[Senate Hearing 118-246]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]





                                                        S. Hrg. 118-246
 
                   IMPLEMENTING IIJA: PERSPECTIVES ON
     THE DRINKING WATER AND WASTEWATER INFRASTRUCTURE ACT, PART II

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

                                HEARING

                               before the

                              COMMITTEE ON
                      ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                           SEPTEMBER 7, 2023

                               __________

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


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

             U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 
 54-997 PDF          WASHINGTON : 2024
   
        
        
        
        
        
               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

                           SEPTEMBER 7, 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

Biser, Hon. Elizabeth, Secretary, North Carolina Department of 
  Environmental Quality..........................................     5
    Prepared statement...........................................     8
    Responses to additional questions from Senator Carper........    19
Powell, Kishia, General Manager and CEO, Washington Suburban 
  Sanitary Commission............................................    21
    Prepared statement...........................................    24
    Responses to additional questions from Senator Carper........    34
Volk, Eric, Executive Director, North Dakota Rural Water Systems 
  Association....................................................    38
    Prepared statement...........................................    40
    Responses to additional questions from Senator Carper........    78
    Response to an additional question from Senator Boozman......    83

                          ADDITIONAL MATERIAL

Crook County residents fear mining company polluted their water. 
  Here's how Oregon investigated, June 13, 2023, www.opb.org.....    92
Oregon Sen. Jeff Merkley tour reveals Morrow County residents' 
  frustration with groundwater inaction, January 21, 2023, 
  www.opb.org....................................................   106


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

                              ----------                              


                      THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 7, 2023

                                       U.S. Senate,
                 Committee on Environment and Public Works,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m. in 
room 406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Thomas R. Carper 
(Chairman of the Committee) presiding.
    Present: Senators Carper, Capito, Cardin, Whitehouse, 
Merkley, Kelly, Padilla, Cramer, Mullin, Ricketts, Boozman, and 
Sullivan.

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

    Senator Carper. Good morning, everybody. I hope we remember 
how to do this. It has been a while since we have sat in this 
room, at this table, but we are delighted to be able to do it 
today. I am happy to be with my colleagues.
    There is just a really encouraging atmosphere, I noticed it 
yesterday, on the floor. I feel it again today. We did a lot of 
good work toward the end of just before we broke for the 
recess. We have plenty of work still to do, but I am encouraged 
that we are more than up to that. We are delighted to kick it 
off with this hearing.
    In March, our Committee will recall, our Committee held its 
first oversight hearing on the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law's 
drinking water and wastewater provisions. Today, we are going 
to expand upon those efforts, focusing on the law's drinking 
water programs.
    Nearly 2 years after becoming law, the Bipartisan 
Infrastructure Law is helping to make clean water a reality for 
millions of households, for schools, and childcare facilities 
across our country. As the benefits of this law continue to 
become a reality in more and more communities across America, 
our Committee is anxious to hear from stakeholders about how 
you believe this work is progressing and if we can make any 
improvements. My colleagues have heard me say again and again: 
Everything I do, I know I can do better. I think everything we 
do, we know we can do better.
    Investing in our Nation's water infrastructure is deeply 
personal to me. Growing up in West Virginia and Virginia, my 
sister and I lived near rivers and streams like Beaver Creek, 
not even 100 feet from our house. Just outside of Beckley is a 
stream that was contaminated by septic tanks and other waste.
    Later, I would attend Ohio State University as a Navy ROTC 
midshipman. Ohio State is about a 2 hour drive south of the 
Cuyahoga River, which famously caught fire in 1969. I remember 
I was down in Pensacola, Florida, as a brand new, newly minted 
ensign and reading in the news that the Cuyahoga River caught 
on fire. I couldn't believe it. It did, and the question is 
what we are going to do about it.
    Both of those experiences ingrained in me the importance of 
water in our daily lives. From protecting our beaches and 
wetlands to maintaining our service lines and other ports, 
clean water is critical to our health and our Nation's economy.
    As many of us know, Matthew 25 calls on us to care for 
those who are in need, the least of these, including giving 
those who are thirsty something to drink. I believe that 
includes a moral obligation to ensure that all Americans have 
access to clean, safe, and reliable water services.
    Fortunately, I am not alone in that belief. Shortly after 
taking office, President Biden invited Senator Capito and me, 
along with Senator Cardin and others, to the Oval Office. He 
tasked us with leading the charge on updating our Federal 
infrastructure investments, including our highways, our 
bridges, and our water systems.
    As many of you may recall, we rolled up our sleeves. We got 
to work after that meeting. Senator Capito, Senators Duckworth, 
Lummis, Cardin, Cramer, and I, along with our staffs, worked 
together to draft the Drinking Water and Wastewater 
Infrastructure Act. We advanced this bipartisan infrastructure 
legislation out of our Committee unanimously and later passed 
it in the full Senate by an 89 to 2 vote. I will never forget 
that day, an 89 to 2 vote on something, as that came right 
through our Committee, and something that we are enormously 
proud of.
    That water bill, combined with our Committee's historic 
highway legislation, served as the foundation of the Bipartisan 
Infrastructure Law, which President Biden signed into law in 
November 2021, a day that many of us will long remember today. 
What a day.
    To date, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law is the single 
largest water infrastructure investment in our Nation's 
history. Through that law, Congress is investing an 
unprecedented $55 billion to improve drinking water and 
wastewater systems in communities across our Nation, including 
replacing lead service lines and addressing emerging 
contaminants, and it was fully paid for.
    Still, there is more that needs to be done and more that 
can be done. My hope is that today's hearing will allow us to 
gain a deeper understanding of how the implementation of those 
historic funds is going. Our hearing also presents us with the 
chance to explore future opportunities to improve our drinking 
water infrastructure and to make sure that the Bipartisan 
Infrastructure Law's programs are benefiting communities with 
the greatest need, too.
    While I am excited to hear from all of our witnesses, I 
want to take a moment and welcome back Kishia Powell to the EPW 
Committee. For those who don't know, Ms. Powell testified 
before our Committee in 2021 when we were drafting the water 
portion of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. Her testimony was 
instrumental in moving that package forward, and we look 
forward to hearing her perspective on the law's implementation 
today.
    As I mentioned, this is not our first hearing on examining 
our Nation's water infrastructure needs, and it won't be the 
last, either. As you will recall, earlier this year, we held a 
hearing with EPA Assistant Administrator Radhika Fox--I love to 
say that name, Radhika Fox--and other stakeholders to discuss 
some of these programs. Just this past May, Senators Padilla 
and Lummis also held a water affordability hearing at the 
Subcommittee level looking at low income water assistance 
programs and what additional authorities or changes might be 
necessary to make those programs function even better.
    Later this month, that same Subcommittee will be reviewing 
tribal water needs. I hope that this series of hearings will 
help inform us of what more we can do to ensure that these 
programs continue to work even better as we face changes in our 
climate, our population, and our infrastructure needs.
    With that, again, we are grateful to our panel of 
witnesses. We look forward to hearing from each of you today as 
you bring diverse experiences representing State perspectives, 
city water utilities, and rural water.
    Before we do that, we are going to hear from our Ranking 
Member, Senator Capito, for her opening remarks.
    Senator Capito, great to be back with you. You are 
recognized.

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

    Senator Capito. Thank you, Chairman Carper. It is great to 
be back with you. I hope you had a nice break in the beautiful 
State of Delaware.
    This is a great opportunity, I think, for the Committee to 
get an update from stakeholders and on the progress, as the 
Chairman has lined out very explicitly, on DWWIA, which was 
enacted in the bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs 
Act.
    I thank all of you for being here, several of which we have 
seen before, and it is nice to see you back in front of the 
Committee.
    Today's hearing will focus on the critical importance of 
clean and efficient drinking water and wastewater systems for 
the health, well being, and economies of our communities. It is 
vital that all Americans, obviously, have access to reliable 
water and sanitation that they can afford.
    The Drinking Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Act 
authored by this Committee is a critical component of the 
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, IIJA. It has introduced 
new programs, opportunities, and support to meet the current 
needs and challenges in small, rural, and disadvantaged 
communities.
    During this hearing, we will examine the current state of 
our Nation's water resources, the challenges we face in 
safeguarding them, successes and failure of Federal agencies' 
implementation of policies from the IIJA, which was meant to 
ensure that every individual has access to clean and healthy 
drinking water and wastewater, and how other Federal policies 
may be helping or hindering communities adverse to provide for 
their residents.
    The IIJA, as the Chairman said, authorized $55 billion in 
funding for a variety of water infrastructure programs. These 
programs aim to address the issues faced by our Nation's water 
infrastructure, including grants for small and disadvantaged 
communities, funding for lead service line replacement, and 
support for innovative water technologies.
    The IIJA recognizes that many communities are struggling 
with aging infrastructure and emerging contaminants, such as 
PFAS. Small, rural, and disadvantaged communities often lack 
the necessary resources and technical expertise to tackle these 
challenges, leaving them vulnerable to water quality issues and 
also public health risks. The IIJA offers funding opportunities 
for grants, low interest loans, and technical assistance to 
help ease some of these burdens.
    As we work to implement and secure funding for these 
programs, it is crucial to ensure that resources are directed 
toward the communities that are most in need based on actual 
public health and environmental risks. The Federal Government 
must also provide the necessary technical assistance and 
training to support these programs. Many of our small 
communities do not have this technical expertise.
    However, I have significant concerns regarding the EPA's 
approach to implementing the directives from Congress as it 
begins to allocate substantial financial investments to our 
Nation's water infrastructure. The EPA has repeatedly tried to 
impose its policy priorities on States and communities, often 
in violation of authorities reserved to them under the Safe 
Drinking Water and Clean Water Acts. Regulatory obligations to 
meet vague environmental justice goals and inconsistent and 
untimely imposition of Build America, Buy America waivers have 
led to delays, cost overruns, and legal uncertainty.
    These unnecessary obstacles imposed by Federal regulators 
are especially inappropriate when elevated inflation eats away 
at the historic infrastructure investments that America needs 
and that were demanded of Congress.
    Additional threats to reliability and affordability may 
come from other environmental regulations. In particular, 
failure to provide CERCLA liability protections for water 
systems facing PFAS contamination will slam our water systems 
and their ratepayers while only enriching trial attorneys. As 
we have discussed repeatedly, West Virginia has had to deal 
with PFAS contamination originating, and I know your States 
have as well, at both industrial and military sites, the two 
major sources of contamination nationally.
    The concept of ``polluter pays'' is enshrined in CERCLA and 
has had broad bipartisan support over the years. That is why I 
find it truly perplexing to hear that environmental groups are 
actively lobbying against protections for water systems and 
other passive receivers. With PFAS contamination going back 
decades and regulatory efforts to protect our drinking water, 
which I support, there will be an increasing need to protect 
our water systems that had no hand in creating or didn't have 
the benefit from these chemicals.
    As we look to preserve safety, reliability, and 
affordability of drinking and wastewater systems for the future 
and maximize the benefits of the IIJA's investment, protecting 
passive receivers is something Congress must get right.
    I will close by saying, as everybody in attendance already 
knows, water infrastructure investments are critical to public 
health, environmental health, and economic development. The 
successes we have had to date have been based in cooperative 
federalism as enshrined in the Safe Drinking Water and Clean 
Water Acts. Communities and States know their needs the best 
and need a helping hand from the Government, but not a heavy 
hand.
    Thank you all for all you do to keep our country's water 
and wastewater systems clean, healthy, and I look forward to 
hearing your perspectives on these issues. Thank you.
    Senator Carper. Thank you very much for those words and for 
the opportunity to continue our important and wonderful efforts 
in this Committee on this front.
    I am going to introduce Secretary Biser. Senator Cardin has 
graciously agreed to introduce Kishia Powell, one of his 
constituents, and I think Senator Cramer is going to introduce 
Eric Volk.
    Secretary Biser is the Secretary of the North Carolina 
Department of Environmental Quality.
    My wife sends her best. My wife is a North Carolina, 
Appalachian State graduate. She sends her best.
    The position that you hold is a position that you have 
held, I think, since Governor Cooper appointed you to that 
leadership role about 2 or 3 years ago in 2021. This is your 
second tour of duty at the agency, having previously served as 
the Department's Director of Legislative and Intergovernmental 
Affairs.
    In August 2023, Ms. Biser was elected to serve as President 
of the Environmental Council of States, ECOS, a national non-
profit, non-partisan association of State and territorial 
environmental agency leaders working to improve the capability 
of State environmental agencies.
    Secretary Biser, we are delighted that you are here. 
Welcome. Thank you for joining us today. Please proceed.
    Before, you do, maybe I should introduce the other two 
witnesses. No, we will hold off on that. You just go ahead, and 
then we will come back and let Ben introduce Ms. Powell and 
Kevin introduce Eric.
    OK, go ahead.

 STATEMENT OF HON. ELIZABETH BISER, SECRETARY, NORTH CAROLINA 
              DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

    Ms. Biser. Thank you, Senator Carper, Ranking Member 
Capito, members of the Committee. I really appreciate the 
opportunity to be here with you all today and talk about the 
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and the transformative 
investment that it has helped enable in North Carolina's water 
infrastructure.
    One of North Carolina's top priorities is ensuring that 
everyone in our State has access to clean drinking water and 
reliable water infrastructure, because without that, nothing 
else matters.
    I want to start out by sharing with you a story about the 
community of Ivanhoe, which is in rural Sampson County in North 
Carolina. The residents of Ivanhoe have been fighting for 
decades for the chance to connect to a public water system. 
Governor Cooper and I had an opportunity to hear from these 
residents about what it was like knowing when they wash their 
white clothes, they would come out stained brown from the well 
water, and how when it got cold that the water pumps would go 
out. And a lot of times, they wouldn't have water availability 
at all.
    But in 2022, thanks to Federal funding, we awarded a $13.2 
million grant to run 40 miles of waterlines to connect 350 
homes in Ivanhoe to the county water system for the first time.
    Other citizens in our State are facing failing 
infrastructure, pumping stations that are being inundated as we 
have more frequent and more intense storm events, and some are 
still serviced by terra cotta pipes. In Liberty, North 
Carolina, I was visiting them, they actually have Orangeburg 
lines, which I had to look up. It is basically wood pulp sealed 
with tar, and you can imagine that they are literally 
disintegrating in the ground. It is vital that we confront each 
of the needs to improve the resiliency of our system and to 
protect the health of our residents.
    I will add that North Carolina had a head start on handling 
large sums of water infrastructure dollars. Our State leaders 
chose to allocate a significant portion of our American Rescue 
Plan dollars to water infrastructure. It was $1.9 billion. The 
first thing we did was evaluate our processes, because it is 
easy to spend money, but the challenge is investing it well.
    In order to ensure that the record amount of funding that 
we received reached the communities like Ivanhoe, we reimagined 
our grant making process. We canvassed every county health 
department in the State to identify where we had communities 
who did not have reliable access to clean drinking water or 
sewer services. And we conducted outreach to nearby utilities 
to ensure that they knew about these communities and encouraged 
them to do projects to connect these folks. We wanted to make 
sure it wasn't just the well funded, biggest utilities that 
were ready to go, that we gave everybody in North Carolina an 
opportunity to benefit from these dollars. And I am proud to 
say that the changes are resulting in, so far, more than 2,000 
homes slated to be connected to public water for the very first 
time.
    North Carolina, Senator, as you mentioned, also has 
significant levels of PFAS contamination, which have affected 
rural and urban areas in our State alike. We especially worry 
about the cost and the burden on our small towns who cannot 
afford to shoulder the additional cost associated with 
treatment without outside help.
    EPA Administrator Michael Reagan and fellow North 
Carolinian came to Maysville, North Carolina, a small town that 
had discovered high levels of PFAS contamination, which was 
likely the result of firefighting foam, to announce the IIJA 
Emerging Contaminants funding for small and disadvantaged 
communities to illustrate the type of community that that was 
intended to help.
    While a facility in North Carolina gave us early experience 
in dealing with forever chemicals when a PFAS compound known as 
GenX was discovered in the Cape Fear River in 2017, we also 
recognized that PFAS is larger than one company or one 
chemical. DEQ has been working with public water systems to 
assess PFAS levels and to help prepare for the upcoming 
national drinking water standards. We have identified 43 of our 
municipal and county drinking water systems that serve 3 
million people that will need to take action in order to come 
into compliance with the proposed MCLs and protect public 
health.
    We are learning from and working with the public water 
systems that have already addressed PFAS in our State. I will 
give you an example of the Cape Fear Public Utility Authority 
who spent $43 million on installation of a granular activated 
carbon system to treat PFAS coming from the Cape Fear River. 
From their experience, we know that the testing and planning 
and design work has to take place before you are ready to 
construct a treatment system, and this work can take a year to 
do.
    To help other utilities prepare for the needed upgrades 
that they will need to make, we are making a significant 
portion of the early rounds of emerging contaminant funding 
from IIJA available for planning grants to help these systems 
identify and design the best treatment system for their 
situation.
    We appreciate the $23 million per year over 5 years that 
North Carolina is receiving for emerging contaminants through 
IIJA, but this shows how much we are going to need, that what 
we are getting so far is just scratching the surface of the 
needs in North Carolina. We estimate that just for our State, 
it will take between $661 million and $1.3 billion to install 
treatment technology at the 43 municipal and county water 
systems, and that number does not take into account the number 
of small water systems, which we are currently testing.
    All of this is on top of our normal water infrastructure 
needs, because we haven't invested for far too long, of $17 
billion to $26 billion that we need over the next 20 years. So 
this reinforces the importance of IIJA and this Committee's 
work and of the State Revolving Funds.
    I recognize that this is a policy and not the 
appropriations committee, but as the newly elected President of 
the Environmental Council of States, I would like to bring the 
Committee's attention to the long term threat that is being 
posed to the State Revolving Funds by the fiscal year 2024 
appropriations bills. On behalf of ECOS, we are concerned about 
these developments of using congressionally directed spending 
out of the corpus of the State Revolving Funds. The proposed 
cuts would be devastating to States' capacity to meet current 
and growing environmental needs and harm the State-Federal 
partnership that is crucial to protect public health and the 
environment throughout the country.
    Using supplemental appropriations in the IIJA to offset 
cuts in the annual Federal funding undermines the historic 
opportunity provided by this landmark legislation, which was 
intended to extend affordable financing for water 
infrastructure to more communities than ever before.
    This is not the time to take our foot off the accelerator. 
North Carolina will never stop working to ensure that all 
residents have access to clean drinking water and reliable 
water infrastructure, and I appreciate this Committee's 
commitment to that same goal.
    Thank you for allowing me to be here today and share our 
experience with you.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Biser follows:]
    
 [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 
 
    Senator Carper. Since your election as President of ECOS, 
do you prefer do be called Madam President, or Madam Secretary?
    Ms. Biser. Secretary is fine, thank you. I appreciate it.
    Senator Carper. Good enough.
    Ben Cardin is willing to introduce his constituent, Kishia 
Powell.
    Thanks for doing that.
    Senator Cardin. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
    It is really a pleasure to have Kishia Powell with us. As 
you pointed out, her help in the work of this Committee by her 
appearance and counsel has been greatly appreciated. She is a 
dynamic force in the global water sector with 24 years of 
experience both in the public and private sector across the 
United States and London, England.
    She is the General Manager and CEO of the Washington 
Suburban Sanitary Commission. That is the largest water utility 
in the State of Maryland. She manages 1,680 team members and 
the day to day operations of the water systems, 1.9 million 
customers. It is an incredible responsibility that she has. She 
has demonstrated great leadership in that regard. She is a 
licensed professional engineer in Maryland, graduating from 
Morgan State University. We always give plugs to our great 
schools in the State of Maryland.
    I particularly want to thank her; Mayor Brandon Scott just 
announced his appointments to the task force set up by the 
Maryland General Assembly for the Regional Water Governance 
Task Force in Baltimore. The Washington Suburban Sanitary 
Commission does not have jurisdiction in Baltimore, but she is 
lending her expertise, because we need to find the best way to 
manage our water systems in the Baltimore area. And I thank her 
for her willingness to serve on that task force, and thank you 
for being with us today.
    Senator Carper. Ms. Powell, you are recognized.

        STATEMENT OF KISHIA L. POWELL, GENERAL MANAGER 
        AND CEO, WASHINGTON SUBURBAN SANITARY COMMISSION

    Ms. Powell. Thank you, Senator Cardin. It is good to be 
born, raised, and educated in the city of Baltimore.
    Good morning, and thank you Chairman Carper, Ranking Member 
Capito, and Committee members for the invitation to testify 
before you today. I am Kishia Powell, the General Manager and 
CEO of WSSC Water. I would like to recognize our board of 
commissioners and Chair Regina Speed-Bost.
    Senator Carper. Is she here?
    Ms. Powell. She is not. She couldn't be here today.
    Senator Carper. Thank you.
    Ms. Powell. WSSC Water has the honor of serving more than 
1.9 million customers across Prince George's and Montgomery 
Counties as the largest water and wastewater utility in the 
State of Maryland and the eighth largest in the country. While 
the scale of utilities differs across the water sector, we all 
face similar challenges, most importantly, the need to balance 
affordability with investments in critical infrastructure.
    The passage of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act 
made us all hopeful that the historic funding levels would 
unlock the ability to ramp up required investments. Thank you, 
Committee members, for your leadership and vision. I am happy 
to report that we see progress because of the IIJA.
    Overall, we have received a total of $60.3 million because 
of the increased appropriations in clean water and drinking 
water SRF funding, with over 30 percent being given in loan 
forgiveness. Most notably, WSSC Water will receive just over 
$105 million from the State Revolving Funds in the coming year 
for water main replacement projects, lead service line 
inventory and replacement, the Piscataway Bioenergy Project, 
and sanitary sewer reconstruction.
    Thank you, Senator Cardin, for your support and leadership 
in advancing these crucial projects.
    While progress is being made thanks to the single largest 
ever investment in water infrastructure in the history of the 
United States, the hard reality is, we are still behind when it 
comes to having the necessary funding required for our 
infrastructure investment needs. We are truly thankful, but 
this one time investment was only 5 percent of the funding that 
is needed for our sector.
    EPA estimates a needed investment of $750 billion over the 
next 20 years just to maintain the existing Nation's drinking 
water and wastewater infrastructure. Historic decreases in 
Federal funding, aging infrastructure, climate and cyber 
threats, and addressing emerging contaminants widens the 
funding gap.
    One of the most expensive and urgent issues our Nation's 
water sector faces is the presence of PFAS contaminating our 
water supplies and threatening WSSC Water's mission to protect 
public health and maintain our track record of zero drinking 
water quality violations in our 105 year history. We are 
committed to continuing this level of excellence, despite our 
projected cost of PFAS compliance of more than $1 billion for 
drinking water alone.
    We are equally concerned about the potential financial, 
operational, and compliance risks associated with PFAS and 
wastewater and biosolids, which is why we must hold the 
polluters financially responsible and not leave our customers 
to shoulder this burden.
    These factors have led to increasingly unaffordable water 
bills for families across the U.S. According to the Department 
of Health and Human Services, water is the fastest growing 
household utility cost nationwide. The Congressional Budget 
Office reports that over 90 percent of water and sewer 
infrastructure in the U.S. is funded locally, much higher than 
other types of infrastructure like roads and transit.
    I thank this Committee for authorizing the creation of a 
water customer assistance program at the EPA and for providing 
$1.1 billion in various COVID relief packages for a program at 
HHS. Since 2020, WSSC Water was able to provide over $10 
million in financial assistance, including nearly $4 million 
from the HHS Low Income Household Water Assistance Program to 
assist more than 5,500 customers. The EPA program has never 
been funded, and the HHS program will soon expire without 
additional funding, ending this critical lifeline. We must 
permanently fund access to water, an equally critical resource.
    On behalf of WSSC Water, I thank the Committee members for 
your support and pledge to work with you to address the water 
sector's challenges in the years to come to protect public 
health, create jobs, enhance economic growth, safeguard our 
environment, and drive equity and environmental justice.
    This concludes my testimony. I would be happy to answer any 
questions.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Powell follows:]
    
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 
    
    
    
    
    Senator Carper. Ms. Powell, thanks so much. It is great to 
see you again, and thanks for that testimony and for your help 
earlier and again today.
    Before Senator Cramer introduces our witness from North 
Dakota, Eric Volk, I just want to say to my colleague, Kevin, I 
was back on the campus of the University of Delaware last month 
and had an opportunity to speak, and we spent a fair amount of 
time with their president and others on the campus about the 
intersection between Federal policy and what we are trying to 
accomplish at the University of Delaware.
    We talked a little bit about sports, and we talked about 
the upcoming football season that is underway. We talked about 
the University of Delaware's experience in playing North Dakota 
State. I asked my staff to share with me some football scores 
from North Dakota State and Delaware in the last couple of 
years. They came up with September 2019, University of 
Delaware, 22, North Dakota State, 47; September 2018, 
University of Delaware, 10, North Dakota State, 38.
    In basketball, it gets worse. Basketball, University of 
Delaware, 66, North Dakota State, 85. When the president of the 
University of Delaware was leaving, and we were saying goodbye, 
he said, do you have any advice for me before you leave? I 
said, stop playing North Dakota State.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Cramer. They probably pay them a lot to play them; 
that is the weird thing, but they are not alone.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you Senator Capito, for 
this important hearing and for this opportunity.
    It really is an honor for me to be able to introduce Eric 
Volk, who serves as the Executive Director of the North Dakota 
Rural Water Systems Association where he has a staff of 11 
professionals who oversee and provide services to over 300 
water systems in the State, and wastewater systems. They 
include things like onsite troubleshooting, training, leak 
detection, water audits, emergency response, work force 
challenges, of course, just to name a few.
    The assistance provided by Eric and his team to my staff 
and me has been invaluable. It is part of what makes the 
partnership work so well. He also serves on several boards, 
including the North Dakota Water Coalition and the North Dakota 
Education Foundation. He is a past chair of the North Dakota 
section of the American Water Works Association.
    I don't know what he does in his spare time, but he does 
hold a bachelor's degree in biology from the University of 
Mary, and he is a two time member of the University's athletic 
hall of fame. Fortunately for Delaware, he didn't go to North 
Dakota State.
    Eric is an excellent resource to me and to my staff. We 
really appreciate Eric's being here and offering his expertise 
to the whole Committee.
    Senator Carper. Thanks for that introduction.
    Please proceed, Eric. We are delighted that you are here. 
Thanks so much.

          STATEMENT OF ERIC VOLK, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 
          NORTH DAKOTA RURAL WATER SYSTEMS ASSOCIATION

    Mr. Volk. Good morning, Chairman Carper, Ranking Member 
Capito, Senator Cramer, and distinguished members of the 
Committee. My name is Eric Volk, and I am the Executive 
Director of North Dakota Rural Water.
    The Association was established in 1974 and provides 
technical, managerial, financial assistance, training, and 
advocacy for rural water and wastewater systems in the State. A 
huge thanks goes to my staff, who tirelessly work every day to 
provide access to affordable, ample, and quality water. It is a 
true honor to be here today to give a small State rural 
perspective to the implementation of the Drinking Water and 
Wastewater Act.
    I grew up in Granville, North Dakota, a community of around 
240 residents, so this topic is near and dear to me. I am also 
here on behalf of National Rural Water Association, the 
country's largest utility association, with over 31,000 members 
dedicated to drinking water quality, environmental protection, 
and public health in all 50 States.
    I have enjoyed living in North Dakota my entire life and 
have been helping water and wastewater systems for nearly 23 
years. We have 306 active community water systems. Two hundred 
ninety-six of them serve less than 10,000 in population.
    Meeting the demands in repairing or replacing aging 
infrastructure and complying with rules and regulations are 
taking its toll on many small and rural systems. Another major 
challenge is the ever increasing elk migration, which continues 
to decrease the population base, adding to the cost of these 
services to the individual consumer. Without significant State 
and Federal grant funding, the cost to the consumer would be 
too much for the average family to afford.
    In 2022, the association partnered with the North Dakota 
Department of Water Resources and our league of cities to 
survey our water supply needs. The results indicated a 10 year 
need of approximately $2.1 billion and a 20 year need of 
approximately $3.6 billion. North Dakota's current drinking 
water SRF program Intended Use Plan shows a need of about $1.1 
billion, and demands on the Clean Water side are similar. Those 
are huge needs for a State that only has 280,000 residents.
    In preparing for this hearing, I visited with several water 
systems engineers and suppliers to develop a snapshot of how 
projects are being completed in the State. First and foremost, 
they are all very appreciative of the investments being made on 
the Federal level to help our citizens. Several systems talked 
about the shortage of contractors.
    A key factor contributing to the shortage is labor, which 
is required reductions in the number of crews that they can 
operate and limits their scope of work. There is also a sense 
with the large amount of funding available for all 
infrastructure that some contractors are not as hungry as they 
were before.
    The cost of pipe, valves, and fitting is dramatically 
increasing. Since 2019, certain PVC pipe has increased over 200 
percent, and the cost of installing a fire hydrant that serves 
a small community of 135 people has more than doubled since 
2020, now more than $15,000.
    Various products such as meters, meter pits, certain 
valves, drives, and generators have extremely long wait times. 
One system has been waiting for a year and a half for a 
specific pressure reducing valve. However, the availability of 
pipe and related materials is improving slowly. American 
manufacturers have been required to expand their facilities and 
improve logistics, which has driven down lead times and 
enhanced trackability.
    Overall, the costs of completing projects seem to be ever 
increasing. It is very hard for small systems to properly plan 
for and complete projects under these circumstances.
    Another important aspect of the IIJA is the multiple 
technical assistance provisions and set asides included by this 
Committee to help communities that lack the financial, 
managerial, and technical capacity to access SRF programs. 
Rural water is proud to be the trusted resource and technical 
expert for small, rural, disadvantaged, and tribal communities 
to comply with EPA regulations, avoid EPA fines, and access the 
historic water infrastructure funding for safely operating our 
utilities.
    The regulatory burden surrounding PFAS are another 
challenge facing water systems, which we are extremely 
supportive of the Water Systems PFAS Liability Protection Act 
introduced by Senator Lummis. This legislation aligns with the 
goal shared by all rural communities to eliminate PFAS from the 
public drinking water while preserving the essential ``polluter 
pays'' principle for cleanups under the Superfund law.
    Finally, the water sector work force problem is daunting, 
with over 50 percent of our water workers estimated to leave in 
the next 10 years. Alongside strong support from Ranking Member 
Capito, Rural Water has established an apprenticeship program 
for operators.
    As of this year, 36 State rural water associations, 
including North Dakota, have completed the rigorous process of 
obtaining federally approved apprenticeship programs and are 
now attracting, training, and retaining the next generation of 
the water work force, with over 600 apprentices enrolled or 
graduated so far.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, for 
giving me the opportunity to share rural water's perspective 
today. We appreciate the many opportunities you have provided 
rural America in crafting Federal water legislation and policy.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Volk follows:]
    
    
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 
    
    
    
    Senator Carper. Mr. Volk, thanks very much.
    Our thanks to all of you for your testimony today.
    I am going to lead off the questions and then yield to 
Senator Capito. There is another hearing going on in Homeland 
Security and Governmental Affairs on postal issues that are 
important. I may have to slip out for a few minutes to go 
there, as well.
    As I mentioned in my opening statement, the Bipartisan 
Infrastructure Law provided more than $55 billion for drinking 
water and wastewater improvements, the largest investment in 
our Nation's history, which is in addition to the significant 
investments Congress has made through the American Rescue Plan. 
Even then, we knew that this was only a down payment, and the 
continued need is clearer now.
    This past April, EPA released its most recent drinking 
water infrastructure needs survey and assessment, which 
estimated that the 20 year national drinking water 
infrastructure need is a staggering $625 billion. That is $625 
billion worth, with a B.
    My question is really a question for each of you. I will 
start off with Secretary Biser, also known as President Biser.
    Please share with us, if you would, some of your beliefs 
with respect to the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, your 
experience with respect to the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law's 
funding, what you have been able to achieve with that funding 
in North Carolina. Tell us a bit about the financial gap, if 
any, that remains in your efforts to address water 
infrastructure challenges. You have spoken to this already, but 
you can reiterate it, if you will. Repetition is a good thing. 
Thank you. Go ahead.
    Ms. Biser. Thank you, Senator. Thank you for that question.
    One of the things that we think about a lot in North 
Carolina is that people don't tend to think about water 
infrastructure unless they turn on their faucet and water 
doesn't come out, or they don't have clean water, and they have 
to boil water, or if they can't flush a toilet. That is when we 
typically think about water infrastructure.
    As a result, we have underinvested for decades in our 
systems. This piece of legislation has provided a huge shot in 
the arm for us. You mentioned that the EPA needs survey is 
identifying hundreds of billions of dollars in additional 
needs. That is true in North Carolina as well.
    We have a 2017 study that we are in the process of right 
now because it doesn't take into account some hurricanes that 
we dealt with, that estimated our needs at $17 billion to $26 
billion just for our basic water infrastructure. That is not 
including looking at the needs associated with upgrading our 
drinking water to deal with PFAS and protect public health. 
That is quite significant.
    To give you another dollar figure, we were only able in 
2023 so far to fund 9 percent of the $2.6 billion that have 
been requested by our local utilities thus far. That number has 
held pretty steady for the past few years.
    We have had a record investment, which is wonderful. I 
mentioned the $1.9 billion from the American Rescue Plan on top 
of the wonderful funding we are getting from IIJA, and we are 
working hard to make sure that that funding is reaching every 
community that needs it in the State. That means, as I 
mentioned earlier, not just rewarding those who are first in 
line, but making sure that we have strong technical assistance. 
North Carolina has a lot of small and rural communities, a lot 
of poor communities, so we want to make sure that that funding 
is reaching those communities as well.
    Senator Carper. I am going to ask you to hold it right 
there. That is a lot, and you certainly have gotten our 
attention.
    Ms. Powell, same question, if you would.
    Ms. Powell. Certainly.
    I think, overall, our experience in working with 
stakeholders to make sure that we got off to a good start with 
implementing the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law has been a 
positive one. We understand that there had to be guidance 
provided up front for implementation, and certainly, for the 
State of Maryland, they took some time to update their 
definition of disadvantaged communities to make sure that 
funding is going to support those communities across the State.
    We are starting to see funding, as I shared in my 
testimony, from IIJA, and we are starting to see some principle 
forgiveness.
    But what we talked about in the hearing before was that we 
needed to see more funding in the form of grants and not loans. 
Many communities cannot afford loans, and for us, ourselves, we 
are financially constrained, as well. It counts against the 
debt that we are taking out for our capital program, so there 
is still a funding gap there.
    We submitted a project, a list of project requests, worth 
$800 million, and we are projected to receive $105 million. We 
are still shy of the need. I think it has been very good that 
we have been able to assist customers that need assistance 
getting their bills back in good standing from impacts during 
the pandemic, but those impacts existed before the pandemic and 
continue to persist.
    The last thing I will stress, if I could, is that we talk a 
lot about investment in infrastructure. We can't forget about 
the people that run the facilities and fix the pipes. We also 
have to invest in work force.
    Senator Carper. Good. Thank you very much for those words.
    Mr. Volk, and then I will turn it over to Senator Capito.
    Mr. Volk. Thank you, Chairman.
    Our SRF group has been working very hard to navigate 
through the new rules and regulations to get the money out as 
best as they can, visiting with them in the last couple weeks, 
getting a lot of the money out to all sorts of systems. I have 
in my written testimony a snapshot of those systems, both on 
the clean water side and on the drinking water side from our 
very small up to our largest community of Fargo.
    Senator Carper. Thank you.
    Senator Capito.
    Senator Capito [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I am going to, because there is lots going on, I am going 
to yield my first opportunity to question to Senator Boozman.
    Senator Boozman. Well, thank you very much, and I 
appreciate that. I have to run up to Farm Bill here, it is 
important to you, and I think, to the witnesses.
    I want to just ask one question, really quickly, regarding, 
as Ranking Member on Agriculture, to Ms. Biser.
    I understand how critical it is that we protect farmers, 
ranchers, and others not directly responsible for PFAS 
contamination from being potentially held liable by the EPA or 
subject to sweeping private legal action that could wreak havoc 
on their ability to operate. So I was pleased to be a part of a 
bill with Senator Lummis giving the agriculture community 
assurance they would not be subject to PFAS liability claims if 
the EPA rule were to be finalized.
    Ms. Biser, can you talk about the importance of providing 
farmers, ranchers, and water utilities with this certainty?
    Ms. Biser. Thank you, Senator Boozman, for that question. 
One of the things that we think about in North Carolina a lot 
is making sure, PFAS operates fundamentally different than most 
of the traditional contaminants that we regulate. PFAS is 
called a forever chemical for a reason, and it stays persistent 
in the environment and accumulates.
    One of the things that we are doing at a State level is 
reviewing our rules and regulations and permitting to make sure 
that we have common sense measures to make sure that we are 
still protective of public health and environment in that 
context. I think, as you pointed out, Senator, it is a good and 
worthy conversation to have to make sure that we are looking at 
where to appropriately draw those lines to ensure that you are 
not having unintended consequences because PFAS is operating 
differently than what we have traditionally dealt with, 
especially under a CERCLA context, as you mentioned.
    Senator Boozman. If they did go all the way down to 
farmers, ranchers, water utilities, what effect would that have 
on North Carolina?
    Ms. Biser. I will say, as a strong agricultural State, I 
always think about our farmers, but I also think about our 
public water systems. One of the main areas I think about is 
ratepayers are already paying for treatment costs to make sure 
that their water meets Federal drinking water standards and is 
safe for public health. I would hate to see a scenario where we 
have public water systems, ratepayers, essentially, on the hook 
twice.
    Thank you for your question.
    Senator Boozman. Good. Thank you very much.
    Thank you all.
    Senator Capito. Senator Cardin.
    Senator Cardin. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Ms. Powell, let me first relate a story. A couple years 
ago, I was invited by a candidate for City Council in Baltimore 
to join him going door to door to try to get political support 
for him. It was an opportunity to do some grassroots politics. 
Every house that we had knocked on the door where someone 
answered the door, the questions they raised were about water 
prices and the affordability of water from our public utility. 
You mentioned that in your testimony.
    Obviously, and Secretary Biser, you are absolutely right, 
there is a tremendous shortage in the modernization and 
replacement of our water infrastructure. The pressure on the 
ratepayers makes it virtually impossible to make the type of 
investment through the ratepayers that are necessary to make 
those improvements, but we are stuck with the current 
circumstances where these rates are way too high on 
affordability.
    We have the LIHEAP Program for other utilities, and you 
mentioned in your testimony, Ms. Powell, that you have used the 
COVID relief funds that were provided under HHS, and the 
Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill contained the provision that I 
sponsored with Senator Wicker and Senator Stabenow to allow us 
to develop a pilot program on affordability with help for those 
that cannot afford it.
    Could you go into a little more detail as to the need on 
affordability as to the customers in your region struggling to 
pay their current water bills, let alone if additional 
responsibilities are imposed upon them because of the 
challenges that you have mentioned?
    Ms. Powell. Yes, sir. Thank you, Senator Cardin, for the 
question. Thank you for your leadership on this issue, as well.
    Since the start of the pandemic, WSSC Water has applied 
over $10 million in financial assistance to 5,500 customers 
through a variety of Federal and State funding sources, 
including $3.75 million just from LIHWAP alone, which has 
helped over 4,000 customers. The Federal Low Income Household 
Water Assistance Program has been another opportunity for us to 
assist customers that have needs.
    As I said, those needs existed before the pandemic, because 
rates have been increasing, and they will continue to persist 
after. Right now, we have over 90,000 customers that are behind 
on their water bills, leaving more than $51 million in arrears. 
When we can't get the funding from our customers, because we 
are not for profit, we then look to raise rates, and that is an 
unsustainable solution.
    Having a permanent Low Income Household Water Assistance 
Program provides us another way of providing the needed funding 
to help customers with the rising cost of water and sewer 
bills, because our costs are increasing to deal with just 
maintaining the infrastructure we have. New regulations that 
require us to invest billions of dollars will further add to 
that financial burden.
    Senator Cardin. Secretary Biser, you mentioned the concerns 
of the ratepayers in North Carolina. Do you have a similar 
concern about the affordability in your State?
    Ms. Biser. That is something we think about a lot. We want 
to make sure that water is affordable. This is something that 
we think about in the context of PFAS, as well. I gave the 
example of the Cape Fear Public Utility Authority. Their 
customers are now paying an extra $70 per year to pay for that 
treatment system. So we are thinking about this all the time 
and looking at how do we make sure that everybody is at the 
table to help, so that the ratepayers don't shoulder the entire 
burden.
    Senator Cardin. Ms. Powell, I mentioned my thanks for your 
being willing to join the task force in regard to the Baltimore 
system. The WSSC is a model governance. It has worked extremely 
well among the Maryland, Washington, and suburb counties. It is 
well supported and respected by all the jurisdictions.
    The Baltimore system is one that is based upon the city's 
management, which has been historic and goes back hundreds of 
years. We have serious problems at Back River, as I am sure you 
are aware, and Patapsco. And I just hope that you can add some 
expertise as to how we can have a structure that can provide 
the future needs for the customers in the Baltimore region that 
depend upon the Baltimore Water Authority.
    Ms. Powell. Yes, sir. I am looking forward to lending my 
expertise and working with the entire task force to ensure that 
the city of Baltimore has the structure that it needs for the 
water and wastewater utility, which is a regional utility, and 
also among the top 10 largest in the country.
    I started my public sector career as the Bureau Head of 
Water and Wastewater for the city of Baltimore, so I know the 
operation well, and I know many of the challenges. I think 
those have only become more difficult over time. And I do see 
that the city of Baltimore is now starting to receive funding 
as well from IIJA. And I hope that the work that we do helps to 
inform how those funds should be spent going forward.
    Senator Cardin. Thank you.
    Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Senator Capito. Thank you.
    This is for all the panel, but I am going to start with 
you, Mr. Volk. I want to go back to the PFAS CERCLA liability 
issue. You have all three addressed it, and I appreciate it. As 
the Chairman just said, repetition is good.
    CERCLA liability creates a significant risk for passive 
receivers. In other words, you didn't create it, but it comes 
into your water system. Often, you are required to receive or 
treat PFAS due to State or Federal regulations.
    Water and wastewater utilities are particularly vulnerable 
to CERCLA liabilities due to the essential and growing role in 
receiving and filtering PFAS. I believe in North Carolina you 
said 43 systems had just installed carbon systems. There are 
treatments, as you mentioned, treatment technologies that can 
remove it, and it gets in granulated carbon filters. But it has 
to be transported then, and disposed of, the used filters, as 
you put new filters in.
    Wastewater utilities must contend with both industrial and 
residential contributors of PFAS upstream, the latter of which 
poses unique challenges due to the prevalence, as we talked, of 
PFAS in many consumer products.
    My questions are, can you elaborate on the risks and costs 
associated with transporting and disposing of PFAS contaminated 
materials, and does CERCLA liability impact your ability to 
manage these byproducts effectively without fear of severe 
legal challenges? If the EPA is requiring you to provide PFAS 
free drinking and wastewater, are you kind of caught between a 
rock and a hard place?
    Mr. Volk.
    Mr. Volk. Senator, great questions. A lot of these are on 
the minds of not only the small and rural systems in North 
Dakota, but across the Nation. There are a lot of unknowns, 
especially in our State with what the extent of the PFAS is, 
and then, if you find it, what do you do with it?
    Then, if you are told you need to dispose of it, where do I 
dispose of it? How much is it going to cost? Who is going to 
pay for it? If it is the ratepayers, like we have already 
talked, in the short time, we are already strapped with razor 
thin budgets. That is where being exempt from the liability 
would be an extreme help to water systems, where they are, just 
like you said, the passive receiver. They didn't profit from 
the PFAS, but now they are----
    Senator Capito. Responsible?
    Mr. Volk. Responsible for that, exactly.
    Senator Capito. Have you tested your water systems in North 
Dakota?
    Mr. Volk. Senator, they have done a couple years of 
testing. In North Dakota, we have been lucky, knock on wood, 
that it has come back with very few positives across the State.
    Senator Capito. Ms. Powell, would you respond to that? You 
mentioned it in your statement, but I would just like to 
reinforce it, please.
    Ms. Powell. Yes, I mentioned it in my statement that we 
have been, we initiated looking at some alternatives to deal 
with PFAS in drinking water. While we have done voluntary 
testing, and it shows that our levels are low and that we would 
be under the MCL that has been proposed by EPA, we have seen an 
anomaly in the data that showed a spike that could potentially 
mean that we could be out of compliance in the future.
    That is why I mentioned financial compliance and 
operational risks associated with not only drinking water, but 
also wastewater. We have to understand what will happen there, 
and biosolids. On the drinking water side, our estimates now 
are upwards of a billion dollars to be able to address PFAS in 
drinking water.
    Just in terms of biosolids, the Piscataway Bioenergy 
Facility Project, where we have received funding from the 
State, that project is upwards of $270 million, the single 
largest investment that we have made as a utility, and it is 
supposed to be a positive one to take our biosolids to a Class 
A to allow us to better manage biosolids. That investment 
stands to be threatened should we have to address PFAS and 
biosolids. So it is important that water and wastewater 
utilities have the protections from CERCLA and from liability.
    Senator Capito. Secretary Biser, you have some experience 
with this, obviously, with some of your systems already doing 
the carbon filters. What kind of liability issues are they 
having or would they have if we didn't specifically exempt them 
from transporting and trying to destroy, managing, once you 
catch it, it doesn't go away. What are you going to do with it?
    Ms. Biser. Senator Capito, thank you for that question.
    There are two large systems that we have, that, as you 
mentioned, are dealing with this. One has installed a reverse 
osmosis system, the other a carbon filtration system, a 
granular activated carbon system. With the carbon system, one 
of the things that we worry about is we know that there is air 
transport of PFAS as well, and so as it gets refreshed, it gets 
basically heated up.
    There is a lot we still need to learn about, are we putting 
it back into the air, where it essentially continues a cycle? I 
think that points to a need for some research and development 
to help us as we are tackling these issues.
    As it relates to CERCLA, I think, again, it is a really 
worthy conversation to have to take a look at all the case law 
surrounding CERCLA, having everybody around a table to say, 
where are the unintended consequences, and how do we avoid 
unintended consequences so we don't overburden our ratepayers?
    Senator Capito. Thank you.
    Senator Merkley.
    Senator Merkley. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman, and 
welcome to you all.
    I want to direct my questions to you, Mr. Volk, because I 
have two rural pollution problems that I want to address. One 
is in Morrow County. For decades, people have had an 
accelerating level of nitrates in their water, to where it is 
way above safety now. They are experiencing all kinds of health 
problems.
    They are adjacent to an area that does have a public water 
system. The DWWIA grants, the $35 billion that we have directed 
to DWWIA, wouldn't that be appropriate money to be spent to 
connect these folks to a public water system that is free of 
nitrates? Isn't that kind of the purpose?
    Mr. Volk. Yes, Senator. I believe those would be questions 
to ask your Department of Environmental Quality or whoever runs 
the SRF, but definitely could be part of the supplemental 
funding. That is just extra additional funding and there are 
additional subsidies that could be used there. They could use 
their base funding, but definitely could be something to get 
those users on a reliable, quality source of water.
    Senator Merkley. But isn't that kind of the core purpose of 
the DWWIA money, is to help folks in rural areas be able to 
address this kind of challenge?
    Mr. Volk. Senator, definitely. Definitely. It would be up 
to each State to divvy that money up how they see fit.
    Senator Merkley. Right.
    I want to turn to another challenge in Crook County. In 
Crook County, we have had in 2022 a whole bunch of residents 
who have a very, very high level of manganese that has appeared 
in their water. Now, Canada has a limit of 120 micrograms, and 
the World Health Organization, 80 micrograms.
    EPA is at 300 micrograms. And the estimate for the impact 
on memory, attention, and motor skills on children is when 
there is 120 to 400 micrograms. Ten of the 13 nearby family 
wells have tested over the EPA 300 level, and one well tested 
at over 1,000 micrograms. So people are incredibly worried 
about their health.
    The calves are dying. At Billy Johnson's dairy, a record 
number of cows have been dead, same story at Brian Zednick's 
place. A farmer, Dick Zimmerly, said, ``It just chapped my 
backside that Goliath could get away with running over 
everybody else.'' And the Goliath in this case is a gravel pit 
that opened nearby.
    In this case, there is no public water system nearby to tap 
in. What can these funds in DWWIA do to help our rural farmers 
and families that are being impacted in such a fashion?
    Mr. Volk. Senator, I can only tell you what we have done in 
North Dakota over the last 50 years. We have a great network of 
rural regional systems that would provide water to that farmer. 
We have worked hard on it. I know that manganese is an issue. 
In North Dakota, we have been able to use the funding through 
the Emerging Contaminants section, that is eligible use and 
that is at 100 percent subsidy.
    So if they were able to hook up to a regional supplier like 
we have done in North Dakota, that would be an option for those 
rural residents and farmers.
    Senator Merkley. You are talking about piped water, right?
    Mr. Volk. Correct.
    Senator Merkley. But if people are too far away from a 
piped system to make that feasible, are there other things 
these funds can do?
    Mr. Volk. Senator, I'm not exactly sure. I would have to 
get back to you on that.
    Senator Merkley. Madam Chair, I want to provide for the 
record several articles about both the nitrates in Morrow 
County and the challenge faced there for health, and also about 
the manganese in Crook County. I think these two instances are 
examples of the sorts of challenges that people face.
    It isn't just the farmers and ranchers. The families' water 
systems, that is, their pipes, their filters, their water 
heaters, their toilets are filling up with black sludge, 
massive corrosion of their pipes. They can't sell their homes. 
They are afraid to raise their children, but they can't afford 
to move.
    It seems to me these are exactly the sorts of things that 
we are trying to provide funds for in DWWIA to assist. I want 
us to find a way to help these communities out. Thank you.
    Senator Capito. Without objection, we will submit those 
into the record.
    [The referenced information follows:]
    
    
    
 [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    
    
    Senator Capito. Senator Cramer.
    Senator Cramer. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Again, thanks to all our witnesses for being here.
    Eric, thank you for your expertise.
    I am going to get to one of the process issues. In some 
respects, Senator Merkley's questions are about the program in 
general and how States can use the various stacks in the 
appropriate ways.
    One of the areas, and we talk a lot about the State 
Revolving Loan Fund, obviously, but one of the areas with 
regard to the State Revolving Loan Fund and the bigger system 
and the area for rural people like me, and by the way, this 
applies not just to water, but certainly to the highway piece 
of it is well, and that is to have a formula that consistently 
recognizes rural States and the unique needs of rural States 
and that we don't have a formula that simply sends all the 
money to large population centers.
    Obviously, we are talking about a multiple use system that 
connects. I appreciated your illustration to Jeff with regard 
to the regional systems in North Dakota that work together.
    Could you speak a little bit to the importance of the 
formula piece of this? Because the formula is often challenged 
when it is time to reevaluate and reauthorize the programs. 
Speak to that.
    And you said something in your opening statement, too, that 
I'd like you to speak a little more to, and that is the 
technical assistance piece. In all my years in Congress, 
whenever this came up, the thing I hear the most from the rural 
systems it the value of technical assistance, how if you even 
know how to apply for a grant, it helps perhaps get the grant.
    Maybe speak to those two things, the formula, and then the 
technical assistance piece of it.
    Mr. Volk. Thanks, Senator Cramer. Definitely on the formula 
and coming from a small State, we would love any changes or 
anything that wouldn't harm small States with limited 
population. Just because we don't have the residents doesn't 
mean we don't have problems. We have our unique problems 
whether it is miles of pipe between rural customer, an 
extremely short construction season. I am looking forward to 
getting back to our cool temperatures in North Dakota. It has 
been extremely warm here in DC.
    But definitely, normally as a small State, we get minimally 
funded, and we are OK with that just as long as we are not 
adversely affected by any formula change based on a population 
alone.
    Then with the technical assistance, that is the heart of 
our association. We have been around since 1974, helping when 
they were first starting rural systems in the State and morphed 
into training, technical, managerial, and financial assistance 
to all the water and wastewater systems in the State. My staff 
is going in there day in and day out helping with finding 
leaks, fixing things, helping them fill out loan applications, 
helping them connect to the funding sources, helping them hire 
an engineer if they don't have that. Some of these very small 
systems even have part time staff or volunteers.
    So the technical assistance, to us it is the boots on the 
ground. They know us. We live in their communities, we live in 
the State, and we are not there one day and never to be seen 
again. We are there for the long haul.
    Senator Cramer. I might even just follow that up then with 
the next point. So the technical assistance, it seems to me, I 
still sort of marvel, 11 professionals with over 300 systems. 
What you have just described is the way that you maximize those 
resources.
    But that doesn't change the fact that there is a pretty 
significant work force challenge. There is in every industry. I 
don't know one yet. Space Force is doing well, I guess.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Cramer. But beyond that, there is a serious work 
force problem in this country. In your testimony, you said you 
expect something like 50 percent of the work force in your 
industry will be leaving within 10 years.
    What do you all do? I will start with you, then each of you 
can answer shortly. What is the plan? How do we deal with this, 
or do we just recruit more humans?
    Mr. Volk. Senator, part of that problem we are trying to 
address is with our apprenticeship program. With National Rural 
Water's help, we have the standards set up. As I said in my 
testimony, there are 36 States, and North Dakota is one of 
them. We are relatively new in the process of apprenticeship. 
We have a work force development coordinator; he has hired on. 
He helps with systems, helps navigate through all the rules and 
regulations of the apprenticeship program, just trying to 
change the narrative in our business.
    In small town North Dakota it is usually, if your operator 
leaves, who is the next person up? You bring somebody in, they 
don't have the experience, and it is a vicious circle. We are 
trying to change the narrative, change the culture where it is 
a true profession, it is a great, noble profession. They do 
great work every day. So we are working hard to use the 
apprenticeship program to get the next generation of workers.
    Senator Carper [presiding]. Thank you, sir.
    Senator Whitehouse, you are next. Right now it looks like 
Senator Mullin will succeed you, and then Senator Padilla, and 
then Senator Ricketts. Please proceed.
    Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Chairman.
    Mr. Volk, the law provides 49 percent for additional 
subsidization. Is that customarily treated as a cap?
    Mr. Volk. Senator, the 49 percent is the cap, I believe. I 
know we have had some discussions with, is that enough.
    Senator Whitehouse. Yes. So, assuming that it is a cap, 
what effect does it have on communities that don't have the 
ability to go forward to match in terms of being able to access 
these IIJA funds?
    Mr. Volk. That is a great question. We are struggling with 
that in North Dakota with getting the lead funding out, where 
49 percent subsidization, 51 percent would go on to the 
customer, and most of that lead is going to be in your older 
neighborhoods, your disadvantaged communities.
    So we are really struggling with getting that and finding a 
balance with the affordability.
    Senator Whitehouse. Thanks.
    Ms. Powell, in Rhode Island, we are seeing a lot of damage 
to our water treatment infrastructure related to climate 
change. We have very, very powerful, unprecedented rain events 
that have flooded out, for instance, a major city of ours, the 
city of Cranston's sewage treatment facility. It is really 
unpleasant to be downstream when a sewage treatment facility 
floods out.
    Narragansett has had to build a dike, a berm around its 
oceanside sewage treatment facility, Warren, another town, is 
having to plan a very expensive move with intermediate 
protection of its water treatment facility.
    How well does the IIJA fund the need that communities are 
facing to deal with these unprecedented flooding events driven 
by climate change and our relentless pollution by the fossil 
fuel industry?
    Ms. Powell. Thank you, Senator Whitehouse, for the 
question. We ourselves are dealing with the impacts of drought 
conditions. Earlier this week, we had a meeting to talk about 
moving to a drought watch. So it really is impacting every 
community, East Coast, West Coast, north, south.
    I think the structure is there in IIJA, the authorization 
is there, the appropriations need to be there.
    Senator Whitehouse. That is what is missing. I agree. Thank 
you.
    Let me also ask you about microplastics. We are starting to 
see that turn up more and more in drinking water. We see it 
appear in mothers' breast milk. We see it appear in the end 
result in a baby's diaper that has obviously gone through the 
infant. We see it falling in the rain in Colorado, and we don't 
really understand what the dangers are of microplastics are 
when consumed by humans.
    The bill provides $10 billion for what it calls emerging 
contaminants. Is it true that microplastics are only one of 
several emerging contaminants that would have to share that $10 
billion if it were to be treated that way? And given the kinds 
of upgrades that are necessary to deal with microplastics, is 
$10 billion a sufficient number?
    Ms. Powell. The short answer, Senator, is no. It is not 
sufficient. We have focused a lot of PFAS.
    Senator Whitehouse. Which would be an emerging contaminant?
    Ms. Powell. Which is an emerging contaminant. And our 
projections to deal with that in drinking water are upwards of 
$1 billion.
    Senator Whitehouse. When you say, ``our projections,'' you 
mean your----
    Ms. Powell. WSSC Water, yes, sir.
    So we need to have regulatory certainty. We need to have a 
comprehensive road map to deal with emerging contaminants that 
are on the horizon holistically, so that we are making our 
investments in infrastructure upgrades make sense.
    Senator Whitehouse. I would wrap up by suggesting some 
flexibility around the 49 percent for communities that don't 
have a lot of resources, and additional funding for 
infrastructure that faces climate related damage, flooding, 
drought drying out conditions, whatever they are, and an 
expansion of the $10 billion which now has to cover both PFAS 
and microplastics in addition to whatever other emerging 
contaminants are out there would all be helpful to you.
    Ms. Powell. Yes, sir.
    Senator Whitehouse. Is that a yes, also, I saw your head 
nod, Mr. Volk?
    Mr. Volk. Yes.
    Senator Whitehouse. And Ms. Biser is also nodding. Thank 
you.
    Senator Carper. Head nods are important.
    Next, Senator Mullin.
    Senator Mullin. Thank you, Chairman. You know, we all face 
unique challenges, being from the Midwest and rural States like 
Oklahoma, North Dakota. Even major metropolitan areas, such as 
Boston and New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles, we all have 
issues facing us when it comes to clean water. Sometimes it is 
policy related, sometimes it is neglect. Sometimes it is a lack 
of funding.
    But what we do know is one size does not fit all. We need 
to give municipalities, States flexibility to allow them to 
make decisions for their unique areas. And a lot of times, when 
Congress, we may have good intentions, sometimes it is 
politically driven, sometimes it is actually policy driven. I 
think that is what we are trying to do here, Chairman, is have 
good, sound policy.
    But one size never fits all. And when we throw a tremendous 
amount of money, I mean, $55 billion is a lot of money, still, 
for anybody, I don't care who you are, it is a lot money, and 
then we put restrictions on it, I think we hear from all of our 
witnesses is hey, we know where it needs to go, we need the 
flexibility to do so. And if we are going to be funding these 
projects, then we need to make sure that we get those dollars 
as close to the State, as close to the individuals providing 
the service as possible, and give them the tools to do it 
without having the restrictions, which happens so often with 
Federal funding, is that every dollar has so many stinking 
strings on it that they can't even access it.
    That is what I believe Mr. Volk, you were saying a while 
ago, what Senator Cramer was trying to say, is just to get 
through the bureaucracy to get to the funding is a miracle 
sometimes in itself. So my question to you, Mr. Volk, is what 
tools do you need for rural parts of the country, which is most 
of the Midwest, what would be most helpful? If the money is 
there, what tools do you need to access it?
    Mr. Volk. Yes, Senator, great question, things we talk 
about all the time. Flexibility would be immensely grateful, I 
know visiting with our State folks, they would love that. The 
technical assistance----
    Senator Mullin. Flexibility in what? Begin able to use the 
dollars for certain projects without having restrictions on the 
projects? Being able to use flexibility on navigating the 
bureaucracy?
    Mr. Volk. Especially with this funding, with the lead 
component on our water side, we run the risk in our State of 
maybe not spending down our first tranche of money as quickly 
as we can, and we can't apply for the next set of money until 
we spend that down. And we run the risk, if we don't apply for 
that I believe before September 2024, we could lose that money. 
That would be reallocated to a State.
    So some timing flexibility for our State to navigate, let's 
say, the lead, like where the lead service inventories are not 
due to the State until October 16th, 2024, but they have to 
apply for this new funding, the next year's funding of the 
lead, in September 2024. So the funding is kind of ahead at 
this point of the true problem. The State does not fully know 
the magnitude of the total lead replacement. We have an idea. 
But some flexibility on that would be great so they wouldn't 
run the risk of losing that.
    Senator Mullin. The timing.
    Mr. Volk. It could maybe have a little more time or could 
use that at another point.
    Senator Mullin. Would it be helpful, instead of us, you 
know, at each municipality or each rural district, trying to 
apply for the grants themselves or the funding themselves, 
would it be helpful that if we were to allow, if Congress were 
through the EPA were to just simply give the money to the 
States that have, like in Oklahoma, DEQ, Department of 
Environmental Quality, in North Dakota I am sure you have got 
an environmental agency that could help manage it, too, give it 
to them and allow them to help disburse the dollars in areas 
and set the timing that you need that is more designed to 
actually be practical for you guys to achieve what you are 
trying to get done?
    Mr. Volk. Yes, Senator, normally that is how it would work 
with their base funding through the SRF program. They have an 
intended use plan that they would go off, and it is on a 
ranking system with their, if there is health issues or things 
like that. So they have that flexibility, it is just some of 
the tightness on some of this new----
    Senator Mullin. The timing. So the timing is the thing you 
need the most help with.
    Mr. Volk. Sure.
    Senator Mullin. OK.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Senator Carper. Thank you, sir.
    Senator Padilla, please. Welcome.
    Senator Padilla. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Let me begin, Mr. Chair, by just reminding you how proud I 
am of the work this Committee has done to address water 
affordability for underserved communities, while also working 
to expand access to water reuse and recycling and reduced lead 
in drinking water in terms of the foundation for the Bipartisan 
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, as I know you are proud 
of.
    This last June I chaired a Subcommittee hearing examining 
the challenges facing water systems across the country and the 
impacts of aging water infrastructure, as we have been talking 
about in this hearing already and the effect that aging 
infrastructure is having on the ability of families to pay 
their water bills.
    The cost of water is rising. Household water and wastewater 
bills have increased 160 percent since 1998. Just to put it in 
context, that is a greater rate of growth than the rise in cost 
for electricity, for rent, or even medical bills.
    In 2021, Congress created the temporary Low Income 
Household Water Assistance Program in response to the COVID-19 
pandemic. We also authorized a new EPA pilot program to help 
water systems address low income water affordability. The 
authorization for LIHWAP, however, expires at the end of the 
month.
    So I know Senator Cardin talked to you, Ms. Powell, earlier 
about your experience in taking advantage of the resources 
available and what it meant for customers that were able to 
receive aid. Can you emphasize for me and the Committee what 
the program expires at the end of the month, but you might be 
able to ensure that low income customers are able to continue 
to afford their water and sewer bills?
    Ms. Powell. Thank you, Senator Padilla, for the question. 
At WSSC Water, we are also looking to develop new customer 
assistance programs and enhance the customer assistance program 
that we already have. We found that by having LIHWAP in place 
we were able to assist more than 4,000 customers with the cost 
of their water and sewer bills. And that helped them get their 
accounts back in good standing. It also helped the utility to 
be able to move forward with our critical mission of investing 
in infrastructure and our people.
    One of the things we are planning to do, and we have been 
working with water and wastewater utilities across the country, 
is to advocate for a permanent program. We need the 
authorization, and then we need the appropriations.
    Senator Padilla. You anticipated my follow up question, 
which was exactly that. I know it has been a temporary program. 
But it sounds like you believe a permanent program should be 
part of a Federal safety net.
    Ms. Powell. Absolutely. Because there are some States and 
communities that don't have the enabling legislation for 
individual utilities to have their own customer assistance 
programs. So having a Federal low income household water 
assistance program akin to LIHEAP which helps with energy costs 
is appropriate for this critical resource.
    Senator Padilla. Thank you for that.
    I won't raise the subject of PFAS. Several of us have 
talked about it. I do want to associate myself with the 
comments, questions, and concerns raised earlier.
    I will ask instead about another issue which is not unique 
to California, but California seems to be Exhibit A, the need 
to emphasize disaster resiliency. We have seen no shortage of 
both challenges and opportunities ensuring access to clean 
drinking water and safe wastewater, especially when it comes to 
natural disasters.
    Just last week, communities in and around San Diego faced a 
boil water advisory after the first tropical storm hit southern 
California in 84 years. It was an anticipated hurricane, 
tropical depression by the time it made landfall. This comes 
after a winter where we saw more than 30 atmospheric river 
storms flooding communities throughout the State.
    Yet, we are still emerging from a mega-drought that has 
stressed water supplies, not just in California, but throughout 
the west, and even here in the DC region, low flows have 
triggered drought operations.
    So another question for you, Ms. Powell, how has the DC 
drought impacted your operations?
    Ms. Powell. Right now, we have normal operations. As I 
shared, we did have a call earlier this week to talk about how 
we will deal with the drought conditions. At WSSC Water, 
because we are making upgrades to our Potomac plant, and we are 
also working to recover capacity in the reservoir that serves 
our Patuxent plant, we have specific limitations. So the 
drought conditions are exacerbating the limitations that we 
have to provide treatment.
    So it is really critical that we plan for not only the 
future where water supply is concerned, but we plan for 
resiliency, which is why we have been working in the region to 
advance the water supply resiliency project that was in WRDA 
2022.
    Senator Padilla. Thank you, and thank you, Mr. Volk. I know 
you have spoken about the unique challenges facing rural 
communities. Anything else you would like to add on how do you 
prepare for flooding, droughts, wildfires, any other natural 
disaster challenges?
    Mr. Volk. Yes, Senator. In North Dakota we do a lot of 
planning with winter storms, ice storms are very big, and 
making sure that if the power is interrupted that all our small 
communities can still keep enough water, whether it is for 
citizens or if there would be a fire. So it is a concern that 
we have in our northern climate. We all have our uniqueness on 
climate resiliency.
    Senator Padilla. Thank you very much.
    Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Senator Carper. I think Senator Kelly and Senator Sullivan 
are en route to join us.
    Senator Padilla, before we leave, I just want to say thank 
you for your leadership on these issues and your leadership on 
the Subcommittee you chair. Thank you.
    Senator Padilla. And I should mention, the Subcommittee 
hearing, very bipartisan in spirit. Senator Lummis is my 
partner on the Subcommittee as Ranking Member of that 
Subcommittee. So we work in very bipartisan fashion, which I 
know you try to do at every opportunity.
    Senator Carper. You are a good team. Thanks very much.
    Until we are joined by Senator Sullivan, I am going to ask 
a question, maybe another question of Secretary Biser. Would 
you please take a moment to discuss the disparity between the 
amount of money that companies spend to manufacture PFAS and 
the financial burdens on communities that must handle the 
cleanup of these chemicals?
    Ms. Biser. Thank you, Senator.
    My colleague in Minnesota and her agency recently did some 
studies on this very topic. What they found is that it costs to 
buy PFAS about $50 to $100 per pound. The cost to remove and 
destroy PFAS is around $2.7 million to $18 million per pound. 
So there is quite a disparity between those two figures.
    Senator Carper. That is quite a disparity.
    One other question for all of our witnesses. Cybersecurity 
attacks on drinking water systems in the United States are of 
increasing concern, as you know, for utilities and the 
communities that they serve, as documented by a recent report 
by the American Water Works Association.
    What additional resources are necessary for utilities to 
both invest in resiliency of their systems to cyberattacks as 
well as to respond to attacks as they occur?
    Mr. Volk, would you lead us off?
    Mr. Volk. Mr. Chairman, another great question.
    For an association, we strive to provide that technical 
onsite assistance to our small and rural communities with the 
cybersecurity. Even as rural and small a State as North Dakota, 
we are very hooked up to the world, which can be great and 
which can also be a curse to when the bad actors find us.
    We have had some recent instances in some very small 
systems, there have been people that have got on there. They 
don't know exactly what they are looking at. Luckily, we were 
able to stop that. And our State is very active, we have some 
very intelligent experts working on that, and we are working 
hand in hand with our rural systems with them.
    Senator Carper. Good. Thanks for that.
    Ms. Powell, same question.
    Ms. Powell. Yes, sir, our cyber infrastructure is just as 
important as the pipes in the ground. We have systems that are 
connected that have to be protected. We are under attack; there 
are bad actors that are trying to access our systems, every 
water system, all the time. I think the water sector is 
increasingly becoming a prime target for bad actors.
    So the long and short of it is that funding needs to be 
there to support those efforts for cyber resilience as well.
    Senator Carper. All right, thanks.
    Secretary Biser.
    Secretary Biser. It is certainly a new challenge that is 
being presented to systems, and a clear and present danger to 
those systems. But I think having funding for training and 
technical assistance and any necessary upgrades, but again, the 
focus should always be on public health and how we are keeping 
that top of mind. Thank you.
    Senator Carper. Thank you.
    We have been joined by Senator Sullivan.
    How are you doing?
    Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I am doing 
great.
    Senator Carper. It is nice to see you. Ready to go?
    Senator Sullivan. Ready to go, as always.
    Senator Carper. You are recognized.
    Senator Sullivan. For the witnesses, thank you. Just real 
quick on the CERCLA question, I know it is an important one, I 
have a bunch of questions on some other topics, but is it safe 
to say that all three of you agree that there should be some 
element of limitation on liability, particularly in the PFAS-
CERCLA related issue?
    Was that your testimony, Ms. Biser?
    Ms. Biser. Senator, I think it is a good conversion to have 
to look at any unintended consequences. We want to make sure 
that polluters are on the hook to pay and that we are not 
overburdening ratepayers, for example. So I think it is a topic 
that is worthy of careful consideration.
    Senator Sullivan. OK.
    How about you, Ms. Powell?
    Ms. Powell. I do think it is important for water utilities, 
as passive receivers, to have those protections, and that the 
focus be on the polluters bearing the costs.
    Senator Sullivan. Yes. It is like airports and other 
entities, too, all of a sudden they are seeing, like in my 
State a lot of these entities will go bankrupt, and they 
weren't the reason for it.
    What about you, Mr. Volk?
    Mr. Volk. Yes, those small and rural systems would totally 
agree they should not be held responsible for that, and the 
polluters should pay.
    Senator Sullivan. OK, good.
    Ms. Powell, and this is really for everybody, this 
Administration talks about environmental justice, environmental 
equity. I saw that in your bio. I have no issue with that. The 
problem, and I have said it in this Committee a million times 
before, the Biden administration has environmental justice and 
equity with a big asterisk, if you are an Alaska Native or 
indigenous person from Alaska, you don't get any environmental 
justice or equity. You get attacked by this Administration.
    So yesterday we had another outrage, a legal outrage, the 
Administration canceled leases in the ANWR despite Congress 
saying you had to do it, and then they restricted the National 
Petroleum Reserve of Alaska, which was set aside by Congress, 
like 70 years ago, for oil and gas development.
    Mr. Chairman, I want to submit the joint Alaska delegation 
press release on this for the record.
    Senator Carper. Without objection.
    [The referenced information was not received at time of 
print.]
    Senator Sullivan. The vast majority of the people in this 
press release are Alaska Natives, elected Alaska Natives, 
screaming, screaming, what are you doing, Deb Haaland? Why are 
you taking away our jobs? Why are you taking away our revenues?
    This is environmental injustice for indigenous people in my 
State, and it happens every damned day with this 
Administration. I have said it 50 million times in this 
Committee.
    But why do they get so outraged? I want to show this chart, 
I have also shown it a million times in this Committee. That is 
an American Medical Association chart from 1980 to 2014, what 
places in America had life expectancy increases. Unfortunately, 
some places in America actually had life expectancy decreases, 
mostly because of the opioid epidemic.
    The place in our country that increased life expectancy the 
most by far was Alaska, up to 13 years. It was in our rural 
communities, our indigenous communities. Why? A, because it 
started really low. Life expectancy for Native Alaskans was the 
lowest in the country by far. But B, from 1989, we had 
responsible resource development, jobs, clinics, hospitals, 
very important to this panel, water and sewer.
    So my constituents' life expectancy in a lot of these 
places, North Slope, Aleutian Island chain, up to 13 years. 
Thirteen years. What is more important, I have asked this many 
times, policy indicator of success more important than are the 
people you representing living longer? I don't know, and I 
don't think there is anything more important.
    So yesterday this Administration took a whack at that. They 
are trying to make my constituents live less longer. Deb 
Haaland, ironically, it is just shocking, she is a Native 
American, she attacks Alaska Natives every time she opens her 
mouth.
    But anyway, what does this have to do with this hearing? 
Because a lot of the revenues that come from this kind of 
resource development go into water and sewer. My State has over 
30 communities that don't have any running water or flush 
toilets. I think that is the most of any State in the country. 
It is all indigenous people.
    So do you think that is environmental justice or racial 
equity? By the way, they are the most patriotic Americans in 
the country, because they all serve at higher rates in the 
military, Alaska Natives, than any other ethnic group.
    So my question for the panel is, in terms of formulas, by 
the way, the EPA Administrator was in Alaska just over August. 
We did a meeting with Alaska Natives on these issues. I showed 
him that chart, I have shown him that chart many times. So in 
terms of the formula for water and sewer, don't you think it 
should prioritize, just for fairness, call it racial justice, 
racial equity, just call it good old American fairness, the 
communities that don't have anything first? There is a lot of 
talk about aging infrastructure on water and sewer. But I think 
sometimes we miss like no infrastructure.
    So can I get the witnesses' response, just on a formula, 
shouldn't we be prioritizing communities in America that don't 
have anything, flush, no running water, no flush toilets, 
American citizens? It is not right in my view. But I would 
welcome any views on that.
    Ms. Powell, maybe you can start.
    Ms. Powell. I will be happy to start, Senator Sullivan. And 
thank you for the question and the awareness.
    I will say from a personal standpoint, and I have said it 
many times, I believe that equity is about communities having 
that they need so that all communities can thrive on equal 
footing.
    Senator Sullivan. Like running water.
    Ms. Powell. Having been in the water sector for some time, 
I am not here to speak on behalf of the water sector, but I can 
tell you, I don't know anyone who believes that we should trade 
the needs of the underserved for the needs of the unserved. I 
think every community needs to have what it needs.
    I think this historic investment in water and wastewater 
infrastructure or being able to provide water and wastewater 
infrastructure needs to be fully funded. It needs to be 
sustainable and long term, so that every community can thrive 
on equal footing.
    Senator Sullivan. Thank you.
    Anyone else?
    Ms. Biser. Sir, we your concern with making sure that we 
are getting funding to those who need it the most. We actually 
change a lot of our processes to ensure that we are reaching, 
we have a lot of communities who were bypassed over the years 
for water and wastewater services. So we, in getting our 
funding, canvassed all the county public health departments to 
find out which communities did not have service, or did not 
have access to reliable service. Then we did outreach to 
utilities to encourage them to do projects to connect those 
folks.
    So far, we are slated to connect over 2,000 homes to 
potable water for the first time. We are still working on that. 
It did require us changing our process. Also, we do give extra 
points on our criteria to make sure that we are meeting those 
needs of our residents in all parts of our State, especially 
our rural parts of our State.
    Senator Sullivan. Great.
    Mr. Volk, do you have a final thought on this?
    Mr. Volk. In North Dakota, we have worked hard with various 
State partners, Federal partners, to meet the gap of those 
underserved, we do have four tribal nations to meet those 
needs. There are other places in the State where just like you 
described, there is limited water, limited sewage, even in this 
day and age. It is crazy, and yes, those should go close to the 
top.
    Senator Sullivan. Thank you.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Carper. You are welcome. Thank you, Senator. Glad 
you could join us.
    Senator Capito, and then I will have a question or two, 
then we will wrap it up.
    Senator Capito. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank all of 
you for being here today. It is very interesting to see rural, 
urban, big States, small States, we all have some similarities 
and some different concerns.
    My last question is around risk communications. We had an 
incident in East Palestine, Ohio, where there was a train 
derailment and great concern expressed by me and many others 
about the impacts on the water systems of the chemicals that 
were being carried, the hazardous materials that were being 
carried in the train and how it was handled.
    We had a hearing on it, and one of the things that came out 
of the hearing was the risk communication, not just EPA, but I 
will use EPA in this case, because you all deal with EPA, in 
this case was not as good as it could be. So if you are in a 
community that is at risk because of an accident, a weather 
event, whatever, I am sure you have all dealt with this, I have 
had this in my own community, to have appropriate risk 
communication is absolutely essential. In other words, don't 
say something and take it back, or don't say something then 
expand on it 24 hours later. React immediately, use science, 
all these things.
    I am going to ask you, Secretary Biser, what experience do 
you have in this, and how do failures in risk communications 
put additional burdens on your State? You have your State 
entities reacting, your Governor reacting, and I am interested 
in the Federal level risk communication.
    Senator Biser. Thank you, Senator Capito. This is a very 
important issue and one we spend a lot of time thinking about 
at the department.
    Certainly, when accidents happen, or one area we deal with 
a lot and actually work with EPA on a lot is with PFAS. As 
residents get testing on their drinking water wells and find 
out that they have high levels of PFAS, you want to make sure 
you are providing folks with actionable science based 
information, giving them what their options are and making sure 
you are consistent, as you pointed out.
    We try to spend a lot of time in advance thinking through 
what questions residents will have. Sometimes you don't have as 
much time, as you pointed out with East Palestine. But we 
maintain web pages, we answer calls every day from residents 
who are concerned about these issues. We certainly work with 
our fellow States, local partners, and our Federal partners in 
EPA to make sure that we have a comprehensive and whole of 
government approach to ensure that no matter where they call, 
they get the same answer. We want to make sure there is 
consistency across agencies.
    Senator Capito. Right. I think that is really important, 
particularly with PFAS. You see it in the media all the time, 
different types of reports. And EPA has not set the drinking 
level, which I have been pressing them for for probably now 3 
years to do this. But they did set a level that is untestable.
    So if they come back with a drinking level that is higher 
than the level they put out last year that could have some risk 
to it, here you have confused messages to people who find this 
in their water systems. So we have to get this right.
    I appreciate what you all do every day, because I know you 
are dealing with it with all different kinds of maybe possible 
contaminants and other things that happen. But the general 
public relies on you to make sure that the information that 
they're getting is not just accurate but timely, and you are 
relying on other people to give you information. So I think 
that is an area we really need to stay on and be as vigilant as 
possible.
    Thank you all very much. Thanks for being here.
    Senator Carper. Thank you, Senator Capito.
    I have one last question, then we will wrap it up.
    Ms. Powell, this is for you. The Bipartisan Infrastructure 
Law included, as you recall, some $15 billion in funding for 
lead service replacements. Many districts across our country 
have been busy this year creating service lines, line 
inventories and assessing what kinds of problems exist in their 
respective areas.
    Has your water district been able to access Bipartisan 
Infrastructure Law funding to meet your obligations to replace 
lead service lines? What are the challenges you are 
experiencing as you work to address this challenge?
    Ms. Powell. Thank you for the question, Senator Carper.
    As I shared in my testimony, I am happy that part of our 
progress is receiving some projected funding for our lead 
service line inventory and replacement work. Our lead service 
line inventory work is underway. And we are developing a 
comprehensive program, so that when we have that data, we will 
be able to help those that have lead service lines remove those 
lead service lines.
    We believe that most are on private property, as we have 
been going through this process. So there will need to be 
policies to make sure that it encourages the removal of lead 
service lines on private property that we don't have access to. 
There also needs to be the funding in place to help those 
customers with that cost as well.
    So I am happy to report progress. We are receiving, 
projected to receive funding, and we will look forward to 
applying for more as we know more.
    Senator Carper. All right, thank you for that. As we 
prepare to close, I am going to give each of you maybe 30 
seconds for a closing thought you would like to leave us with. 
Then we are going to get ready to go start voting.
    Mr. Volk, closing thought, please.
    Mr. Volk. Chairman Carper, Ranking Member Capito, thank you 
very much for letting me speak here on behalf of small and 
rural systems. These systems, and I can speak on North Dakota, 
they do a great job day in and day out, a lot of them on, like 
we talked about, shoestring budgets and limited staff. But they 
do a great job.
    I want to just put a shout out to all those that work with 
the systems. Because sometimes in the water business when you 
make the news, it is not for good things. And that is a shame. 
They do great things every single day for the residents not 
only of our State but the Nation. That profession should be 
elevated to the highest levels. That is what I want to end 
with, recognizing those folks in the trenches.
    Senator Carper. Thank you; good. Most appropriate.
    Ms. Powell.
    Ms. Powell. Thank you, sir, thank you again, Senator Carper 
and Ranking Member Capito, for having me here again. I always 
learn something when I come.
    Senator Carper. We do too.
    Ms. Powell. What I would also leave the Committee with is 
the need to focus on work force as well. We can talk about all 
of the funding we need for the infrastructure. But without 
having the people in place to maintain that infrastructure, to 
protect those millions of dollars of investment, we will be 
putting money into and not being able to maintain those 
investments.
    So thank you, Senator Capito, for your focus on work force 
as well. And I just want to say thank you to Team 
H2O.
    Senator Carper. All right, great, thank you.
    I would say before we turn to Ms. Biser, I mentioned this 
to Senator Capito in an earlier conversation, during the month 
of August we were in recess, which is unusual for us to be out 
for a month. I spent part of that time just covering my little 
State, visiting a lot of businesses large and small, non-
profits and other entities.
    I always ask three questions of them. I would say, how are 
you doing, I would say, how are we doing, our congressional 
delegation, Federal Government, State government, and what can 
we do to help. I can't tell you how many times people said, 
what we need is folks who will come to work. We need people who 
are trainable, who have a good work ethic, who will come to 
work to learn how to do jobs. We have the lowest unemployment 
rate I think we have had in years, it is about 3.5 percent. 
Last time I checked that, I think we have about 8 million, 
almost 9 million jobs open right now that we are trying to 
fill, about 5 million people that are allegedly looking for 
work.
    One of the challenges for us at the State level, local 
level, Federal level, is work force jelling and making sure we 
have the work force with the skills that are needed in all 
kinds of jobs, including some of the ones we are talking about 
here today. It is critically important.
    Ms. Biser, please.
    Ms. Biser. First of all, thank you for having me here today 
to talk about this historic investment. Thank you for your 
leadership in making that possible.
    I want to continue the theme with a slightly different 
take, which is the work force development as it relates to 
State capacity to handle our job. The grants that we are giving 
out boomerang back to us in the form of permits. And we are 
facing an unprecedented level of retirement. To give you an 
example, a third of my department can retire in the next 5 
years. We have a 24 percent vacancy rate for engineers.
    Senator Carper. Say that again, how much?
    Ms. Biser. Twenty-four percent. You can ask any colleague 
of mine throughout the country, they are going to give you 
similar numbers. This is a major focus across the country.
    Categorical grants from Congress make up 25 percent of my 
entire operating and staffing budget. And they remain stagnant. 
So while I know this is a policy Committee and not funding, I 
will just put a plug in that there is a nexus there, that as we 
are seeing stagnant rates of funding that our responsibilities 
are growing, that in order for us to make sure these programs 
are successful, we are going to need to make sure we have the 
resources to recruit and maintain highly qualified staff.
    Thank you.
    Senator Carper. All right, thank you.
    We have been joined by Senator Kelly.
    We stretched this out as long as we could, and you are just 
in time. We are about to close this down. Go right ahead, we 
are glad to see you.
    Senator Kelly. I am the last one, Mr. Chairman?
    Senator Carper. Yes, you are worth waiting for.
    Senator Kelly. All right. Thank you. Thank you for waiting, 
and thank you, all of you, for being here today. It has been an 
important hearing.
    Secretary Biser, I want to begin by talking about PFAS 
contamination in drinking water. I imagine that may have come 
up already.
    As a member of the group of 11 Republicans and 11 Democrats 
that worked to negotiate the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, one 
of the top priorities, my top priorities here was dedicated 
funding for drinking water systems to respond to PFAS 
contamination. It is a problem in Arizona, but it is also a 
problem across the country.
    Thanks to our bipartisan law, more than $10 billion is 
being allocated to drinking water systems across the country to 
address this contamination. And in the State of Arizona, this 
funding has already been put to work helping drinking water 
systems specifically in the southern part of the State to 
install systems to remediate this growing PFAS plume that we 
see in the groundwater aquifer under where I live and where my 
wife lives, my granddaughter, who is 2, it is under Tucson.
    Since the Infrastructure Law was passed, the EPA has 
developed new drinking water standards for PFAS. And the new 
proposed maximum containment level would be 4 parts per 
trillion, instead of the current guidance, which is 70, so much 
lower.
    Secretary Biser, while the EPA has not yet finalized its 
drinking water standards, if the proposed levels were 
finalized, how would that impact our drinking water systems, 
and how many additional systems in the State of Arizona, as an 
example, would be required to do this PFAS cleanup?
    Ms. Biser. Senator Kelly, first of all, thank you for your 
question, and thank you for your leadership on this very, very 
important topic.
    I can speak to North Carolina's experience with that, and 
we have 43 of our large municipal and county systems that would 
not meet the 4 parts per trillion number that you cited as the 
proposed MCL.
    I will say, though, broadly speaking, what is needed is, 
North Carolina got a head start because we had an industrial 
facility that kind of forced us to be a leader in this area and 
learn a lot quickly. So we have had a number of years to do 
assessments. Nationwide, States need funding to do assessments, 
to get a handle on where PFAS is.
    The most cost effective way to treat it is actually to 
prevent it from happening in the first place. So we need 
funding to see where it is coming from, because the first step 
is to put down the shovel and stop digging, stop putting it 
into the environment and look at how we can better control that 
piece of it. We also need to get a handle on where we are 
finding it.
    North Carolina has done extensive testing, both in large 
water systems but also in small. We are in the process right 
now of testing over 650 of our small water systems which serve 
mobile home communities, churches, day cares, other sensitive 
population centers.
    Having the funding, having the ability to do that 
comprehensively is going to help us get our arms around it 
overall, and also ultimately decrease the amount of treatment 
costs that we are going to have associated with making sure 
that our drinking water is safe for public health.
    Senator Kelly. Do you have a sense in North Carolina, then, 
how you would have to scale the removal system to get from 70 
to 4? How many more systems would you have to add, and what do 
you think that cost would be?
    Ms. Biser. Since there is not currently a drinking water 
standards, there had not been a lot of systems that were 
currently put into place. We do have two water systems that are 
larger that because of PFAS contamination, there were higher 
levels of PFAS contamination coming from the Cape Fear River, 
they had both put in place, one a reverse osmosis system and 
another a granular activated carbon system.
    So those are out two examples that we are looking to right 
now. Based on their experience and the costs associated with 
implementation of those systems, we are estimating between $661 
million and $1.3 billion for those 43 large water systems to 
come into compliance to be able to meet the 4 parts per 
trillion number. That does not include the small water systems 
that are going to need to put filtration in place.
    So we don't have a number there yet, because results from 
those tests are starting to roll in, but we don't have a 
complete picture.
    Senator Kelly. Are there any future methods to remove PFAS, 
anything that is being developed or any innovation out there 
that could get us to 4 parts per trillion at potentially a 
lower cost?
    Ms. Biser. The reverse osmosis systems and the granular 
activated carbon systems are the two most common and very 
efficient measures that we have available to us today. I know 
there is a lot of research and development that is ongoing. I 
know within our university system they are looking at potential 
opportunities. But there are none that are scalable that I am 
aware of that are commercially available in a widespread 
fashion yet.
    But I am encouraged that we have a lot of research and 
development going. I think we need more research and 
development, not only on the treatment systems themselves, but 
also how to assess and treat the spent media associated with 
those, so we have the ability to destroy the PFAS and not just 
perpetuate it within the environment.
    Senator Kelly. Thank you.
    Senator Carper. Thanks for making the extra effort to join 
us.
    I want to really close where we began, and that is to thank 
you not just for showing up today, not just for preparing for 
today, and not just for your thoughtful responses to the 
questions and the issues that we have raised. Members of this 
Committee are very proud of the work that we have done on 
infrastructure for our country. It is not something we do just 
at the Federal level, as you know, it is the State and local 
and private sector and non-profits and so forth. So it is very 
much a team effort.
    Matthew 25, when I was thirsty, did you give me to drink. 
It doesn't get any more important than that, knowing when we 
turn on the spigots that what we are going to drink is safe for 
us and our families.
    We usually have good attendance at our hearings, but this 
has been exceptional. It is reflective of how important our 
colleagues, Democrat and Republican, regard these issues and 
the need to continue to make progress. Everything we do, we 
know we can do better. You have given us some good input as to 
how we might be guided missiles as opposed to unguided 
missiles.
    The Bipartisan Infrastructure Act made historic 
investments, as we said earlier, in drinking water 
infrastructure across our Nation. There is still a lot of work 
to do, as Robert Frost would say, miles to go before we sleep. 
Miles to go before we sleep.
    So plenty of work to do. In Congress, we have every 
intention of remaining active. It is not just enough to write 
legislation and introduce legislation, vote on legislation in 
committees and on the floor, we have do our job of oversight. 
This is an important part of our job, and this is a serious 
part of that oversight.
    We want to stay active to work with our State and our local 
partners to ensure that reliable, safe drinking water remains 
available to everyone in this country who has it, and for those 
who don't have it, that they get it.
    Before we adjourn, just a couple of final items. I 
typically say to our staffs, we have some wonderful members of 
this Committee, both sides of the aisle, but we also are 
blessed with great staff. These hearings don't just occur. The 
staff collaborates, they work together, they pull together. 
There is a thoughtful panel of witnesses week after week, month 
after month, and today is no exception.
    But this is one of my favorite parts of the hearing. I get 
to ask unanimous consent to enter into the record materials 
related to today's hearing.
    [The referenced information was not received at time of 
print.]
    Senator Carper. And I would add that Senators will be 
allowed to submit written questions for the record through the 
close of business on Thursday, September 21st, 2023. The thing 
I like about this is when I ask unanimous consent there is 
nobody here to object.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Carper. I know I will get my way.
    So hearing no objection, we will compile those questions, 
we are going to send them to all of you. We would ask that you 
respond to us by tomorrow--no, no, by Thursday, October 5th. 
Thursday, October 5th.
    I think with that, I would say one last thing to our friend 
from North Dakota, I know you didn't go to North Dakota State, 
but I used to tell your friends out there, take it easy on the 
Blue Hens. We are easily bruised and battered, especially with 
guys as big as you. It is not a fair fight.
    All right, thanks everybody. It is great to be with all of 
you today. Take care, and God bless.
    [Whereupon, at 11:59 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]