good to see you 
again.
    And yes, to be clear, EPA has sparingly used our 404(c) 
authority, only three times in the last 30 years, three times. 
That is it. And yes, I commit, as does Administrator Regan, 
that it will be sparingly used. We were very clear that that 
404(c) action was about a particular mine and a particular 
geography, the geography of Bristol Bay, a beautiful and unique 
ecosystem.
    Senator Sullivan. OK, thank you, I don't want to interrupt. 
I just have one final question. I spoke at the annual 
conference of the Tanana Chiefs Conference yesterday in 
interior Alaska. I talked about water and sewer and the needs 
to get some of the communities, we have 30 communities in 
Alaska that don't have flush toilets and running water.
    By the way, these are some of the most patriotic 
communities in America, because Alaska Natives serve at higher 
rates in the military than any other ethnic group in the 
country.
    So can you recommit to me, given the resources in the 
Infrastructure Bill, I told them that you are going to be 
working with us on getting rid of what we call honey buckets, 
which is a euphemism for people having to go to the bathroom 
and then take their own waste out and throw it in a lagoon. 
Pretty disgusting. American citizens still do that in my State.
    Can you recommit to me to help us get rid of the honey 
bucket once and for all?
    Ms. Fox. Absolutely. Seeing first hand people living with 
honey buckets with washeterias when I visited Alaska last 
August, I am absolutely committed to this. And I think we have 
the ability to make tremendous progress because of the 
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the incredible leadership 
that President Biden and this Congress have made in investing 
$50 billion. So you have my absolute commitment on that.
    Senator Sullivan. Great. Thank you.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Carper. Thank you, Senator.
    In the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, Ms. Fox, Congress 
committed to ensuring that disadvantaged communities benefit 
from Federal drinking water and wastewater infrastructure 
investments. The Biden administration has made the same pledge 
through its Justice 40 initiative.
    State policies such as project ranking systems that have 
additional eligibility criteria can create barriers to 
disadvantaged and underserved communities' ability to access 
funds. Here is my question: Is EPA tracking these State level 
barriers, and what is the agency's plan to help communities 
overcome these barriers so that they can access Federal 
investment in water infrastructure?
    Ms. Fox. Thank you for that question. Yes, Senator, we are 
tracking those barriers and working actively with individual 
States as well as with CIFA, the Council of Infrastructure 
Financing Authorities, to collaboratively develop solutions to 
those barriers.
    The States and EPA, we share a commitment to making sure 
that we make these resources available to as many communities 
as possible. And things like a project ranking system, it is a 
barrier in some States. There are other barriers that exist as 
well. Some States, for example, have only an annual application 
process, while other States allow for multiple rounds of 
submission of SRFs. That is another thing.
    I think there are challenges around local communities 
knowing when to apply and having full transparency into that 
process. So there are a range of barriers, as there are with 
many funding and financing programs across the Federal 
Government. So we are very closely partnering with the States 
to work through those together.
    One thing I can also say is there is an incredible amount 
of peer exchange and learning that is happening right now 
across States. There are trainings and opportunities for the 
States to come together to learn from one another. And we want 
to support and encourage that as much as possible, as well.
    Senator Carper. All right, thank you.
    One of the Biden administration's priorities has been to 
replace lead service lines. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law 
included $15 billion in funding for full lead service line 
replacements, a lot of money. In the years leading up to the 
passage of that law, we heard from several States, including my 
own State of Delaware, that the prevalence of lead service 
lines was not a significant problem. However, as some of those 
States started doing lead inventories, it became clear that the 
presence of lead pipes and the health impacts they cause is 
more pervasive than a lot of folks expected.
    Given this initial skepticism, have the States been able to 
use funding for lead service line replacements?
    Ms. Fox. One of the most exciting aspects of this job and 
serving in this capacity is to help deliver on President 
Biden's commitment to get the lead out once and for all. It is 
just so remarkable, the President's leadership on this issue. 
And at the EPA, we are using every tool in our tool box to 
deliver on that.
    As it relates to your question, Senator, the reaction is 
mixed. There are some States that feel that their allocation of 
lead service line money is insufficient for the need. Others 
think that the allocation is too much, given how much the need 
is there. So we are in constant conversation with the States to 
understand that.
    We do have what is called a reallotment process that we can 
utilize, so that after 2 years, if a State doesn't use their 
lead service line money, we can reallocate it to a State that 
could use it. So right now, we are in the process of working 
with the States to make sure that they know they can use this 
money to support inventory development. Because that is the 
first thing to really understand the nature and scope of the 
problem to start those replacement projects. But then yes, 
after those 2 years of States utilizing those resources, we 
will be able to reallocate.
    Senator Carper. Thank you. My last question today deals 
with private wells. My family grew up in West Virginia and 
largely in Virginia. We always had private wells, and I think a 
lot of folks around the country still do, and a lot of folks 
have private wells drilled for them, for their families and 
farms in some cases.
    The presence of contaminated private well water is becoming 
a problem nationwide, as you know. In Delaware, we know that 
are about 173,000 residents depend upon private wells. Most 
people think we don't have that many people in Delaware, but we 
do. We have a million people now. There are about 173,000 
residents who depend on private wells for their drinking water. 
This number is actually growing, not shrinking.
    Congress included language in the Drinking Water and 
Wastewater Infrastructure Act to allow EPA to give grants to 
States to address underground sources of contamination 
impacting wells. Unfortunately, EPA has determined it cannot 
implement the language except to connect homeowners to a 
regulated water utility, which as you know is not always 
feasible.
    Because wells are managed by the States, Congress does not 
expect EPA to take on the regulation of wells under the Safe 
Drinking Water Act. Having said that, Congress did expect EPA 
to help States address these sources of contaminated drinking 
water.
    I am going to ask if you would be willing to commit today 
to working with this Committee on the Environment and Public 
Works to help address well contamination by providing resources 
to States.
    Ms. Fox. I absolutely commit to that. This is a shared 
concern around protecting public health, and I am happy to work 
closely with this Committee on this issue moving forward.
    Senator Carper. All right.
    Is there any question you wish you had been asked that you 
have not been asked? This is a freebie.
    Ms. Fox. My favorite question to ask people is, what is 
your favorite body of water.
    Senator Carper. All right, now that I am the only one here, 
what would that be?
    Ms. Fox. The Pacific Ocean.
    Senator Carper. That is great. It is hard to argue with 
that one.
    That is it for my questions for you today. I want to thank 
you again for being here and for your responses, and for the 
work that has gone on. Convey to your team our thanks, 
especially for the work on chemicals. That is one that is of 
great importance to the Ranking Member and me, and I think to 
all of us.
    I tell this story, and I will close in a moment and move to 
the next panel. I spent a lot of my life in Navy airplanes. I 
literally witnessed a terrible tragedy at Moffett Field Naval 
Air Station when I was on active duty, two parallel runways. We 
shared the base with lots of NASA airplanes. Our P3s were 
smaller, four engine airplanes, not as big as the ones NASA 
flew in.
    Early one morning, two planes were coming down to land 
simultaneously on the two parallel runways, a Navy P3 on the 
right and a larger NASA aircraft on the left. Both planes were 
cleared to land, as it turned out, on the same runway. And the 
larger NASA plane crushed the P3 and killed about 18 people. 
Firefighters rushed out to try to save lives; 18 people died.
    About 28 years later, I was living in Delaware heading down 
Route 1, heading down to the Rehobeth area, approaching Dover 
Air Force Base, which is on the left as you head south on Route 
1. I could see black smoke coming up from the Air Force Base. A 
C5 cargo plane, which is a huge aircraft, which was fully 
loaded with gas and fuel and cargo, had tried to take off from 
Dover Air Force Base, climbed up to an altitude, four engines 
on the C5, and they got an engine warning on one of the four 
engines. The flight engineer shut down the wrong engine. So 
instead of having four engines working, they had two. They had 
a full bag of fuel and fully loaded. And they tried to come 
around and land on the runway, they lost their altitude, they 
didn't make it. They went in about a mile south of the approach 
end of the runway.
    Firefighters came out from all over the Dover Air Force 
Base, covered the plane with foam and saved every life. Saved 
every life. That is the good news. The bad news is in the wake 
of that, we have four communities around Dover Air Force Base 
who have contaminated drinking water.
    So it is something that was really intended to save lives, 
it turns out it inhibits the quality of life. We are still 
dealing with that in Delaware. We are dealing with it in West 
Virginia. I am very pleased with the attention that the issue 
has received and hopefully will continue to receive.
    Again, thank you very much.
    Senator Capito, anything else you want to say?
    Senator Capito. Thank you.
    Senator Carper. All right, thank you so much.
    With that, we will welcome our second panel.
    Thank you, ma'am.
    Good morning. I think we have an opportunity to welcome you 
all individually. We are delighted that you are here. Thank you 
for your testimony; thank you for your service as well.
    Randy Hayman is Commissioner and CEO of the Philadelphia 
Water Department, a role he was appointed to in 2019 by Mayor 
Jim Kenney.
    We consider you a neighbor right up the road. You tell the 
Mayor we were asking for him, and we give him our best. Thank 
you for joining us today.

      STATEMENT OF RANDY E. HAYMAN, COMMISSIONER AND CEO, 
                 PHILADELPHIA WATER DEPARTMENT

    Mr. Hayman. Thank you, Chairman Carper, and Ranking Member 
Capito, and members of the Committee. Thank you for the 
opportunity to testify on the critical new resources and 
assistance being delivered by the Infrastructure Investment and 
Jobs Act and the Drinking Water and Wastewater Infrastructure 
Act, commonly known as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, or 
BIL.
    As the Commissioner and CEO of the Philadelphia Water 
Department and as a member of the Board of Directors of the 
Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies, I know that the 
nation is long overdue for landmark investment in water 
infrastructure. So I want to begin my testimony by commending 
this Committee for its leadership in developing the Drinking 
Water and Wastewater components of the BIL, and the 
cooperative, open door engagement with the AMWA and other water 
sector stakeholders that was the hallmark of this process.
    This bill was the model of how both parties and sector 
stakeholders can work together to find common ground. This is 
why the initial DWWIA, the Drinking Water and Wastewater 
Infrastructure Act, which passed the Senate with a vote of 89 
to 2 before being incorporated into the larger bill.
    But this is all about how we got here. Today I want to 
focus my comments on the on the ground benefits that resources 
provided by the Infrastructure Law are providing to my 
community. For background, in 2019, Philadelphia completed its 
water revitalization plan, a 25 year, multi-billion dollar 
strategic vision for upgrading our city drinking water 
infrastructure. The plan contains an estimated 400 necessary 
projects, including rebuilding water retreatment plants and 
replacing pumping stations and transmission mains, while 
leveraging low cost financing opportunities to keep rates 
affordable for our customers.
    To be honest, the financing component represents one of the 
hardest aspects of the plan. We know what to do. We know what 
work we need to do to strengthen our city's water 
infrastructure. Our engineers are smart, and they are 
dedicated.
    What is not as apparent is how the city can pay for it 
without raising our water and sewer rates to unsustainable 
levels. Fortunately, passage of the DWWIA came at an opportune 
time, because our city was working to implement this plan. And 
last month, President Biden announced that Philadelphia will 
receive $500 million in financing through several different 
programs authorized and funded by----
    Senator Carper. Could you say that again? How much was 
that?
    Mr. Hayman. Five hundred million, a significant amount.
    This includes $160 million through Pennsylvania's share of 
the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law funds to upgrade treatment 
facilities and replace more than 19 miles of water mains and 
any lead service lines discovered during this work.
    Additionally, in January, Philadelphia closed on a $19.8 
million loan from EPA's WIFIA program. This will support the 
replacement of 15 miles of water mains and approximately 160 
lead service lines throughout the city at lower financing costs 
than we otherwise would have faced. This loan represents just 
the first stage of a $340 million worth of WIFIA assistance 
promised to Philadelphia by EPA. These future investments will 
be paid for by subsequent rounds of WIFIA loans.
    So this is why it is so essential that Congress reauthorize 
WIFIA as part of the DWWIA and set a course for the program 
stability in years to come. While WIFIA has become consistently 
funded by Congress, DWWIA extended multiple other water and 
wastewater infrastructure funding programs, many of which are 
still awaiting meaningful investments and appropriations by 
Congress, implementation by EPA.
    One such program is EPA's Midsize and Large Drinking Water 
System Infrastructure Resilience and Sustainability Program, 
which will help drinking water systems prepare to withstand the 
effects of natural disasters and cybersecurity threats. AMWA 
championed creation of this program, alongside Senator Ben 
Cardin, and we are pleased to see it received an initial $5 
million appropriation in the final fiscal year 2023 spending 
legislation.
    However, the national need is much greater than $5 million. 
The water systems across the country are still waiting for EPA 
to stand up the program. AMWA urges EPA to move with diligence 
to make this program operational and to request full funding in 
future budget requests.
    Finally, let me conclude. There are a few areas that I 
think the funding and progress provided by DWWIA could be made 
even more effective. First, we greatly appreciate the law 
authorized a new low income water wastewater system pilot 
program at EPA. Water affordability is a national need, and it 
should be part of the Federal safety net. AMWA urges EPA to 
quickly complete its required National Water Affordability 
Needs Assessment, so that the pilot program can be funded and 
put to work.
    We would also appreciate more clarity and consistency in 
relation to which communities are eligible to receive 
additional subsidized SRF funding provided by the bill. EPA has 
specified that this is available to disadvantaged communities.
    But due to several factors, Philadelphia Water cannot 
assess grants of principal forgiveness through the PENNVEST 
State Revolving Fund, most prominently due to the affordability 
methodology used. This means that the loans currently being 
provided through the Bill funding will have to be repaid 
through higher water bills in Philadelphia and other 
communities facing similar hurdles.
    AMWA would be interested in working to establish clear and 
consistent baseline standards to ensure low income populations 
can benefit from this aid, no matter what size community they 
are in.
    Again, I thank you for the opportunity to testify before 
you today. AMWA was honored to work with the Committee on 
development of the infrastructure legislation, and the 
Philadelphia Water department is proud to be among its first 
recipients.
    I have submitted my full statement for the record, and I am 
happy to answer any questions you may have.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Hayman follows:]
    
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Senator Carper. That is great. We are going to hear from 
the other witnesses, then we will come back and ask some 
questions. Thank you again for your presence, and thank you for 
your testimony today.
    Thomas Sigmund, the Executive Director of N-E-W, NEW Water. 
Is that an acronym?
    Mr. Sigmund. It can be, for several things. Either 
Northeast Wisconsin or New in that we take wastewater and 
provide a new product, which are resource recovery and clean 
water.
    Senator Carper. All right, good. Executive Director of 
Regional Clean Water Utility in Green Bay, Wisconsin.
    One of the most exciting exhibition football games I ever 
saw was in Green Bay. You would have thought they were playing 
for the Super Bowl. It was in August. They were so pumped.
    Senator Capito. Is that the one you played in?
    Senator Carper. It is the one I should have played in.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Carper. I don't think so.
    Mr. Sigmund, you are recognized to give your statement. 
Thanks a lot for joining us and for what you do. Take it away.

STATEMENT OF THOMAS W. SIGMUND, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION 
   OF CLEAN WATER AGENCIES, AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NEW WATER

    Mr. Sigmund. Chairman Carper, Ranking Member Capito, and 
members of the Committee, I appreciate the opportunity to 
appear at today's hearing.
    My name is Tom Sigmund. I serve as President of the Board 
of Directors of the National Association of Clean Water 
Agencies, and I am also Executive Director at NEW Water, the 
brand of the Green Bay Metropolitan Sewerage District, in Green 
Bay, Wisconsin, where I have been since 2007.
    NEW Water is a regional clean water utility providing 
wholesale conveyance and treatment services to 238,000 people 
across 15 municipalities in northeast Wisconsin. We have 101 
employees, an annual budget of $49 million, and maintain a 20 
year capital improvement plan of $470 million in 2021 dollars. 
Our utility views the material sent to its facilities as a 
valuable resource to be recovered and reused, and we are 
committed to continued improvement in the watershed.
    For over 50 years, NACWA has represented public wastewater 
and stormwater agencies nationwide that are on the front lines 
of public health and environmental protection. Our unique and 
growing network of 350 public agency members works to ensure 
public utilities have the tools necessary to provide affordable 
and sustainable clean water for all.
    As part of that mission, NACWA has long advocated for the 
Federal Government to recommit to a full and reliable 
partnership with local communities to invest in and build 
critical water infrastructure.
    In this country, local customers and ratepayers have paid 
for the overwhelming majority of investment in water and sewer 
infrastructure. Not surprisingly, the costs of providing clean 
and safe water have been growing for years, and by extension, 
rates have been also increasing to meet this cost. This can be 
a significant hardship for many in our communities. And those 
of us responsible for setting or influencing rates take this 
very seriously.
    The historic water infrastructure investments in DWWIA and 
IIJA, which is commonly referred to as the Bipartisan 
Infrastructure Law, or BIL, can offer much needed help to local 
governments working to juggle these dynamics. NACWA has engaged 
with EPA on implementation, and we are encouraged by the 
efforts of Administrator Regan and Assistant Administrator Fox 
on this major undertaking to implement the statute 
expeditiously and ensure it achieves the goals set forth by 
Congress.
    My full written comments, along with a recent funding 
report NACWA has released last July, have been provided to you, 
so I will try to keep my remarks brief.
    I first want to discuss the importance of the Clean Water 
State Revolving Fund, commonly known as CWSRF. NACWA applauds 
the bipartisan commitment DWWIA has made to the CWSRF through 
both direct appropriations and increases to authorized annual 
funding. These funds are invaluable to POTWs. Nearly all of the 
fiscal year 2022 CWSRF general capitalization grants have gone 
out to the States, and EPA recently announced the fiscal year 
2023 supplemental funding that each State's CWSRF should expect 
to receive due to BIL.
    However, in fiscal years 2022 and 2023, Congress has not 
appropriated at the full levels authorized in BIL, only 60 
percent in fiscal year 2023, which reduces the overall impact 
Congress sought to make with this investment package. NACWA is 
discouraged by the request within President Biden's recently 
released budget for fiscal year 2024, calling for a level 
funding of the CWSRF with last fiscal year, rather than the 
increase that Congress authorized in BIL, which would be $3 
billion for next year. NACWA continues to urge full funding for 
the CWSRF in each fiscal year.
    The next issue is PFAS. Utilities are extremely concerned 
about the potential health and environmental risks associated 
with exposure to PFAS and what it may mean for the future of 
public clean water utility operations. An important provision 
in BIL was the allocation of funds for emerging contaminants, 
including PFAS, through the CWSRF. POTWs are concerned about 
the looming costs that they may face to manage or dispose of 
these contaminants, which water utilities passively receive and 
did not create or profit from.
    As a new pot of funding, these BIL resources are 
predictably seeing a slower approval rate than traditional SRF 
funding. To my knowledge, approximately half of the States have 
received these fiscal year 2022 awards to date.
    One obstacle to getting these funding plans approved and 
funds distributed quickly is that many of the most immediate 
costs utilities face including monitoring, assessing, and 
implementing pre-treatment programs. However, these important 
steps are not clearly eligible under the SRF, which focuses on 
capital investments. State SRFs have the authority to request 
full transfer of CWSRF funds designated for emerging 
contaminants to be applied to accounts for drinking water. For 
this fiscal year, several States have opted to pursue this 
transfer, Wisconsin included.
    This option allows States the flexibility to prioritize 
their most immediate emerging contaminant needs. But this 
should not suggest that clean water utilities will not also 
face significant costs to help control and remediate PFAS in 
their communities.
    NACWA is working with EPA and utilities to identify 
potential near term uses that are allowed under the CWSRF. 
However, congressional clarity or a distinct pot of funding 
focused on helping communities assess PFAS sources entering 
their wastewater streams may be needed.
    Another issue we have is how to support customers and 
ratepayers in need of low income water assistance and address 
affordability challenges. BIL directed EPA to conduct a 
national low income water needs assessment, which has since 
been appropriated funding. This needs assessment will help 
Congress and the public understand the full scope of national 
hardship in paying water and sewer bills. However, it may not 
be complete for several years. In the meantime, households 
continue to struggle.
    To help address this challenge, NACWA strongly supports a 
permanent, reliable source of Federal assistance with full 
funding to ensure households can afford their water and sewer 
bills and utilities have the resources they need to make 
critical investments.
    Finally, NACWA and I appreciate the opportunity to share 
our views on the implementation of DWWIA and IIJA. I am proud 
of the work that the public wastewater sector has accomplished 
to date to advance public health and environmental protection. 
Our nation's understanding of the complexity of water quality 
challenges only continues to grow.
    I hope that my testimony shows how these investment 
packages are providing initial investments in making our 
wastewater infrastructure safer and more resilient and 
responsive to new threats like emerging contaminants, while 
emphasizing the vast need for funding and how we hope this 
investment is only a start.
    We sincerely hope this increased Federal cost share for 
water will become the groundwork for greater Federal investment 
to meet our growing water challenges in the years ahead. 
Continued resources and assistance from the Federal Government 
are critical to ensure that all water and wastewater utilities 
are prepared to meet the challenges of today and tomorrow, 
starting with full funding of the Bipartisan Infrastructure 
Law.
    I am happy to answer any questions you might have.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Sigmund follows:]
    
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Senator Capito [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Sigmund. We 
appreciate your testimony.
    We will now turn to Ms. Kathy Emery. Kathy is the Director 
of the Division of Water and Waste Management at the West 
Virginia Department of Environmental Protection.
    Welcome to you; we are glad that you are here, from my home 
State of West Virginia. I understand the legislature just put 
another responsibility onto you as well. So thank you for 
taking that on, whether you wanted it or not.

STATEMENT OF KATHERYN D. EMERY, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF WATER AND 
  WASTE MANAGEMENT, WEST VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL 
                           PROTECTION

    Ms. Emery. Thank you.
    Good morning and thank you, Chairman Carper, Ranking Member 
Capito, and all members of the Committee, for the opportunity 
to testify before you on the Drinking Water and Wastewater 
Infrastructure Act, which is included in the Infrastructure 
Investment and Jobs Act.
    My name is Katheryn Emery, and I am the Director of the 
West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection's Division 
of Water and Waste Management. I have either worked in or 
managed West Virginia's Clean Water State Revolving Fund for 
the past 28 years.
    I am truly honored to represent West Virginia today to 
discuss with you the funding opportunities provided in the 
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, as well as current 
water infrastructure challenges and ongoing unmet needs in 
small, rural, and disadvantaged communities.
    Considering that only 50 of West Virginia's combined 671 
drinking water and wastewater utilities serve a population of 
greater than 10,000, I think it is safe to say that West 
Virginia is on the front lines of facing the challenges of 
meeting the needs of small, rural, and disadvantaged 
communities. The difficulties to providing services to these 
communities is very real. The reality of small numbers of 
customers, topographical challenges, and low incomes make it 
very difficult to find an affordable solution to meet the needs 
of residents.
    Even with 100 percent principal forgiveness and grant 
funding, customers fund the rates to support only the operation 
and maintenance expenses a challenge. In addition, our 
communities are also struggling to find and pay qualified 
operators.
    Infrastructure needs cover providing safe drinking water 
and treated wastewater to unserved communities, upgrading old 
and failing infrastructure, locating and addressing lead 
service lines, and preparing to meet upcoming PFAS standards as 
well as any other new regulatory initiatives.
    The supplemental funding from the Act means a lot to our 
communities that are trying to address these challenges. For 
example, the number of applicants for a project priority list 
jumped from 101 to 175 in the Clean Water SRF, and from 29 to 
157 in the Drinking Water SRF, as our communities are preparing 
to take full advantage of this historic opportunity.
    West Virginia has been utilizing multiple approaches to 
address these issues. Co-funding and collaboration with other 
funding agencies and providing technical assistance are some of 
the tools that we are using to fully utilize all available 
State and Federal dollars to provide safe drinking water and 
treated wastewater to as many citizens as possible.
    With that being said, I ask for your consideration of a few 
suggestions to help us be even more effective in funding 
projects to meet the intent of the Act. The most effective part 
of the SRF programs is the flexibility to tailor the programs 
to meet individual State needs. States must have the ability to 
determine their own definition of disadvantage, and develop 
their own priority criteria to best meet the needs of the 
citizens of their States.
    Each of the changes and new initiatives crafted within the 
Act also need to maintain that flexibility. As you can see from 
my written testimony, there are several suggestions for 
additional flexibility that, if provided, can help States 
maximize the utilization of this funding to fit their 
individual situations.
    It has been my experience that when working with small 
utilities and communities without access to adequate water and 
wastewater infrastructure, situations and needs arise that have 
never really been contemplated. That is why it is so critical 
that we be very cautious about writing policies and guidance 
documents that limit the abilities of the SRFs and other 
funding agencies to adapt to changing needs.
    The one size fits all approach doesn't work when trying to 
apply solutions that work for large, existing utilities to 
communities trying to either improve or provide service to, at 
most, hundreds of customers.
    Thank you again for allowing me the opportunity to discuss 
these issues with you today. The problem is always finding a 
sustainable and affordable solution to communities with small 
numbers of customers, and the funding provided through this Act 
will help us to address this problem with many disadvantaged 
and unserved areas.
    Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Emery follows:]
    
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Senator Capito. Thank you, Ms. Emery, and thank all three 
of you.
    The reason it looks kind of blank up here is that we are in 
the middle of a vote. Chairman Carper went to make his vote, so 
I will take the time to do my questioning, then I will have to 
leave and do my constitutional duty.
    Ms. Emery, let's get to the flexibility issue. You heard me 
ask Assistant Administrator Fox about this. There was a January 
6th memo that EPA put out, a guidance memo, that encouraged and 
sort of sought to impose some of EPA's priorities through, in 
selecting community investments. This is what I was trying to 
say to her, is exactly what you said much better in your 
statement: Leave us the flexibility to do what we want and what 
we know is best for our communities as we tailor them.
    What kind of challenges and concerns do you have that this 
EPA guidance may be trying to rein in some of your flexibility?
    Ms. Emery. I am a little concerned by that memo. It was a 
bit of a surprise. I do want to start off by saying that this 
past year, we had a lot of conversations with EPA Region III. 
They are an excellent funding partner with West Virginia. They 
were asking questions about how we evaluated our affordability 
criteria, the prioritization criteria. EPA's guidance had a lot 
of suggestions for States to consider, and we did take 
advantage of those suggestions, and we did make adjustments in 
our intended use plan.
    But when I am reading this memo, and it is talking about 
additional criteria, in addition to the intended use plan 
checklist, when it is talking about implementation of a 
priority criteria that they are developing in coming months, 
that they are going to be accessing our IUPs based against 
that.
    Senator Capito. So you haven't even seen that yet?
    Ms. Emery. I have not seen it. It is saying it is in 
development. So it has me a little concerned that there is 
going to be criteria that they are going to ask us to 
incorporate into our intended uses.
    Senator Capito. So you could create your own plan, tailor 
it to your own, as Congress intended, tailor it to our State of 
West Virginia and to our small, disadvantaged communities and 
smaller communities, because that is basically what we are in a 
lot of ways, very small communities, you formulate all this, 
you get your technical expertise together, you formulate the 
plan, it goes to EPA, and then all of a sudden they come back 
with criteria you haven't seen to say, but you are not doing 
this and this.
    Is that the concern? Am I hearing that correctly?
    Ms. Emery. That is my concern. I am wondering where this 
memo is taking us at this point.
    Senator Capito. Did they give you a timeframe on that?
    Ms. Emery. No. I do have a list of questions, it is in the 
memo, we are set up to have a conversation with Region III. But 
like I said, I have not seen whatever this priority criteria is 
that they're supposed to establish.
    Senator Capito. Mr. Sigmund, are you hearing this across 
the country, same issue?
    Mr. Sigmund. I am not familiar with the most recent. Our 
experience with the State of Wisconsin Clean Water Fund has 
been very positive, and that has been over the last year. They 
have taken what they received from EPA. We have formed a 
working group with our Clean Water Fund. They have expanded the 
definition of what is considered to be a disadvantaged 
community, but have not excluded those that are historical.
    So I am not as familiar with the most recent changes.
    Senator Capito. Ok. Thank you.
    Ms. Emery, I think you and I can talk about it. I thought 
it was interesting that Senator Lummis talked about leakage of 
water out of small systems. We know that is a huge issue for 
us. We have some lead, we know that was discovered in the north 
central part of the State, and is probably more predominant in 
other areas of the State.
    What do you think our biggest challenge is, specific to our 
State, in water infrastructure for these small and rural? Is it 
going to be the testing for PFAS as we see it come through the 
destruction of PFAS, what are we going to do with it when we 
get it? How are we going to replace our filters? I am naming 
some of the things, if you could, from your perspective.
    Ms. Emery. I think the primary thing is affordability and 
sustainability for our communities.
    Senator Capito. For the systems or the individuals, or 
both?
    Ms. Emery. Yes, all of the above.
    Senator Capito. OK.
    Ms. Emery. In addition to just what we were talking about, 
in maintaining existing infrastructure, extending sewer 
services out to other communities, other areas. Now we are 
trying to assess the PFAS situation in West Virginia, where is 
it, where is the contamination coming from. And we are adding 
lead service lines on top of all of that.
    So it is a lot for all of these communities to take on. And 
we are working with them on these one by one. That is why the 
flexibility of the SRFs I think has to be maintained. Our 
communities, some of the more rural, disadvantaged, trying to 
gather enough grant funding and debt forgiveness to support 
just the projects that they have, because they can't sustain 
debt service. They are struggling just to pay their operation 
and maintenance.
    Senator Capito. Right. The customers can't afford another 
rate hike. I know that is always part of the consideration.
    Ms. Emery. An example for that is the community of Iaeger 
in McDowell County. It is one of our most economically 
distressed counties. We are finally getting a sewer system into 
Iaeger. It is a combination of a lot of grant funding sources.
    But I was looking at the combined water and wastewater rate 
for those citizens. It will be over $100 a month. It will be 
over 3 percent of the median household income, just for water 
and wastewater. That is without adding on other considerations 
going forward.
    Senator Capito. Thank you. I am going to run and do my 
vote, and I think Senator Ricketts is going to take the gavel.
    Thank you.
    Senator Ricketts [presiding]. Thank you very much.
    Since Senator Kelly just got here, I am going to go ahead 
and ask my questions, if that is OK. We just had a Republican 
go.
    If you want to go, I can let you go first.
    Senator Kelly. I am ready, if you are OK with that, 
Senator.
    Senator Ricketts. Then I will let you go.
    Senator Kelly. All right.
    Good morning, everybody, thank you for being here.
    Mr. Hayman and Mr. Sigmund, in the last Congress I worked 
with Senator Risch to introduce the Water Infrastructure 
Modernization Act, which would provide dedicated EPA funding 
for smart water and wastewater technologies, like pipeline leak 
detection systems and sensors and smart water meters. We are 
hoping to reintroduce this legislation again and see progress 
made on the legislation during this Congress.
    For both of you, can you speak to how your systems use 
smart water technologies to reduce water loss and improve 
system efficiencies, and how would additional Federal resources 
such as through the Water Infrastructure Modernization Act help 
water and wastewater systems further deploy these technologies?
    Mr. Hayman. I will gladly take that question, Senator. It 
is important that as a water utility that we keep evolving. And 
one of the main things we have to do is use technology to our 
advantage, and do it in a way that is economically feasible. 
Affordability is a big issue. But when we are able to use 
technology in the big picture to develop a system that is 
responsible to our customers, we are doing what is the right 
thing to do.
    As far as smart technology, we have AMI, the Automated 
Meter Infrastructure program, where we are able to get real 
time information about water usage. So you go to the app, go to 
the website, and look and see, what is my bill. What happens in 
that situation, instead of having a running pipe, let's say a 
broken toilet that you are not aware of in the basement, and 
your bill is going up, you will be able to go to the site, and 
you will see what your bill is. That information truly is power 
and allows you to be more economically sensible in how you are 
handling your household economics.
    The bottom line, too, is we also have systems that allow us 
to hear leaks in pipes. We had a situation where there was a 
leakage, we couldn't find it. We used the technology, we are 
working still to pinpoint it, but we are a lot closer than we 
were before.
    So the use of technology is important. And the funding is 
imperative, because all the things we want to do cost. We are 
dealing with a situation where rates are getting higher and 
higher, coming to a level of not being sustainable for many in 
our communities.
    So any moneys we are able to receive to allow us to assist 
the customer and to allow us to keep our rates low or not to 
increase at all, is beneficial to the entire community.
    Senator Kelly. Do you have any examples of percentage wise, 
or gallons or acre feet of water that a specific investment has 
resulted in? Any anecdotal example.
    Mr. Hayman. I would have to go back and supplement the 
record after the hearing on that. But I must say that the AMI 
process, of being able to have real time information, is truly 
important, and it is revolutionary in Philadelphia. Because 
what is happening is that people can monitor the water usage, 
they can monitor if there is a leak in a pipe. It is a $100 
million project. But it is going to be greatly beneficial for 
decades to come.
    Senator Kelly. Mr. Sigmund.
    Mr. Sigmund. Coming from a clean water utility, water loss 
is not a concern for us. But in the implementation of smart 
technology, in our interceptor systems, we do use some of the 
smart meter covers to be able to identify, during periods of 
wet weather events, high flows that we might either reroute 
flows if that is possible. Because oftentimes rainfall is not 
uniform across the service area. Or to be able to deploy forces 
to potentially mitigate some of the problems with high flows.
    Within our treatment facilities, we are a huge energy user. 
So we have used smart technologies to be able to analyze how we 
use energy and possibly tie it to some of our aeration 
equipment to maybe slow down some of the aeration equipment 
when it is not needed to run at quite the full capacity.
    The ability to mine this tremendous amount of information 
that we collect, we collect tons of information, and our staff 
can only manage so much, we have gone to technologies to be 
able to predict where we would go, which helps our operators 
make better decisions.
    So the smart technology in wastewater and utilities is 
being used, and it is being beneficial, and I mentioned with 
staffing, as we are struggling to continue to find treatment 
operators, maintenance and electrician technicians, that smart 
technology is allowing us to stretch those forces a little 
farther.
    Senator Kelly. Thank you, and thank you, Senator Ricketts. 
I yield time that I don't have. I yield back nothing.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Carper [presiding]. Thank you.
    All right, Senator Ricketts, you are in it for the second 
round, I think.
    Senator Ricketts. Thank you, Chairman. Actually, this is 
the first time with this panel.
    We had Administrator Fox here earlier talking about PFAS. 
So I am going to give you all a question, for the entire panel, 
what types of tools would be helpful in addressing the impacts 
to water infrastructure that especially I am concerned 
particularly about rural communities, when it comes to PFAS? 
What are some of the tools you have seen that are going to be 
helpful as we go through this rulemaking to be able to make 
sure communities can apply?
    Do you want to start, Mr. Hayman?
    Mr. Hayman. With PFAS, I think a couple of things. One, it 
is important that we understand what are we looking at, that we 
understand what the numbers are. We are going to be receiving a 
lot of new data on PFAS, so it is important that we work 
closely with the scientists and engineers to see, what does 
that really mean.
    The other part of it is that anything that we do with PFAS, 
it is going to be an additional cost. It is going to be an 
additional burden to the ratepayer. So it is imperative that we 
receive some funding to assist us in making sure that we are 
not putting upon the ratepayer a burden that they can't carry, 
or additional bills that they would have to cover.
    Basically, though, I would say that we are going to have to 
work with our engineers to evaluate it, to make sure we have 
the machinery to do it. I have to say this: I am very proud of 
Philadelphia. We are often on the cutting edge, and on this 
issue, we are on the cutting edge of evaluating PFAS. We have 
been doing that voluntarily for over a year. We have been 
putting the information that we find on our website.
    Also, we have been transparent. I think too that is going 
to be a major part of being successful as a water utility in 
this country, that we cannot go back to how we operated in the 
1950s, 1960s. There is a need to be transparent. We have done 
that as far as releasing information and keeping the public 
informed.
    We have to make sure we have the machinery we need and 
equipment we need to analyze it. We have to understand what we 
are looking at, and we have to be transparent as far as 
releasing information and educating the public on what we have.
    Senator Ricketts. Do you have any idea of how much, just 
ballpark, what it is going to cost to be able to do that?
    Mr. Hayman. I don't know. In all honesty, the law just 
changed, the requirements changed yesterday. It is now four 
parts per trillion; before it was, in Philadelphia, I think it 
was about 14 parts per trillion. So we are going to have to 
evaluate it and make decisions as we go forward.
    Senator Ricketts. Thank you.
    Mr. Sigmund.
    Mr. Sigmund. We are just in the process of starting an 
evaluation, data collection and evaluation process for PFAS in 
our system. We are expecting to spend between our utility and 
working with our significant industrial dischargers who we 
believe might discharge PFAS probably in the vicinity of 
$100,000 to $200,000 a year for the testing and the analysis.
    So that is going to be a first step for us to try to 
understand where this is coming from. That testing process is 
not easy. The analysis process is not inexpensive. So that is a 
big part of it.
    One thing I wanted to mention, probably the biggest concern 
for myself as a utility, is CERCLA in terms of PFAS. As the 
rule is currently written, wastewater utilities, even though 
the EPA says they do not play to call us as a principal 
responsible party, my utility experience with PCBs over about 
two decades was that we spent in excess of a million dollars to 
both, through legal fees as well as being considered to be a de 
minimis party.
    So yes, EPA says, we are not going to consider you to be a 
principal responsible party, but that doesn't mean that the 
principal responsible parties won't come after us for 
contribution. That is, I think, going to be one of the biggest 
concerns for utilities, is being brought into that entire 
process. That is why we hope that Congress will grant an 
exemption to clean water utilities.
    Senator Ricketts. Thank you, Mr. Sigmund.
    Ms. Emery.
    Ms. Emery. I do share some of Mr. Sigmund's concerns on the 
part of the utilities. In West Virginia, we have spent the last 
couple years of doing an assessment of all our drinking water 
sources in the State, just to try to determine where this is 
located, at least starting with the drinking water utilities. 
We are doing further analysis, further testing, finished water, 
trying to find out the source of contamination.
    That being said, we are trying to be very strategic on how 
we address this, where it is located, where it is coming from. 
So one of the suggestions we would have is allowing more 
monitoring to be used out of this emerging contaminants 
funding. It does say that we can use monitoring, but it has to 
be specifically tied to an upcoming project. But our POTWs are 
worried about the expense of monitoring on themselves.
    So the flexibility to use this funding to do just 
monitoring and studies, just to figure out the realm of the 
problem we have, would be very beneficial.
    Senator Ricketts. Great. Thank you.
    Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Carper. Senator Ricketts, that is it for you, my 
friend.
    I am going to ask a couple of questions, and that might be 
it. Thanks for being here twice for two rounds. That is good, 
thank you.
    I have three questions; we have three panelists. I am going 
to ask each of you a question.
    We will start, Mr. Hayman, with you again. The Bipartisan 
Infrastructure Law, which I think I can speak for my colleagues 
and I here, is one of the things we are proudest of that we 
have worked on in our lives. It was a great bipartisan triumph 
with the leadership of the President and Democrats and 
Republicans.
    The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law provided I think more 
than $11 billion to the Drinking Water State Revolving Loan 
Fund over 5 years. The law dictates that some 49 percent of 
each State's annual funding allocation ``shall be used by the 
State to provide grants, forgiveness of principal, or a 
combination of both.''
    Whether a project is eligible for a grant from the SRF as 
opposed to a loan is determined by each State's own rules on 
this subject. Some of the State determined affordability 
criteria, however, prevent large cities like Philadelphia from 
being able to receive grants for loan forgiveness for water 
infrastructure projects that would benefit low income, 
disadvantaged, and minority communities living with a larger 
metropolitan area.
    Here's my question. Has Philadelphia had trouble accessing 
the grant funding provided for in the Bipartisan Infrastructure 
Law? And what kinds of projects do you think these grant funds 
could support if the affordability criteria was changed?
    Mr. Hayman. Thank you, Senator. Thank you very much for the 
question.
    The bottom line is yes, we are having difficulty in 
receiving grants from the PENNVEST State Revolving Fund, 
primarily because of the way that they determine economic 
feasibility or accountability. Basically what they are saying 
is that our rates are too low. And what is happening is they 
are looking at what people are able to pay across the entire 
board. While there might be one area that is richer than 
another, that skews the numbers. And as a result, despite the 
size of Philadelphia, despite being one of the largest, poorest 
cities in the country, we are in a situation where we are not 
able to obtain the grants.
    As a result, we receive loans, and those loans then put a 
burden on the customer, because those loans have to be repaid.
    Now, let me also answer your second part, if I may. You 
stated that there is, what projects could we do. There are a 
plethora of projects that we have. As I said earlier, our 
engineers are smart, and we have tons of projects that we could 
work on. One of them is our Water Revitalization Program. It is 
going to turn around and have 400 projects that allow us to 
rebuild our water plants, our transmission mains, and make sure 
we have the tunnels that we need to transport redundancy and 
transport the water across from different water utility parts.
    So in the end, there are pipes that can be replaced or 
there are plants that can be repaired, there are a number of 
projects we would use the moneys for. And again, grants are 
better than the loans, because they do not place an economic 
responsibility on the customer down the road. They don't have 
to be repaid.
    Senator Carper. Good. Thank you.
    My second question, Mr. Sigmund, according to a report by 
the National Association of Clean Water Agencies and the 
Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies, it is estimated 
that drinking water and wastewater utilities will need an 
additional $448 billion to $944 billion between now and 2050 to 
make their systems more resilient to extreme weather events. 
The Drinking Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Act created 
several new grant programs focused on providing resources to 
drinking water and wastewater utilities who wish to improve 
their systems' resiliency to extreme weather events and other 
threats.
    While I was glad to see those programs receiving funding 
last year, the appropriated amount was well below the 
authorized level. Here is my question. Do you think it is 
important for Congress to fully fund the resiliency program 
created in the Drinking Water and Wastewater Infrastructure 
Act, and how would those programs be used to address specific 
problems caused by climate change?
    Mr. Sigmund. I would answer yes, it is very important for 
Congress to fully fund these programs. What NACWA has provided 
to you is not an exaggeration. It is where we see the state of 
our infrastructure; we are a very heavy capital infrastructure. 
We make it last a long time, but it doesn't last forever and 
needs to be replaced.
    The resiliency from climate change, in my utility we have 
seen our system be stressed three times in the last 5 years at 
its maximum capacity. We are able to deliver service because we 
had all of our equipment able to be in service, which is not 
always the case, because of maintenance.
    So we are seeing in our State of Wisconsin and our area not 
necessarily more rainfall throughout the year, maybe a little 
bit more, but it is coming at different times and with greater 
intensity. And our infrastructure needs to be upgraded to be 
able to handle these peak flows.
    Senator Carper. Thank you.
    I have one more question for Ms. Emery.
    We have been joined by Senator Markey, and I am going to 
yield to him for any questions he might have.
    Senator Markey, welcome, good afternoon.
    Senator Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Carper. Have you voted twice?
    Senator Markey. I have voted, yes. Have you voted?
    Senator Carper. Just once.
    Senator Markey. Thank you all so much. In 2021, a malicious 
actor hacked into a water treatment facility in Florida and 
increased the level of lye, an ingredient used in soap and 
fertilizer in the water, by over 11,000 percent. Fortunately, 
an operator noticed the intrusion. That attack was a wakeup 
call.
    Strengthening the security of our clean water and 
wastewater systems is a complex task. But it starts with 
information. That is why the Water Information Sharing and 
Analysis Center, or Water ISAC, is so important.
    Mr. Hayman, can you briefly explain to the Committee the 
benefits of Water ISAC for water utilities, information sharing 
for utilities?
    Mr. Hayman. The old adage that information is power comes 
to mind. Basically, the Water ISAC, by being a member of that 
organization, information regarding cybersecurity or weather 
issues, climate change issues, all come to one depository. So 
it is gathered, it is analyzed, it is distributed. It ends up 
helping those who are members of it in being able to make 
analyses and make the right decisions.
    After the recent train derailment in East Palestine, Ohio, 
Water ISAC disseminated a bevy of information to nearby 
communities about risks to water quality and protective actions 
they could take. So it really gives them real time information, 
and again, information is power.
    Senator Markey. Thank you. Absolutely.
    Last week, I introduced the Water System Threat 
Preparedness and Resilience Act, which would provide funding 
for clean water and wastewater utilities to become members of 
Water ISAC. My legislation fills the critical funding gap for 
small water utilities to join this critical information sharing 
network and helps expand access to essential resources.
    Mr. Hayman, do you agree that Congress should pass the 
legislation so that we should increase the information sharing, 
smaller utilities gain access to this information as well?
    Mr. Hayman. Absolutely. Absolutely, because the more 
organizations are able to have access to it, the better we are 
able to protect the health and safety of everyone.
    Senator Markey. So these small water agencies, they deserve 
that same kind of information?
    Mr. Hayman. Absolutely. Because often, they are left out, 
and they need it the most. So anything that opens up that door 
of opportunity, we should do.
    Senator Markey. Exactly. And what we just saw in East 
Palestine, it is a small community that had a terrible 
disaster.
    Mr. Hayman. Absolutely.
    Senator Markey. So we don't need small water systems left 
out, because they serve populations that could have the same 
kind of catastrophic circumstances. So thank you for protecting 
our infrastructure.
    Samuel Taylor Coleridge in a poem said, ``Water, water, 
everywhere, but not a drop to drink.'' And Coleridge was right; 
we all have a thirst for clean and safe drinking water. Yet too 
many Americans go without access to it in the wake of aging 
pipes and monitoring systems nationwide. Small and 
disadvantaged communities face additional barriers to safe 
drinking water without the support needed to overcome them. 
Communities of color are 40 percent more likely to have 
drinking water systems that consistently fail to meet safety 
standards in our country.
    To address that clog in the system, in 2019 I introduced 
the CLEAR Act, legislation to provide more support for 
disadvantaged communities with additional financial assistance 
for new provisions, allowing communities to purchase filters, 
hire technical expertise. And I was very glad to see these key 
provisions included in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.
    Thanks to the leadership of our Chair and our bipartisan 
work with the Administration, this funding and other resources 
are getting out the door and into our pipes. More than $10 
million in EPA funding has been awarded, for example, to Fall 
River, Massachusetts, after decades of neglect, to help remove 
lead service lines throughout the city.
    Mr. Hayman, will more appropriated funds for the small, 
underserved, and disadvantaged communities grant program help 
more of those communities to get the safe drinking water which 
they are entitled to as well as the large cities?
    Mr. Hayman. Absolutely. And it is because the needs of our 
water utilities are large and expanding. They do not simply 
stop; they are not stagnant. For example, in the last 15 years, 
we have had about 700 water main breaks. In the last 5 years, 
there have been about 4,000 water main breaks. They need to be 
repaired. We have, again, with our Water Revitalization Plan, 
we have to basically tear down one treatment plant and rebuild 
it.
    So these are expensive projects that need to be done, 
because so much of our system is at the end of life. If we are 
able to receive any grants; that helps. Any moneys that we 
receive allow us to lessen the burden that is placed on our 
citizens, our customers.
    Senator Markey. So only $30 million was appropriated last 
year for small and disadvantaged communities, even though $60 
million was authorized in the Bipartisan Law. So we have to 
work harder. We have to get that money so that the smaller 
communities, the disadvantaged communities in our country, get 
the protections that they deserve for their water supply as 
well.
    Thank you all so much for all your work.
    Thank you, Mr. Hayman.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Carper. Senator Markey, thank you. You have a lot 
going on today. Thank you for making time to be here, and for 
all of your work on this legislation.
    I want to close by thanking each of you for joining us. 
Some who came from as far away as Philadelphia, just up the 
road from where my family and I live, and some who came from my 
native State of West Virginia, and we are delighted, and one 
who came from one of the great football venues. If I had time 
to ask one more question, I would ask you the future of Aaron 
Rodgers on the Green Bay Packers. But we don't have time for 
that, we can talk later.
    But on a more serious note, I want to say this is a serious 
issue, as you know. People ask me why we concentrate a lot on 
water in this Committee. Without water, we don't have anything, 
we don't have life, we don't have a good quality of life. It is 
just incredibly important for our planet and for all of us who 
are fortunate enough to share this planet.
    Speaking of shared, there is a shared responsibility with 
respect to providing water sanitation, wastewater sanitation, 
clean drinking water. It is not all on the Federal Government, 
it is not on the State and local governments, it is not just 
all on the utilities, it is not just on customers, those of us 
who drink and use the water. It is a shared responsibility. We 
all have a role to play.
    Our hope is with the implementation of the Bipartisan Water 
and Wastewater legislation that we passed that we are going to 
be doing a better job at the Federal level of meeting our 
responsibilities on this front.
    Senators are going to be allowed to submit written 
questions for the record. They are going to be allowed to do 
that by 4 p.m. on Wednesday, March 29th, which is about 2 weeks 
from today. And we will compile those questions, we will send 
them on to each of you, and ask you to try to respond to them, 
if you will, be Wednesday, April 12th. If you could do that for 
us we would be most grateful.
    Additionally, we received a number of statements for the 
record from a wide range of stakeholders. And I would ask 
unanimous consent at this time to enter these statements into 
the record.
    I like to make unanimous consent requests when I am the 
only Senator in the room, because the only person who could 
object is me, and I never object to my own unanimous consent 
requests. That would be a first that you would witness, but you 
are not going to see it today.
    [The referenced information follows:]
    
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Senator Carper. On a serious note, my mom passed away a 
number of years ago, from West Virginia, born right outside of 
Beckley in Raleigh County. My mom was a deeply religious woman. 
She used to drag my sister and me to church very close to where 
we lived in Beaver, right outside of Beckley, she would drag us 
to church every Sunday morning, every Sunday night, every 
Wednesday night, and most Thursday nights. People say, do they 
have church on Thursday nights? Well, we did in Beaver more 
often than not. Then she would take us home and we would watch 
Billy Graham on TV.
    So one of the things my mom was really intent on instilling 
in my sister Sheila and me was the Golden Rule, treat other 
people the way we want to be treated, which is really what we 
try to do with this legislation. The other thing, a real focus 
on Matthew 25, looking out for the least of these, when I was 
thirsty, did you give me to drink.
    So I think we have touched a lot of bases here today, but 
even some scriptural. I want to close with the idea that there 
is a moral responsibility here as well. It is just not an 
economic imperative, a nice to do imperative, there is a moral 
imperative here. And I think we are all trying to, regardless 
of what our faith is, I think we are all trying to meet and 
reach that moral imperative.
    We thank you very much for being a part of all that. With 
that, I look forward to seeing at least one of you up in 
Philadelphia, and another back in West Virginia, and I maybe am 
going to have to go to another Packers football game. I will 
never forget that spring training. I have been to a bunch of 
Eagles games over the years; I thought those fans were pretty 
rabid. But not nearly as excited as the folks were in Green 
Bay, at an exhibition game.
    With that, this is a wrap. We are adjourned. Thank you all 
very much.
    [Whereupon, at 12:27 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

                                 [all]