[Senate Hearing 118-101]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                                                        S. Hrg. 118-101

                          WATER AFFORDABILITY
                      AND SMALL SYSTEM ASSISTANCE

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

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                      SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES, 
                          WATER, AND WILDLIFE

                                 OF THE

                              COMMITTEE ON
                      ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION
                               __________

                              MAY 31, 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
                    
53-348PDF                 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
                              ----------                              

             Subcommittee on Fisheries, Water, and Wildlife

                   ALEX PADILLA, California, Chairman
               CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming, Ranking Member

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland         KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island     PETE RICKETTS, Nebraska
EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts      JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan            DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska
MARK KELLY, Arizona                  SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West 
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware (ex           Virginia (ex officio)
    officio)
                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

                              MAY 31, 2023
                           OPENING STATEMENTS

Padilla, Hon. Alex, U.S. Senator from the State of California....     1
Lummis, Hon. Cynthia M., U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming..     3

                               WITNESSES

Jones, Kyle, Policy and Legal Director, Community Water Center; 
  Sacramento, California.........................................     6
    Prepared statement...........................................     8
    Response to an additional question from Senator Cardin.......    16
Menard, Rosemary, Water Director, City of Santa Cruz Water 
  Department; Santa Cruz, California.............................    18
    Prepared statement...........................................    20
    Responses to additional questions from Senator Cardin........    25
Pepper, Mark, Executive Director, Wyoming Association of Rural 
  Water Systems..................................................    28
    Prepared statement...........................................    30

                          ADDITIONAL MATERIAL

Letter to Senators Padilla and Lummis from the Association of 
  Metropolitan Water Agencies, May 31, 2023......................    52
Letter to the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public 
  Works, Subcommittee on Fisheries, Water, and Wildlife, from 
  Community Water Center et al., May 31, 2023....................    55
Memorandum from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Analytical 
  Chemistry Branch, to Anne Overstreet, Director, Biological and 
  Economic Analysis Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, May 
  18, 2023.......................................................    57

 
                          WATER AFFORDABILITY 
                      AND SMALL SYSTEM ASSISTANCE

                              ----------                              


                        WEDNESDAY, MAY 31, 2023

                               U.S. Senate,
         Committee on Environment and Public Works,
            Subcommittee on Fisheries, Water, and Wildlife,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:43 p.m. in room 
406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Alex Padilla 
(Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.
    Present: Senators Padilla, Lummis, Cardin, Whitehouse, 
Kelly, and Ricketts.

            OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ALEX PADILLA, 
           U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

    Senator Padilla. Good afternoon, everybody. This hearing 
will come to order.
    It is my honor to welcome everyone to the first hearing of 
this Congress for the Senate Environment and Public Works 
Subcommittee on Fisheries, Water, and Wildlife.
    I apologize for the slightly delayed start of the hearing. 
They opened the Senate floor just a few minutes ago. I can 
attest that Senator Lummis and I were among the first to cast 
our votes so we could race over here and try to begin as on 
time as possible. We do expect additional colleagues to join us 
over the next several minutes.
    Today, we will be examining the issue of water 
affordability and small water system assistance in communities 
across the United States. There is a reason why there is a 
saying in the West that, ``whiskey is for drinking, and water 
is for fighting over.'' Access to water is the foundation for 
strong and healthy communities, economies, and families.
    As a Californian, this topic is near and dear to me and to 
the 40 million Californians that I represent, as well as to all 
Americans who have ever had to worry about whether or not they 
could afford their next water bill or if their water would be 
shut off because they can't keep up with the bills.
    In a country as wealthy as the United States, nobody should 
have to worry about whether aging, deteriorating pipes in rural 
communities will hold up, whether wells could run dry due to an 
extended drought, or whether the climate crisis and extreme 
weather will bring catastrophe to our water supply. It is only 
right that we take a close look at the state of our country's 
water systems and the Federal investments needed to make sure 
that all Americans have access to safe, affordable, and 
reliable water supply. After all, it is not just about our 
economy and environmental protection. It is about fundamental 
health and human safety.
    I want to thank our witnesses who are here today to discuss 
their experiences with America's aging water infrastructure, as 
well as with the families who are experiencing rising costs.
    I also want to thank Chairman Carper, Ranking Member 
Capito, and my Subcommittee Ranking Member, Senator Lummis, as 
well as all of our hardworking Committee staff for making 
today's hearing a priority.
    When it comes to clean water, Americans too often face a 
heartbreaking choice. Just last fall, the Los Angeles Times 
told the story of Rosario Rodriguez, a woman living in a rural 
community in western Fresno County in California. With bills to 
pay, a family to feed, and a skyrocketing water bill after a 
summer of drought, Rosario was forced to choose between paying 
the electric bill or the water bill, not to mention food, 
school supplies, clothing, and more.
    Because there were few assistance programs available for 
water bills beyond one time payments, she was forced to pay the 
water bill in full and look elsewhere for electric rate 
assistance.
    In 2012, California became the first State in the Nation to 
recognize in statute a human right to water, but California 
can't do it alone.
    For the Rodriguez family and many families like them, 
extreme drought and the increasingly devastating impacts of our 
changing climate, combined with aging water infrastructure, 
have made access to clean, affordable water a privilege instead 
of a basic human right. This is the result, in large part, of 
decades of underinvestment in water infrastructure.
    Water systems, especially those in small, rural, or 
disadvantaged communities, also frequently lack adequate 
staffing and the financial capacity to make necessary upgrades. 
As a result, the cost of maintaining and repairing water 
infrastructure has fallen on States, localities, and of course, 
ratepayers.
    In fact, over the past 20 years, water rates have increased 
at three times the rate of inflation, significantly higher than 
the rate of energy bill increases, for example.
    The American Water Works Association has found that one in 
three Americans struggles to pay their water bills on time, and 
the EPA projects that 36 percent of U.S. households will not be 
able to afford drinking water by next year. That is more than 
one in three.
    This all points to an alarming water affordability crisis 
and an environmental justice crisis as well, with underserved 
communities who already struggle to afford utilities in rural, 
low income, and Tribal communities being hit hardest by rising 
water rates.
    In this moment, we need a unified approach from the Federal 
Government to ensure that all Americans have access to 
affordable, clean drinking water.
    Over the past few years, I have been proud to see Congress 
come together to provide over $1 billion to help low income 
households pay their water bills after the outbreak of COVID-
19. I was proud to help pass the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, 
the single largest investment in water infrastructure in our 
Nation's history, bringing an unprecedented $55 billion to 
communities across the country to bolster drinking water and 
wastewater infrastructure, replace lead pipes, and address 
forever chemicals known as PFAS.
    I was also proud to support this Committee's work to 
authorize a new EPA pilot program to help rural and low income 
households pay for water bills. Together, these are great first 
steps to lifting up families in need and investing in our 
Nation's clean water future, but these are temporary rate 
assistance programs, and investments that only begin to address 
the backlog of our deferred maintenance needs. We cannot stop 
there.
    The $1 billion for utility assistance, for example, is set 
to expire this year, and despite the robust investments we made 
in LIHEAP, a permanent energy assistance program, we still do 
not have a permanent equivalent program for water assistance.
    That is what today is all about: Working together to see 
how we can provide permanent water utility assistance to 
communities in need and how we can make sure that no American 
has to choose between putting food on the table or pouring 
water into their glass.
    I am excited to hear from all of our witnesses about what 
families are still facing, what communities and utilities see 
as the most pressing challenges to delivering affordable water, 
and how we can best strengthen our Nation's water supply 
systems.
    With that, I would like to turn to Ranking Member Lummis 
for her opening statement.

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

    Senator Lummis. Thank you, Chairman Padilla. I look forward 
to working with you on the issues that we are discussing today, 
as well as other items, such as reforms to the Endangered 
Species Act and to our work to ensure the continued supply from 
the Colorado River.
    I want to thank our witnesses for being here today. I 
especially want to thank Mark Pepper, who runs the Wyoming 
Association of Rural Water Systems. You are always such a help 
in informing me about what our small, rural water systems are 
facing, so I am deeply grateful for your being here today. You 
wear many hats in Wyoming. And I am deeply grateful that you 
took time out to be here today because I know you are super 
busy.
    Water is the key to life. While this sounds like an overly 
simple statement, for many Americans, it is a harsh reality. 
From droughts that can strain the supply to ever increasing 
water bills, access to water is not universal across the 
country. In my home State of Wyoming, it is a constant struggle 
to keep water system operators to meet the needs of their 
communities, keep rates low, while simultaneously complying 
with complex and evolving regulatory requirements from the EPA, 
and that is a challenge to our systems as well.
    Unfortunately, rural water systems have their own 
additional challenges. Small populations means less ratepayers, 
which means less revenue needed to make capital investments. I 
worked with my colleagues on this Committee to make significant 
investments in water infrastructure in the previous Congress, 
and I was pleased to see that effort included the 
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.
    However, Congress failed to make the investments in that 
bill in a fiscally responsible manner. If we are to continue 
investing in the needed infrastructure, Congress must find ways 
to ensure that we are not simply transferring our obligations 
to future generations.
    Outside of the capital investment needed, small systems 
also face difficulty finding, training, and retaining a work 
force. Some estimates suggest that one-third of the water 
sector work force will be eligible to retire in the next 
decade. That loss, not only of personnel, but institutional 
knowledge, will put tremendous strains on water systems across 
the country. Once again, rural America will be the first and 
hardest hit by these retirements.
    In addition to these items, I would be remiss if I did not 
express my concern with EPA's actions as it relates to PFAS. 
PFAS compounds are designed to be durable and not break down 
naturally. As a result, these compounds can be found in water 
and soils across the country.
    While we are working to better understand the science 
behind this class of chemicals, it is clear they do pose a 
threat to human health. So I support EPA's actions to establish 
a national primary drinking water standard for the most common 
PFAS compounds. Every single American deserves the peace of 
mind that their water is safe to drink.
    But I am concerned that levels selected by EPA at four 
parts per trillion will represent an unfunded mandate on water 
systems while not being supported by the science. That level 
represents not a health based standard, but instead the level 
at which these compounds can reasonably be detected. For 
reference, four parts per trillion is roughly the same as four 
droplets in an Olympic sized swimming pool.
    As one might guess, the detection and treatment technology 
needed to handle something at that scale will be costly, and 
those costs will be borne by the communities these systems 
serve. EPA must evaluate the academic literature from across 
the world when selecting the levels for these standards and not 
just rush to the costliest option.
    EPA is also proposing to designate those same PFAS 
compounds under CERCLA, the Superfund law. If finalized, water 
systems that are treating for PFAS may be held liable under 
CERCLA, again, at the expense of the ratepayer.
    When CERCLA was first written, it was done using the 
``polluter pays'' model. Water systems, however, are not 
polluters of PFAS, as they have never used those compounds. As 
such, it is imperative that we work here in Congress to pass 
legislation that clarifies that entities such as water systems 
are not held liable for pollution to which they did not 
contribute.
    Thanks again for calling this hearing, Mr. Chairman. I look 
forward to hearing from our witnesses.
    Senator Padilla. Great, thank you.
    Now, I would like to turn to our witnesses. First, I would 
like to introduce Kyle Jones, who serves as Policy and Legal 
Director for the Community Water Center, an environmental 
justice nonprofit organization that works in rural and low 
income communities in places like the San Joaquin Valley, which 
many refer to as the salad bowl of America. Mr. Jones has a 
background in environmental law, land use law, and local 
government advocacy.
    Mr. Jones, you are a long way from Visalia, but we know 
that you truly understand the impact that the policies that we 
enact here in Washington have on the folks back home. And your 
voice, and the voices of the communities you work with, must be 
a part of this conversation.
    Let me also introduce Rosemary Menard, the Water Director 
for the city of Santa Cruz. Ms. Menard has served for over 40 
years in public service, holding several water utility 
leadership positions in Seattle, Washington; Portland, Oregon; 
and Washoe County, Nevada.
    As Water Director in Santa Cruz, Ms. Menard has helped 
guide the Santa Cruz Water Department through multiple 
droughts, wildfires, repair and replacement of aging 
infrastructure, a pending water treatment plant upgrade, meter 
replacements, and a plan to supplement the city's water supply 
and prepare for the ongoing effects of our changing climate.
    Thank you for testifying today. I look forward to hearing 
about the particular challenges and solutions water utilities 
are thinking about in the short, medium, and longer term.
    I now, once again, turn to Senator Lummis to introduce Mr. 
Pepper.
    Senator Lummis. Mr. Pepper has over 43 years of finance and 
administration experience, 34+ years in senior management 
positions, and 8+ years in public accounting. He has been 
involved in surface and groundwater issues in Colorado, Nevada, 
Texas, and Wyoming during his career.
    Mr. Pepper chairs the Casper Area Economic Development 
Joint Powers Board. He also serves on the Wyoming Water 
Association Board of Directors, and was appointed by the 
Governor to the following current commissions or task forces: 
The State Emergency Response Commission, the State 
Qualification Review Committee, Governor's Non-Point Source 
Task Force, Governor's Small System Task Force, Governor's 
Special District Task Force, and he is a member of the 
Governor's Solid Waste Citizens Advisory Committee.
    I don't know how you have time to do anything but go to 
meetings.
    He heads the State of Wyoming's largest utility membership 
organization that administers training and technical assistance 
programs, enabling Wyoming's community water industry systems 
to meet the requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act, Clean 
Water Act, and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.
    Mark Pepper is a very knowledgeable and busy man.
    Thank you again for coming to Washington.
    I yield back.
    Senator Padilla. Thank you, Senator Lummis.
    In this Subcommittee, there is no requirement that we swear 
in witnesses, but we trust that the testimony shared today will 
be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
    With that, Mr. Jones, your testimony, please.

 STATEMENT OF KYLE JONES, POLICY AND LEGAL DIRECTOR, COMMUNITY 
              WATER CENTER; SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA

    Mr. Jones. Good afternoon, Chair Padilla, Ranking Member 
Lummis, and members of the Subcommittee.
    My name is Kyle Jones. I am the Policy and Legal Director 
with Community Water Center.
    For background, Community Water Center started in Visalia, 
California, organizing nitrate impacted residents to help them 
understand what is in their water and what they can do about 
it, and has since expanded to focus on advocacy and direct 
technical assistance to support long term, community driven 
solutions for the drinking water crisis in California.
    We also serve as a core member of the Water Equity and 
Climate Resilience Caucus, a caucus focused on water equity 
nationally. As noted, in California, we recognize the human 
right to clean, safe, and affordable drinking water for all. 
This is a necessary condition in order to ensure that there is 
economic development and self-determined futures for the 
communities that we work in.
    Many of the communities that we work in, unfortunately, are 
disproportionately challenged. Many are small communities that 
are often failing to meet basic drinking water needs. 
California alone has 395 failing water systems serving over 
800,000 people. Almost 3 million others are in systems that are 
either at risk of failing or potentially at risk of failing. 
These systems disproportionately serve small, rural communities 
and low income communities of color.
    The residents we work with are also faced with increased 
levels of contamination. Residents that we work with cannot use 
their taps for drinking water, and some can't even take hot 
showers without fear of getting sick or having increased risk 
of cancer.
    A particular challenge in the West is the increasing 
aridification and droughts fueled by climate change that is 
pushing us to have to rely more and more on less and less 
groundwater that is already being over pumped by agriculture.
    As noted, many of these systems lack the technical, 
managerial, and financial capability to access resources that 
are out there. These systems don't have the staff or expertise 
necessarily to navigate funding streams like the State 
Revolving Funds. And even if they could, State Revolving Funds 
and bonds often can't provide a full solution, as oftentimes 
operation and maintenance requirements can't be funded unless 
they make solutions too costly for communities.
    All of this leads to more unaffordable water. The small 
communities with small ratepayer bases face the highest rates. 
One community, El Porvenir in Western Fresno County that our 
partner organization, Leadership Council for Justice and 
Accountability works at, has a fixed rate every month of $280. 
And that is before any volumetric charge for the use of water.
    Further, because of contamination, our communities are 
paying twice for water: Once for the tap they can't use and 
again for the bottled water they need to survive. It is 
unconscionable.
    Treatment costs are also going up, and we are facing a 
situation where communities are either forced to choose between 
water that is safe or water that is affordable, but we believe 
in the United States that we can provide both. Affordability 
programs are not universal like they are for other utilities 
like energy, gas, food. Safe drinking water is a necessity, and 
whether or not a family can afford their water should not be 
based on their ZIP code.
    The affordability crisis really came to a head during the 
pandemic. California had over $1 billion in water debt as a 
result of the pandemic, and wasn't alone. And while we have 
been successful in crafting some solutions focusing on debt, we 
are not addressing the root of the problem, which is 
unaffordable water rates.
    What are the solutions? We believe there needs to be 
continued and expanding investments in water infrastructure, 
with a focus on removing barriers that limit access for small 
water systems. And this includes things like expanded outreach 
and engagement to ensure that small, rural communities have 
projects that are ready to be funded when infrastructure 
programs are available, and also funding to solve operations 
and maintenance.
    We also encourage Congress to look at other ways to fund 
drinking water, such as rural development at USDA, the Bureau 
of Reclamations programs. We also need a low income water 
assistance program. We need sustained funding to make sure that 
water is affordable so that folks don't fall behind and get 
into debt.
    We can't create a program alone as a State. We need support 
from the Federal Government. So we urge the creation of a LIRA 
program this year, and in addition, extension of LIHWAP to 
ensure that in the meantime, there is still some assistance for 
families in need. We also ask for reforms to the LIHWAP program 
to ensure it can be more successful for States like California.
    We recognize that there is a human right to clean, safe, 
and affordable drinking water for all. And we urge Congress to 
join us and work toward fulfilling this human right. Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Jones follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Senator Padilla. Thank you, Mr. Jones.
    Ms. Menard.

         STATEMENT OF ROSEMARY MENARD, WATER DIRECTOR, 
  CITY OF SANTA CRUZ WATER DEPARTMENT; SANTA CRUZ, CALIFORNIA

    Ms. Menard. Chairman Padilla, Ranking Member Lummis, and 
members of the Subcommittee, my name is Rosemary Menard, and I 
am the Director of the Santa Cruz Water Department. Thank you 
for the opportunity to share with you my perspective on the 
important issue of the affordability of water and wastewater 
rates.
    The Santa Cruz water system serves just under 100,000 
people through 27,000 connections. We own, operate, and 
maintain a complex water system to produce and deliver treated 
drinking water that is both groundwater and surface water from 
those sources.
    Most of the system's major facilities were constructed 
before 1960 and have reached the end of their useful life. In 
addition to our aging infrastructure, we are challenged with 
the impacts of our water supply and infrastructure from climate 
change fueled extreme drought conditions and severe storms 
while maintaining compliance with the State and Federal 
drinking water standards. Meeting these various 
responsibilities comes with a cost that is ultimately borne by 
our water customers who pay their bills.
    To ensure uninterrupted, quality service for our customers, 
Santa Cruz has developed a multiyear capital investment 
program, or CIP, that currently has a $650 million price tag. 
To pay for the CIP in 2016, a long range financial plan was 
developed that had a project funding strategy that was heavily 
focused on debt financing.
    To cover the costs of the CIP, the Santa Cruz City Council 
unanimously approved significant rate increases in 2016 and 
again in 2021. The 2021 rate increase schedule is now being 
implemented and includes a 16 percent rate increase in both 
July 2023 and July 2024. Looking ahead, we expect to have 
continued rate increases through at least the next decade to 
address the issues in our water system as they continue to age 
and we deal with the climate challenges.
    While our investment and rate increases to pay for them are 
necessary to maintain and upgrade Santa Cruz's water system, we 
recognize their effects on our customers, particularly those at 
the lower end of the income scale. Today, our data show that 
about 20 percent of the households we serve are already heavily 
financially burdened by their water and wastewater rates due to 
about a 250 percent increase in the cost of water since 2014 
and also an anticipated additional 50 percent increase by 2026.
    This is where the Federal Low Income Water Customer 
Assistance Program could play a vital role. Santa Cruz is 
unable to provide rate assistance through a statutory 
requirement in the State of California that prohibits us from 
using rate revenues from one set of customers to provide 
resources to subsidize the cost of service to another set of 
customers. We are one of many States that have that 
prohibition, and there are a number of other States in the 
country where there is a gray area, legally, about whether 
utilities can actually use that form of rate revenue to provide 
rate assistance. So it discourages water utilities from 
attempting to stand up such programs.
    This is why the Low Income Household Water Assistance 
Program, LIHWAP, that you just heard about, was so critical 
when Congress established it during the pandemic. For the first 
time, the Federal Government offered direct support to help low 
income households maintain essential water service, just as for 
years, the LIHEAP Program has provided for heating and cooling 
assistance.
    In Santa Cruz, as of January 2023, the LIHWAP program 
provided nearly $580,000 in funds to offset utility arrearages 
to about 800 customers. In the recent lifting of the California 
COVID area prohibitions against disconnections for nonpayment, 
an additional 44 customers have received some one time 
assistance. These are really important benefits, but one time 
assistance only solves part of the problem, and we need ongoing 
assistance.
    Looking forward, I would really ask Congress to consider 
multiple options, starting with extending LIHWAP through the 
next fiscal year 2024, so that critical assistance can occur, 
and also additionally to consider how the bipartisan 
legislation that allowed for the EPA pilot program to develop 
might be funded and provide an opportunity for there to be some 
exploration of that program.
    I appreciate the opportunity to share Santa Cruz's 
affordability challenges with you today, but please remember 
that virtually every community in the country also has 
customers with similar water related assistance needs. Now is 
the time to act to ensure their ability to access essential 
water services and wastewater services, and are not threatened 
due to the cost.
    I thank you for the opportunity to share my testimony 
today. I will be happy to answer any questions.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Menard follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Senator Padilla. Thank you.
    Mr. Pepper, your testimony, please.

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

    Mr. Pepper. Good afternoon, Chairman Padilla, Senator 
Lummis, and members of the Subcommittee. It is an honor to 
appear before you today on behalf of small and rural 
communities.
    I am Mark Pepper, the Executive Director of the Wyoming 
Association of Rural Water Systems, a nonprofit association 
representing all small water and wastewater systems in Wyoming.
    I am also here to testify on behalf of the National Rural 
Water Association, which represents over 31,000 small and rural 
water systems across the country. Our member utilities have the 
very important responsibility of complying with all applicable 
Environmental Protection Agency regulations and ensuring the 
provision of safe drinking water and sanitation services to the 
public all day, every day.
    The State Revolving Funds, which provide Federal dollars to 
small towns for building, expanding, and maintaining their 
drinking water and wastewater infrastructure were authorized by 
this Committee, and thank you. One of the key aspects of our 
work at Rural Water is to provide direct assistance to small 
and rural communities in operating, governing, financing, 
upgrading, and maintaining their water and wastewater 
infrastructure.
    Local governments and nonprofit water utilities exist 
solely to serve the public's interest. They are directly 
accountable to their local citizens through local elections and 
are often governed by duly elected volunteer citizens.
    For the next few minutes, I would like to discuss some of 
the most important issues facing small water systems right now, 
including affordability, the implementation of the 
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, personnel challenges, 
and PFAS regulatory burdens.
    First, the two largest costs of most utilities are 
personnel costs and energy costs. Compounding these expenses 
are supply chain issues impacting access to chemicals for water 
treatment, the replacement expansion parts, and scarcity of 
qualified professionals like engineers and contractors.
    Inflationary pressures are also hampering affordability. 
This has had a stagnating pressure on personnel costs as 
operating costs have taken precedence.
    The SRF set asides help to fill the technical gap by 
allowing qualified professionals to provide onsite assistance, 
comply with the myriad of Federal Safe Drinking Water and Clean 
Water Act regulations, as well as access to supply chains and 
troubleshooting advice, which is helping to keeps rates 
affordable. Should SRFs set asides be reduced or eliminated, I 
would suspect many systems will turn to unaffordable quickly.
    As for the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, rural water 
systems are grateful to this Committee and Congress for the 
enactment of this landmark legislation. However, we are hearing 
from a lot of systems and States that the funds provided in the 
bill have been slow to be implemented due to lack of supplies 
and engineers to do the work.
    Another quandary in Wyoming is that operators and agencies 
have questions with the definition of disadvantaged community. 
With the bulk of Wyoming systems serving under 1,000 people, 
they are at a socioeconomic disadvantage due to size, 
expertise, work force, and a limited budget. We believe these 
communities should qualify as disadvantaged under the bill.
    We also believe an extension of time to get the money out 
based on the lack of supplies and engineers is warranted. We 
would also like the State match to remain at 10 percent for at 
least 5 years instead of just years 1 and 2. The 20 percent 
match for years 3 and on may make spending difficult in meeting 
the match requirement.
    Regarding personnel, the water sector is facing critical 
staffing shortages with up to 50 percent of the work force 
expected to retire in the next decade. The NRWA Apprenticeship 
Program is an essential tool being used right now in 35 States 
to address this critical issue. This novel initiative was 
specifically designed by industry leaders to attract, train, 
and retain the next generation of the water work force. These 
strategic partnerships have already created over 600 jobs for 
the water industry.
    Regarding PFAS, NRWA and WARWS share the Committee's goal 
of eliminating PFAS from the public's drinking water and 
environment. However, the looming threat of EPA's proposed PFAS 
MCLs and the liability costs associated with having certain 
PFAS compounds designated under CERCLA could price small water 
utilities out of existence, which is why we are extremely 
grateful and express our strong support for S. 1430, introduced 
by Senator Lummis. The bill will preserve a fundamental element 
of environmental law, which is the important ``polluter pays'' 
principle for cleanups of PFAS designated under CERCLA.
    Finally, access to certified labs and Subtitle C disposal 
facilities and the associated costs will further put strain on 
very thin operating margins.
    In closing, Mr. Chairman, small and rural communities thank 
you for the opportunity to testify before the Subcommittee 
today to express our thoughts, reservations, and acknowledge 
the numerous opportunities this Committee has provided rural 
America in the crafting of Federal water and environmental 
legislation. Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Pepper follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Senator Padilla. Thank you, Mr. Pepper, and all three of 
you for your testimony.
    We now turn to questions from the Committee. I get to 
begin.
    Aging infrastructure and deferred maintenance have left our 
water systems vulnerable, as I think we have all laid out here. 
And we unfortunately saw the worst of that play out last year 
in Jackson, Mississippi, a disaster which was decades in the 
making. Unlike other forms of infrastructure like bridges and 
roads, clean drinking water is not primarily funded by taxes. 
Instead, more than 90 percent of the average utility's revenues 
comes directly from constituents' water bills.
    Ms. Menard, I commend you for your efforts to secure 
various forms of Federal and State funding, including through a 
WIFIA loan, LIHWAP, SRFs, rate increases, and other sources. 
But not every water agency is as adept as you have been in 
Santa Cruz, often due to staff and other capacity challenges.
    Can you speak to the challenges of accessing funding from 
so many different sources? Is it time for maybe a new paradigm 
for how we finance and fund water infrastructure?
    Ms. Menard. Thank you for the question, Senator Padilla. I 
would be happy to speak to that question.
    One of the things I think is really important for us to 
think about as we think about affordability today and going 
forward is, how are we going to cover these very big costs and 
for spreading out over a relatively small rate base, whether 
you are one of the rural systems that was spoken of by one of 
my colleagues, whether you are a small system, spoken of by Mr. 
Jones, these are big questions.
    Even in Santa Cruz, the number I gave you of $650 million 
for a capital program to rehabilitate, replace, and climate 
proof our water utility is a pretty darn big number when you 
spread it across 27,000 accounts. And it results in the kind of 
rate increases that we have been seeing that are really 
creating these problems for our low income customers.
    I do think that, unlike so much of our other 
infrastructure, we do need to think about whether or not the 
business model we are using to fund water utilities, local 
water utilities, is really broken and can get us where we need 
to go through this next cycle of reinvestment. If it is not, 
then what is the right solution?
    I think that there needs to be more State and Federal 
funding that comes in to help us with these things. Some of 
that is loan funding, and it is great, and we have obviously 
accessed that. We have gone from about, say, $14 million in 
debt in 2014 to now, Santa Cruz has about $370 million in debt, 
and more coming because of the funding strategy.
    That is a very significant debt burden for a community to 
take on, and a lot of communities simply won't do it because of 
fear of how that will require rates to increase. I think it is 
time for us to be looking at new paradigms.
    Senator Padilla. Thank you.
    My next question is in the area of rising costs of water. 
The graph behind me illustrates how household water and 
wastewater bills have increased by 160 percent since 1998. That 
is a greater rate of growth than electricity bills, rent, or 
medical bills.
    The burden of unsafe and unaffordable water 
disproportionately impacts lower income communities and 
communities of color. As Mr. Jones shared in his testimony, 
many rural communities, including Tribal communities, farmer 
group communities, and communities near sites of legacy 
industrial contamination in reality pay twice for safe drinking 
water: Once for the contaminated water flowing from their taps, 
and once again for the cost of bottled water that they must 
rely on.
    As the disparity between water rate increases and income 
growth has increased, so too have household water affordability 
issues.
    Mr. Jones, ratepayers, especially low income households, 
cannot continue to bear the burden of deteriorating 
infrastructure. Federal investment in water infrastructure has 
declined by 77 percent since its peak in the 1970s.
    How critical, in your opinion, is Federal investment in 
water infrastructure for supporting water affordability?
    Mr. Jones. Thank you for that.
    It is absolutely critical that we continue and expand the 
overall investment, and also prioritize making sure that those 
investments can reach the communities that need it most, that 
have had the biggest challenges in accessing funding, 
historically.
    Part of the work we do through some of the expanded 
community outreach and engagement projects is do the work of 
organizing community residents to really understand what water 
solutions are and get them in support of that.
    A lot of the work we do focuses on consolidations, which 
honestly, is some of the most cost effective ways to ensure we 
can build a stronger ratepayer base to be able to cover these 
costs. And in order to get a consolidation going, you really 
have to get two communities who have historically not been 
working together to work together. And that takes a lot of work 
on the ground.
    Making sure that the funding sources are being paired with 
the right types of outreach and engagement can be, is 
absolutely critical to make sure that these solutions that we 
are funding are making the most impact.
    Finally, I think, as we have all said, that there needs to 
be a focus on affordability when it comes to funding these 
projects. Because even with some of these solutions, there are 
going to be increases in rates. And that is hard for customers, 
especially if you are a low income farm worker or undocumented 
community, like we work with, to understand that this solution 
comes at a cost.
    Making sure we have a program to ensure water is affordable 
is absolutely critical to make sure that we can get to these 
solutions for contamination and other issues.
    Senator Padilla. Thank you.
    Senator Lummis.
    Senator Lummis. Mr. Pepper, again, thanks for being here. 
As you know, I have been focused on concerns about PFAS. I want 
to ask you about that, as well.
    How are the regulatory requirements from EPA driving up 
operating costs for water systems? So this is PFAS and other 
ways in which EPA regulations drive up costs.
    Mr. Pepper. The regulatory environment right now is 
expanding. The Lead and Copper Rule has been revised, requiring 
that we get lead service lines out. We all appreciate that that 
has to happen, but it is very expensive, and the amount of 
money that has been designated for lead line replacements is 
woefully inadequate.
    I think that you throw in PFAS on top of that, both at the 
MCL level, as well as at the CERCLA level, and that becomes an 
unsustainable perfect storm. It just can't. And we all want 
clean water, and we want safe, affordable drinking water, but 
there has to be an approach that allows that.
    I make this statement a lot, and I will go on the record. 
No system in the United States is sustainable on rates alone. 
It has to include funding from other sources, whether that is 
other taxes, the loan grant programs, all of that. The 
regulatory environment just adds that additional cost layer.
    A lot of the systems, especially that we work with in 
Wyoming, with the pertinent number being under 500 in 
population, just do not have the expertise to address a lot of 
that. So that is where our technical assistance comes in and 
helps, because we are able to provide that gap, if you will, of 
people who can fill in and do the work, help and assist in 
doing that, as well as keeping it affordable, because all of 
our services are provided free of charge to the systems.
    I do think that the regulatory environment, if you look at 
the old public health advisory for PFAS being at 70 parts or 90 
parts per trillion, dropping it to 4 parts, we have had a 
couple rounds of testing in Wyoming that were done when the 
protocols were not that great, and so there were a lot of lab 
errors and what not. But we did have some detects under the 
public health advisory level.
    Senator Lummis. So were the detects at 40 to 70 parts per 
trillion, or were they at the 4 parts per trillion?
    Mr. Pepper. Both. We had some that were detect, and so you 
have to assume they were low enough to have a detect.
    Senator Lummis. And if something is detected, does it have 
to be addressed?
    Mr. Pepper. Well, that is the million-dollar question. We 
don't know. Not all the PFAS, PFOA, PFOS compounds cause health 
issues. I think they have identified six that have that they 
are going to try and create the MCL for. Our focus on the MCL 
is that it will then cause the ratepayers to pick up the tab to 
cure that violation.
    Senator Lummis. So, you mentioned the MCLs, but you also 
mentioned CERCLA. The role of CERCLA in this is that water 
systems could bear the liability costs, correct, if EPA moves 
forward with designating certain PFAS compounds as hazardous 
substances?
    Mr. Pepper. Correct, and that is if we look at it as a 
hazardous waste product, the cost to do that is severe.
    In Wyoming, the closest lab that would be able to do any of 
that testing is Cincinnati. So you have the shipping costs, you 
have the hold times, you have all the issues of lab testing.
    The closest Subtitle C hazardous waste disposal site is in 
Utah. There isn't anything close enough, so I can use this, 
when Sundance, from Sundance to Salt Lake is a heck of a trek, 
so all that hazardous material would be expensive as all get 
out to transport, and the liability to clean it up then, marked 
as a hazardous waste site, would be astronomical. And like I 
said, it would probably price those communities out of 
existence.
    Senator Lummis. And normally, under CERCLA, the polluter 
pays, but if the substance is there, and the polluter can't be 
identified, the ratepayer could pay. Correct?
    Mr. Pepper. Correct. That is where we run into nonpoint 
source pollution, when you can't find that person. There are 
some programs out there.
    As indicated, I sit on the Governor's Nonpoint Source Task 
Force. We do 303(d) funding and 219 funding to help clean up 
some of those issues. But the State of Wyoming gets about 
$700,000 a year from those two programs. It wouldn't touch 
having to try and do PFAS if that gets thrown into the mix.
    Senator Lummis. Thank you for your testimony.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Senator Padilla. Thank you.
    As everyone can see, members are coming in and out of the 
Committee, eagerly trying to time their opportunity to pose 
questions to our witnesses.
    I recognize Senator Kelly, if he is ready, or if he needs a 
minute?
    Senator Kelly. Ready to go.
    Senator Padilla. Senator Kelly.
    Senator Kelly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to 
our witnesses for being here today.
    Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing on this 
important topic, certainly for Arizona and California and the 
West, we are facing serious challenges with drought and climate 
change. And our access to reliable supplies of water and water 
affordability is directly related to these challenges.
    As sources of water become more scarce, the price is 
clearly going to go up. For example, I live in Tucson, Arizona, 
where the average water bill increased by 118 percent between 
2010 and 2018. In some cases, these increasing water rates can 
drive more conservation. I have been told it is the one thing 
that actually works well.
    But increasing water bills also has a significant impact on 
households who are living paycheck to paycheck. Folks are 
really struggling with this.
    Ms. Menard, I understand that your community has faced 
water supply challenges due to drought. How has the city of 
Santa Cruz balanced the challenges of needing to increase rates 
as water supply costs increase with the need to ensure that 
water remains affordable to your residents?
    Ms. Menard. Thank you for that question, Senator Kelly. I 
think that really important thing that we have done in Santa 
Cruz is acknowledge, once we initiated our major capital 
reinvestment cycle, including the infrastructure side as well 
as the supply side, that we were potentially going to be 
negatively impacting some of our folks in our community who are 
least able to pay.
    One of the things that we have done is we have really 
studied that problem and gone into detail to try to understand 
not just what is occurring, but what will occur as we continue 
to make these really necessary reinvestments in systems and 
facilities and supply.
    I think another thing we have done is we have recently 
completed an advanced metering infrastructure implementation in 
our community that has allowed us to help people, particularly 
focused on low income customers, look at and be notified 
immediately when they start having a leak so that we can assist 
them with getting that leak repaired.
    We have redirected our conservation programs. Santa Cruz 
has a very strong ethic for water conservation, and our 
customers, indoor and outdoor use averages about 44 gallons per 
person per day, which is probably the lowest or near the lowest 
in the State and maybe lots of other places. But one of the 
results of that is that we have been able to redirect some of 
our resources internally to supporting this advanced metering 
infrastructure initiative to communicate to customers 
immediately when a leak is occurring so that they can get that 
fixed.
    We are looking at opportunities to support helping people 
get those leaks fixed and dealing with the fact that, in 
rentals for example, the tenant is responsible for the bill, 
and then it is not incentivized for the owner to actually pay 
to fix the leaks. We have been working on some ways to deal 
with that as well.
    Senator Kelly. I recently added one of those to the water 
meter in my house that will detect and give you a lot of data 
on water usage, so thank you.
    Mr. Jones, one way that we can address rising rates for 
those with difficulty making ends meet is through some Federal 
water assistance programs. And that is why I supported the 
creation of a water assistance pilot program for rural and low 
income communities in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. In my 
remaining time here, Mr. Jones, can you speak to how water 
affordability assistance programs can help to ensure increasing 
water rates do not push families into poverty or cause them to 
lose access to drinking water?
    Mr. Jones. Yes. I think the situation we have right now, 
and thank you for that, in California and across the country, 
is that with water rates ever increasing, that folks are 
continuing to face shut offs and losing access to water 
entirely without assistance. All we have so far established on 
the Federal level is the Low Income Household Water Assistance 
Program, LIHWAP, which is addressing debt and only addressing 
debt, at least in California, one time. And that can be a big 
challenge. Going through the journey and what it takes for a 
customer, a family, to go through the process of having to 
choose between paying their water bill to avoid shut off or 
maybe not paying rent or not paying for as much food, that is a 
challenge that none of us should have to face.
    While it is great that we have debt assistance so far, 
without a long term program that actually makes water 
affordable in the first place, folks aren't ever going to be 
made whole, and we are going to continue to face challenges. I 
think the support for that pilot and really getting that 
program going is going to be absolutely critical to ensure that 
folks aren't getting shut off as we continue to invest in water 
and make it safe for all.
    Senator Kelly. Thank you.
    Senator Padilla. Thank you, Senator Kelly.
    Senator Ricketts.
    Senator Ricketts. Thank you, Chairman Padilla and Ranking 
Member Lummis, for holding this hearing today on water 
affordability.
    I want to thank all of our witnesses for coming here today 
to talk to us about it, and for all of your support for water 
infrastructure projects across the country.
    I have heard from Nebraskans who have concerns about the 
costs that local water utilities and ratepayers will bear with 
regard to PFAS monitoring and remediation. I understand the 
importance of making sure we have clean water for everybody, 
but the concerns, especially for the cost burden in our rural 
and more remote water utilities.
    I am going to ask the entire panel to weigh in on this. I 
am going to start with you, Mr. Pepper. What tools would be 
helpful for testing and compliance, especially to water 
infrastructure in rural and remote communities? What are some 
of the things that these communities can look for?
    Mr. Pepper. As far as testing goes, thank you, Senator, for 
that, the access to additional labs would be one thing that we 
can use that would allow for more appropriate or quick testing, 
so we know where we are.
    PFAS is a new animal. It has been around for a long time, 
but the testing is not where we would like it to be yet. I 
think the labs that are starting to do that have indicated that 
they have gotten much better at the detections and being able 
to isolate which compound they are dealing with. But those are 
few and far between, and the costs are exorbitant.
    We understand some of the PFAS tests can be anywhere from 
$1,500 to $10,000. If they are required to be done on a 
periodic basis or a monthly basis, that could just ruin a small 
community.
    I understand that the treatment, of course, treatment is 
everything. We don't know what is the best treatment. There are 
a lot of scientists that are working on methodologies to try 
and deal with the treatment to remove PFAS or PFOS, PFOA, from 
the drinking water.
    We don't have it yet, as far as I know, in a usable form. I 
have heard that there is some costs in, I want to say 
Pennsylvania, maybe the State, that has a community that did 
put in a UV type reactor that is able to incinerate the PFAS, 
but it was a cost of, I want to say, it was a town of 10,000 
and the cost was $25 million or $30 million. We just can't 
afford it. We need a lot of R&D and testing and treatment.
    Senator Ricketts. Thank you, Mr. Pepper.
    Ms. Menard.
    Ms. Menard. Thank you for that question, sir.
    One of the things that is going on in Santa Cruz is we are 
making this massive generational reinvestment in our water 
system as we are working on a major water treatment plant 
upgrade. Our treatment plant is from 1960. It hasn't really had 
major money put in it since before the 1986 Amendments to the 
Safe Drinking Water Act. So it does its job now, but it is not 
going to be the water system, water treatment process for the 
future.
    We are looking at a number of opportunities to use that 
treatment plant upgrade to prepare us, future proof our water 
system against the incremental changes that occur in water 
quality regulations over time.
    PFAS is one of the issues we are looking at. Obviously, 
disinfection biproducts is another one that we are working on.
    We are looking at granular activated carbon, which is one 
of the best available technologies that EPA has identified. The 
issue with that one is not so much a huge capital cost, at 
least not in the system we are looking at, of about $158 
million construction costs for this treatment plant that we are 
looking at. And the capital for the GAC contractors is maybe 
around $5 million, so it is not a huge, big, it is not nothing, 
but it is not the hugest part of the deal.
    But the operating costs of that part of the system is 
anticipated to increase our ongoing operating costs by 
potentially as much as 500 percent, so that is a big issue for 
us. And I think that one of the things that we are all looking 
at as we look at these really tiny numbers is, how do we best 
balance that question of what to do with the treatment process 
versus how to make sure that we don't put so much treatment in 
place and then drive our operating costs, which go on forever, 
up to a place where we maybe balance one thing, but we cost 
something else.
    Senator Ricketts. Great, thank you.
    Mr. Jones, I am out of time, so please, can you weigh in, 
but just briefly?
    Mr. Jones. Thank you, Senator. I will be quick.
    I think a lot of what everyone mentioned, and in addition, 
making sure there is technical assistance for testing out 
there. We have over 2,700 water systems in California. A lot of 
them are small and rural; they will need assistance, and also 
assistance for domestic wells.
    A recent study showed that 40 percent of pesticides used in 
California actually end up having PFAS in them, and as that 
percolates in the groundwater, we need to make sure that 
everybody is protected, including domestic well owners.
    Senator Ricketts. Great. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Chairman, thank you.
    Senator Padilla. Thank you, Senator Ricketts. You may be 
out of time in this first round of questions, but we have a 
second round for additional responses or additional questions.
    Once again, I get to begin.
    During the COVID pandemic, and you addressed this in your 
earlier comments, Ms. Menard, Congress recognized the risk of 
impending water shut offs and growing debt nationwide and 
provided more than $1 billion to cover water debt and restore 
connections for low income households. To do this, Congress 
created the Low Income Household Water Assistance Program. For 
folks watching at home, when you hear LIHWAP, that is what we 
are talking about, the first Federal program to assist low 
income families with their water bills.
    That program expires this year, as does the one time 
funding provided by Congress to cover water debt. It covers 
reconnection services; it covers late fees and reduces water 
rates.
    I have advocated for additional funding and an extension of 
the program as a bridge to a permanent water assistance program 
that several of you have suggested.
    Ms. Menard, I was glad to hear that Santa Cruz participated 
in LIHWAP to help your customers access one time payments and 
temporary support. What will happen if LIHWAP expires, and we 
don't replace it with a permanent water assistance program?
    Ms. Menard. That is a great question. Thank you for that.
    One of the things that we are concerned about is that we 
won't have the one time funding to help particular people who 
get in arrears, which if you are low income and you are making 
this trade off every month, it is pretty easy even once you get 
the help of having your slate cleaned to find yourself back 
there again. But I think that we would find ourselves in a 
situation where setting people up for down payment or giving 
people payment arrangements is something that would become much 
more frequent.
    One of the things we have done about, just in the last 
couple of weeks since the COVID era prohibition against 
disconnections has occurred, actually expired in California, is 
we have had just 50 payment arrangements that were set up just 
in the last couple of weeks. The average amount of those 
payment arrangements is $198 a month for 12 months.
    So that is going to be a really big burden for someone who 
is already struggling to be able to pay in order to clear that 
arrearage. I think the bottom line for us is that we would have 
a lot more people facing shutoffs for non-payment.
    Senator Padilla. Mr. Jones, a brief response, if you would. 
Do you think it makes sense that we have a permanent energy 
assistance program, LIHEAP, I referenced that earlier, but not 
a permanent program for water?
    Mr. Jones. Absolutely not. We need support for water 
assistance.
    Senator Padilla. Anybody disagree with that?
    All right, thank you. Let the record reflect all witnesses' 
heads nodded no.
    One additional question, and then I will recognize Senator 
Lummis again.
    Mr. Jones and Mr. Pepper, both of you, in your written 
testimonies, discussed the challenges that small, rural, or 
disadvantaged water systems face to develop solutions and 
create needed projects to deliver and to treat water. And that 
is just to develop the pipeline of projects that could 
potentially receive Federal or State funding. You discussed 
issues related to economies of scale and the lack of a large 
ratepayer base to spread costs.
    Could you each expand on the challenges communities face in 
accessing infrastructure dollars, and what are some of the 
solutions that you have seen, particularly if it sheds light on 
what Congress can do to help in this regard?
    Mr. Jones. Thank you.
    Some of the challenges we are facing, like I said, a lot of 
times, projects need a lot more technical assistance, not only 
to understand what a long term solution is that works for the 
community, but also gets community support and buy in, which is 
absolutely critical.
    I think the famous story in California is about Lennar, 
California. That is a community that faced arsenic in their 
drinking water. They funded a treatment project for that 
community, but unfortunately, because it wasn't right sized for 
the community, that project was shuttered when the community 
couldn't afford operations and maintenance costs.
    One thing we are doing in California is looking at starting 
to fund operations and maintenance for certain projects to 
actually make it so that solutions are affordable for 
communities. And so I think, going forward, that has to be part 
of the conversation to figure out how making sure that 
communities are able to run systems is part of the solution.
    Mr. Pepper. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    In Wyoming, I know we have a myriad of funding programs in 
addition to the Federal programs, the State Revolving Funds. I 
think the State Revolving Funds were a great addition to the 
funding mechanisms. Giving the States the opportunity to design 
their own rules and regulations around the SRFs is critical.
    Every State is a little different, which does make it a 
little tough to go from State to State to State, which makes in 
State technical assistance so critical. But I do think that 
some of the timelines that come with that funding need to be 
addressed and need to be looked at a little bit differently.
    Like I said, the SRF, the infrastructure bill, some of 
those funding sources and timelines are just unrealistic, given 
the supply chain issues, given the technical abilities of 
having enough engineers and contractors who can do the work, 
and then also having the work force that can then maintain it 
after everything is all done.
    Senator Padilla. I know my second round 5 minutes are up, 
but if you will indulge me, I have one specific follow up 
question for Mr. Jones. And I believe it is a timely one.
    As we speak, I believe the House of Representatives is 
taking up this debt limit deal. Now, the debt limit deal 
currently under consideration rescinds unobligated LIHWAP funds 
from the American Rescue Plan. Funds to States and Tribes have 
all been obligated; that is the good news, but this will impact 
the HHS budget for staff time and for expenses.
    So how will this impact, question for Mr. Jones, the 
ability of communities to implement their LIHWAP funds if HHS 
has decreased capacity for staffing?
    Mr. Jones. I think it is certainly going to pose a 
challenge. In California, there has been a lot of conversation 
between our State agencies that are implementing the program 
and HHS and a lot of assistance coming from HHS on how to 
better structure California's program. And unfortunately, 
California hasn't been as successful as other States in getting 
funding out the door. So certainly, making sure that HHS has 
the ability to support States in getting resources to families 
is going to be absolutely critical.
    Second, there is a lot of important work being done on 
reporting and getting data out there so that we can understand 
who is doing what work and why. And as I look to think about 
how California could do a better job, I see States like 
Pennsylvania, Michigan, doing fantastic, and that makes me want 
to learn about them.
    So I worry that if we are not going to have the ability to 
data share and staff to help, that we are not going to be able 
to improve upon the program and the model of delivery going 
forward.
    Senator Padilla. Thank you. I just wanted to underscore 
that, because I think part of the dynamic we are facing here 
for small, for rural, for resource limited water utilities and 
communities, sometimes reliance on the Federal Government for 
some of that technical assistance and support is part of 
getting to a solution. So if that is limited on the Federal 
side, separate and apart from a dollar, a grant, or a favorable 
loan, this is hurting more than it is helping.
    Senator Lummis, thank you for your patience.
    Senator Lummis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I have a question for Ms. Menard. My line of questioning 
for Mr. Pepper dealt mostly with maximum contaminant limits and 
CERCLA. Could you address those questions as well, please, from 
your community's perspective?
    Ms. Menard. Thank you, yes. I think the CERCLA question in 
our community is mostly on the wastewater side. And to some 
degree, we have it in our surface water, but at a really, 
really low level, so I am not too concerned about the CERCLA 
issues for solids coming from the water treatment plant, but 
obviously we are looking at that.
    Also, on the wastewater side is one of the places where the 
CERCLA liability is really getting looked at, because they 
obviously get water coming from households and businesses, and 
those sources can often have other additional adds of the PFAS.
    I think on the question of the impacts, I mentioned in my 
earlier comments about looking at granular activated carbon and 
its capital costs plus its operating costs, that does 
potentially represent a long term concern. But I also know that 
it is really important in my community for there to be a strong 
commitment and strong action on improving the quality and being 
good stewards of the quality of the treated water that is 
delivered.
    In my community, we have a strong preference for doing what 
we can to deal with these issues that come, including other 
constituents of emerging concern, pharmaceuticals, personal 
care products, those kinds of things, that fall in the source 
waters that we use, and those things are being planned for as 
part of our treatment plant upgrade.
    Senator Lummis. Thank you.
    There are other committee hearings going on this afternoon. 
We have some members of the Committee that are elsewhere, but 
wanted some questions asked for the record.
    This one is for Mr. Pepper. There are concerns within the 
water sector that funding decisions that are prioritizing 
environmental justice factors are unrelated to water quality 
and health. This could potentially impact the affordability of 
water services for rural communities, which already face unique 
challenges, such as limited funding, technical expertise, and 
resources.
    The question is this: Do you believe the emphasis on non-
water infrastructure policies and potential biases that are 
related to environmental justice decisionmaking might affect 
affordability of water services in rural areas?
    Mr. Pepper. Thank you for that question.
    Yes. I guess, from the West, and from my perspective, a lot 
of the issue that we have is defining disadvantaged or 
environmental justice centers or constituents. I would contend 
that a lot of rural America, whether it is north, east, south, 
or west, works with those.
    We have a declining population base in a lot of those 
areas, which further puts strain on affordability in those 
small communities, aging communities, and disadvantaged, I 
believe, can be socioeconomic. That crosses all races and goes 
into, how do we look at that on a countrywide basis, as opposed 
to certain pockets.
    Yes, some of those biases, I think, can play into the 
affordability index and makes it far more difficult to define 
more than anything.
    Senator Lummis. The question comes from someone who is 
concerned that environmental justice is being used as a term to 
steer resources toward low income urban areas at the expense of 
rural areas. Mr. Jones, do you see that?
    Mr. Jones. I haven't seen that so much in California. I 
think the communities we work with are certainly both rural and 
environmental justice communities.
    Senator Lummis. So you distinguish it, you separate it? 
There is rural, and there is environmental justice communities?
    Mr. Jones. A community could be both, for sure. Maybe the 
disadvantaged community definition we use in California is 80 
percent State-wide income level. So certainly for the valley 
and areas that we primarily work in, most communities are able 
to qualify, unfortunately, just because of the level of income 
inequality in the State. But I haven't seen so much of a 
dynamic there in California, at least.
    Senator Lummis. Mr. Pepper, any closing remarks on that 
point?
    Mr. Pepper. I think he hit it very well. It just depends on 
the level of income in any area. In our State of Wyoming, there 
are several counties that are impacted and low income, but 
define lower income, a lot of those are ag related, so there is 
a different accounting in an ag business than there is in 
residential.
    I think there is, again, it comes back down to definitions. 
I would say that it does appear, in some respects, even in 
Wyoming. Some of the urban thrust versus the rural thrust is 
there, so that should be addressed.
    Senator Lummis. Thank you.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back, and I want to thank the 
witnesses for attending today and providing their expertise to 
the Subcommittee.
    Senator Padilla. Thank you to you, Senator Lummis, and to 
our witnesses, once again, for being here today and for sharing 
your experiences to help us improve the lives of countless 
Americans who are still struggling to afford something as 
fundamental as their water.
    Again, I want to thank Chairman Carper and Ranking Member 
Capito, as well as our Subcommittee staff, for all the 
preparation that went into holding today's hearing which, I 
think, just for the record, that we have established a success.
    In the end, we can't be truly an equal society, we can't 
truly call ourselves a compassionate country, and no one can 
truly pursue life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness unless 
every family has the dignity of safe drinking water and proper 
sanitation.
    The issue of water affordability in America could not be 
more important and more timely. That is why it has been a 
defining feature of many of the major funding bills that 
Congress has passed over the last few years. We have recognized 
the problem of deteriorating infrastructure, rising prices, and 
an economic crunch. And we have stepped in to help the American 
people.
    That is the good news. But the bad news is, as we have 
heard from our witnesses today, we still have much more work to 
do. What we heard from Mr. Jones, for example, should leave no 
doubt that families are still struggling to stay afloat.
    While recent laws have made a difference, one time 
assistance is not a solution for a family sitting at the 
kitchen table deciding between the next grocery store trip or 
next month's water bill. And unfortunately, as we learned from 
Ms. Menard and Mr. Pepper, the conditions of our aging 
infrastructure, combined with the increasingly devastating 
effects of climate change and the challenges posed by emerging 
contaminants, including PFAS, mean that none of this will be 
resolved on its own. Congress needs to step up.
    But I am hopeful that previously approved water assistance 
funding and the permanent energy utility assistance programs 
that were referenced earlier today have enjoyed bipartisan 
support. Congress has recognized the threat of rising costs of 
home energy bills. So in 1980, we established a permanent Low 
Income Home Energy Assistance Program for families in need. 
There is no reason that we can't do the same for water rate 
assistance. I believe we can and we must come together in a 
bipartisan fashion to make these meaningful investments.
    Countless families across the country are counting on us to 
do just that, because for them, this isn't just about policy. 
It is about the dignity of having clean water to wash your 
dishes and bathe your children. It is about the peace of mind 
knowing your kids have clean water to drink at school, and it 
is about making sure that every American, no matter the ZIP 
code or your paycheck, has access to safe, affordable water.
    Before we adjourn, just a bit of housekeeping. Senators 
will be allowed to submit written questions for the record by 4 
p.m. on Wednesday, June 14th, which is 2 weeks from today. We 
will compile those questions, send them to our witnesses, who 
we will ask to reply by Wednesday, June 28th.
    I want to thank you all again for being here this 
afternoon. With that, this hearing is adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 3:57 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
    [Additional material submitted for the record follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
                                 [all]