[Senate Hearing 118-267]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                                                        S. Hrg. 118-267

                  ACCESSING CLEAN WATER INFRASTRUCTURE
                ASSISTANCE: SMALL, RURAL, DISADVANTAGED,
                      AND UNDERSERVED COMMUNITIES

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

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                              COMMITTEE ON
                      ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION
                               __________

                            NOVEMBER 8, 2023
                               __________

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


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

                               __________

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
                    
55-496PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2024   


               COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
                             FIRST SESSION

                  THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware, Chairman

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

               Courtney Taylor, Democratic Staff Director
               Adam Tomlinson, Republican Staff Director

                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

                            NOVEMBER 8, 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 
  Virginia.......................................................     3

                               WITNESSES

Morales-Pate, Olga Chief Executive Officer, Rural Community 
  Assistance Partnership, Inc....................................     5
    Prepared statement...........................................     8
    Responses to additional questions from Senator Wicker........    19
Byrum, John Executive Director, Nueces River Authority...........    21
    Prepared statement...........................................    23
Chard, Shellie R., Director, Water Quality Division, Oklahoma 
  Department of Environmental Quality............................    47
    Prepared statement...........................................    50
    Responses to additional questions from:
        Senator Wicker...........................................    58
        Senator Sullivan.........................................    61

 
    ACCESSING CLEAN WATER INFRASTRUCTURE ASSISTANCE: SMALL, RURAL, 
               DISADVANTAGED, AND UNDERSERVED COMMUNITIES

                              ----------                              


                      WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 2023

                                       U.S. Senate,
                 Committee on Environment and Public Works,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    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, Markey, Kelly, Padilla, 
Fetterman, Mullin, Ricketts, Sullivan.

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

    Senator Carper. Good morning, everybody. Welcome this 
beautiful autumn morning. What a beautiful day.
    I welcome our witnesses and everybody else who is joining 
us today here across the Country.
    I want to begin by thanking our colleagues and witnesses 
for joining us this morning, it is like a day-after morning, 
after some big elections around the Country. We will see after 
the smoke settles what that looks like.
    One of the great things about being on this committee is we 
actually kind of like each other, Democrats and Republicans, we 
like to work together. We believe that bipartisan solutions are 
lasting solutions, and when the elections are over, the 
elections are over, and let's figure out how to work together 
and get things done.
    I am particularly pleased today that we are going to hear 
from three witnesses who are uniquely qualified to share your 
perspectives on the challenges, and when I think of challenges, 
I think of opportunities. Challenges, I think, are 
opportunities, very much the same. The challenges faced and the 
opportunities presented by clean water systems serving small, 
rural, and disadvantaged communities in Delaware and West 
Virginia and across our Country.
    As many of you know, my family, Shelley has heard it more 
times than she wants to remember, she has lived her whole life 
in West Virginia, my family and I, my sister and I started 
there, in Raleigh County, near Beckley. We lived right by 
Beaver Creek, which you couldn't swim in, you couldn't drink 
the water, couldn't eat the fish from Beaver Creek. So we 
learned early on why that was a problem and why we needed to do 
something about it.
    With that said, often when we talk about water 
infrastructure in our Country, we tend to discuss drinking 
water systems that bring water to our homes, to our school, and 
to our businesses. Yet it is important to note that wastewater 
and stormwater systems are every bit as vital to the health and 
well-being of our communities, just as our drinking water 
counterparts are.
    I want to be clear: clean water systems are indispensable. 
They mitigate pollution, they protect the health of our 
waterways, they shield communities from stormwater runoff, and 
they even help us to halt the spread of disease across the 
Country.
    For example, health officials in our State, Delaware, have 
been able to use data from our wastewater facility in Newcastle 
County, where about two-thirds of our population lives, in 
order to track the spread of opioids and diseases like COVID-
19. They have been able to do so thanks in part to the funding 
and resources from EPA.
    These types of public health advances are what we should 
hope every community in America has the opportunity to embrace.
    For over 35 years, Congress has provided Federal wastewater 
assistance to communities through EPA's Clean Water State 
Revolving Fund program. In the last 10 years, we have heard 
from many disadvantaged communities who struggle to compete for 
these funds.
    In addition, aging facilities, rising costs, emerging 
contaminants, climate change and population shifts have all 
contributed to mounting financial burdens for wastewater 
treatment facilities throughout our Nation. These challenges 
are even worst for small, rural, and disadvantaged communities, 
which oftentimes have fewer ratepayers and as a result, 
typically have fewer resources.
    Many of these same communities also struggle to effectively 
administer clean water systems due to a shortage of qualified 
labor and technical expertise to address growing challenges. 
Last Congress, our other committee came together and worked to 
address many of these challenges in the Drinking Water and 
Wastewater Act.
    Some of you may recall, we drafted, we negotiated and we 
unanimously advanced this bipartisan legislation out of our 
committee. It went on to pass the full Senate by a vote of 89 
to 2. Senator Capito will tell you that doesn't happen every 
day, an 89 to 2 vote. It was a day I will never forget.
    But our water bill, that bill, combined with the 
committee's historic highway legislation, served as the 
foundation of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law that the 
President signed into law almost 2 years ago to the day. In the 
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, we provided an unprecedented $55 
billion to improve our Nation's water infrastructure, the 
largest investment we have ever made of its kind.
    As part of that investment, we included more than $11 
billion for clean water infrastructure needs. And I might add, 
this makes me especially happy, it was all paid for.
    The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law also directed EPA to 
provide nearly half this funding in the form of grants or 
principal forgiveness. We did so to help address the backlog of 
wastewater infrastructure projects and support more rural, low-
income and disadvantaged communities.
    The wastewater investments made through the Bipartisan 
Infrastructure Law were historic; they were much needed. Yet as 
I said in our September hearing on the Law's drinking water 
investments and authorizations, there is more that needs to be 
done and more that can be done.
    I often say that everything I do, I know I can do better. 
There is always room for improvement. I think that is true 
probably for all of us, and it is true here today.
    As we all know, water is essential for life, and clean 
water is essential to our health and well-being. We close by 
offering some beautiful words of wisdom from the late Dr. 
Martin Luther King. I think these are good words for us today, 
these are good words for us any day of the week.
    Here is what he said many, many years ago: ``No matter who 
we are, or where we come from, we are all entitled to basic 
human rights of clean air to breathe, clean water to drink, and 
healthy land to call home.'' I agree, we have a moral 
obligation to provide Americans with clean water access, and 
these other things as well.
    Today's hearing is an opportunity for us to think about how 
we can better support wastewater services in small, rural, 
underserved, and disadvantaged communities. Again, we look 
forward to hearing from our witnesses to gain your insights on 
your work and to hear your new ideas as well.
    Before we do, I want to turn this over to Senator Capito. 
We have a lot going on, and we are also in different 
committees. I am supposed to be in another committee right now.
    It is hard to be in two places at once, so I am going to 
ask Senator Capito to take over. I will be back as soon as I 
can. I know she has other obligations as well.
    Thanks so much. Welcome, Senator Capito.

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

    Senator Capito.
    [Presiding.] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We will keep things 
going here for you.
    And thank you all, our witnesses, for being here with us 
today. It is an important hearing to provide the oversight of 
the implementation of clean water investments for small and 
disadvantaged communities under the IIJA. Again, I would like 
to thank the witnesses for their willingness to testify about 
this important topic.
    This committee values your perspectives on the 
opportunities and challenges facing this Nation's water 
infrastructure, some of it is very, very old, as well as your 
insights into effective solutions. The Drinking Water and 
Wastewater Infrastructure provisions of the IIJA had a special 
focus on the infrastructure challenges faced by small, rural, 
disadvantaged, and underserved communities. Just as the 
Chairman said, it has been over 2 years since the enactment. It 
is easy for stakeholders on the ground and we in the Congress 
to identify the EPA's implementation if the implementation is 
working. More importantly, what is not working and how we can 
improve this.
    The IIJA water provisions drafted by this committee 
authorized $55 billion in funding for a range of water 
infrastructure programs, including targeted grants for small 
and disadvantaged communities, funding for lead service line 
replacement, support for innovative water technologies, as well 
as money for wastewater treatment and stormwater management.
    These funding opportunities provide new resources for 
grants and low-interest loans for technical assistance. These 
funds can support critical infrastructure upgrades including 
construction of wastewater facilities and wastewater treatment 
systems, non-point source pollution management, and measures to 
manage stormwater and subsurface drainage.
    Additionally, the funding can support capacity building 
initiatives, including work force development and training 
programs to help communities build the expertise they need to 
manage and maintain their water systems for years to come. 
Despite these significant funding opportunities, many rural, 
small, and disadvantaged communities are still grappling with 
aging infrastructure that is in need of repair or replacement, 
while others are dealing with emerging contaminants like PFAS 
that require specialized treatment technologies.
    At the same time, these communities often lack the 
resources and the technical expertise needed to address these 
obstacles leaving them vulnerable to wastewater problems 
leading to public health risks. These communities may not have 
the staff or technical capacity to track and apply for grants 
and loans as they become available.
    That is why the Clean Water Act explicitly empowers the 
States to determine which of their communities qualify as 
disadvantaged. The EPA should therefore work with the States to 
get this money where it is needed as quickly as possible.
    Unfortunately, I have significant concerns that the EPA is 
overstepping its statutory authority to use these funds to 
affect Administration policy priorities that were not approved 
by the Congress under the Clean Water Act or the IIJA. The 
result is unnecessary friction in getting these programs stood 
up and investments flowing to the communities that need them.
    Inconsistent application of Buy America waivers across 
agencies and even within them has caused delays for projects. 
More concerning, regulatory guidance on environmental justice 
and service of the Administration's very vague Justice 40 goal 
tied to State formula grants appears to be an effort by the EPA 
to wrestle away the State's statutory authorities under the 
Clean Water Act.
    We all have concerns about disadvantaged communities, urban 
and rural, minority or low income, receiving the funding that 
they need and deserve. The States know their communities and 
their needs the best and what will work over the long haul.
    They also realize that water systems do not neatly align 
within the Justice 40 initiative's preference of using census 
tracts to define EJ communities, making the EPA's guidance 
impractical to implement. The EPA must not sidetrack 
generational progress that can be made through the IIJA due to 
a political agenda in this Administration.
    These unnecessary obstacles imposed by Federal regulators 
are leading to delays, uncertainty, and the potential for 
litigation while allowing historic investments to be eaten up 
by increased inflation, higher interest rates that we have 
experienced since the passage of the IIJA. EPA needs to get out 
of the way and let States and communities get to work.
    I will close by saying what everyone in attendance in this 
room knows and across the Country: water infrastructure 
investments are critical. They are critical to public health, 
environmental health, and economic development. The carefully 
negotiated bipartisan successes this committee has achieved to 
date for the wastewater section has been ground in the 
cooperative federalism that is enshrined in the Clean Water 
Act.
    I am hopeful these investments, properly implemented, can 
create more jobs and drive more economic growth. Those kinds of 
economic opportunities need to be available everywhere, in my 
home State and across the Country. I remain committed to 
working on the issues that are so important to my State of West 
Virginia and the States of my fellow committee members and 
across the Country.
    Thank you to our panel for everything that you do to keep 
our Country's water and wastewater systems clean and healthy.
    With that, I will introduce our witnesses. First, we will 
hear from Olga Morales-Pate, the Chief Executive Officer of the 
Rural Community Assistance Partnership, known as RCAP, well 
known to me. RCAP is a national network of non-profit partners 
working to provide technical assistance, training, resources, 
and support to rural communities. Through its regional network, 
RCAP has partnered with more than 350 water systems and 
technical assistance providers to support thousands of 
communities across the Country.
    Thank you for joining us, Ms. Morales-Pate. You are now 
recognized for 5 minutes to give your statement.

STATEMENT OF OLGA MORALES-PATE, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, RURAL 
             COMMUNITY ASSISTANCE PARTNERSHIP, INC.

    Ms. Morales-Pate. Thank you, Ranking Member Capito and 
members of the committee for the opportunity to testify today.
    Safe, reliable, and affordable water is the foundation of 
economic development and public health. Investment in this 
infrastructure is especially important to ensure that rural 
areas remain great places to live. Thank you for your work on 
this very important issue.
    My name is Olga Morales-Pate. I am the CEO of the Rural 
Community Assistance Partnership, a national network of non-
profit partners working to provide technical assistance, 
training, and resources communities in every State and 
territory, tribal lands and colonias.
    RCAP's network consists of more than 350 technical 
assistance supporting rural utilities with infrastructure 
development projects from the pre-development stages all the 
way to operations. Last year, we served over 3.3 million rural 
and tribal residents and more than 1,600 of the smallest, most 
distressed communities, with an average population of 1,500 and 
a median household income of less than two-thirds the national 
average.
    Technical assistance is critical to rural utilities, as 
they often lack staff capacity, just as you said. Particularly 
challenged are wastewater utilities. As natural disasters 
impact their aging infrastructure and operating costs continue 
to increase, utilities find themselves making difficult 
financial decisions, and at times robbing Peter to pay Paul by 
subsidizing wastewater expenses with drinking water revenues.
    For many rural utilities across the Country, Federal grants 
are the only pathway to critical infrastructure projects, and 
to ensure ongoing and reliable services for their customers. 
RCAP is very thankful for this committee's writing and passage 
of the Water Infrastructure title of the IIJA, the largest 
investments in water in U.S. history. Dedication of 49 percent 
of the SRF funding to be disbursed to disadvantaged communities 
in the form of grants as opposed to loan financing has been a 
game changer, and we want to thank you for that.
    Much of RCAP's technical assistance is funded through EPA 
programs, particularly those recently under the WRDA bills. 
RCAP is a proud EPA partner. As a national environmental 
center, our job is to ensure that this funding gets into the 
hands of the disadvantaged communities that need it the most.
    As we enter the third of 5 years of this funding, it is 
important for the committee to consider what is next. In our 
opinion, our priority is the impending IIJA funding cliff and 
the need to consider reauthorizing and fully funding the SRF 
programs at increased levels with dedicated funding available 
in the form of grants for both communities and a technical 
assistance component to ensure their access to these funds.
    It is also key for EPA's suite of smaller targeted programs 
intended for rural communities to reauthorize and fund small 
water system emergencies, the connection of services from 
individual household to treatment works, and dedicated funding 
for decentralized wastewater systems. Without these programs 
and dedicated funding, small utilities will continue to 
struggle.
    The creation of a Federal Low-Income Water Assistance 
Program inclusive of rural communities building up from this 
committee's authorization of a pilot program and a needs 
assessment is another key priority. As clean water costs grow, 
a permanent program will provide a lifeline to the lowest 
income rural households and the systems that serve them.
    We know that only 10 percent of the utilities across the 
Country, regardless of size, have ever received SRF funding. 
The percentage of small, disadvantaged utilities is even 
smaller. And it isn't because there is no need, but rather 
because there is no capacity to apply, compete, and secure 
these funds.
    For that reason, small utilities should be incentivized to 
be part of regional solutions. Regional projects can help rural 
communities achieve economies of scale, develop the capacity 
they lack, and become sustainable. However, creative funding 
and technical assistance are also needed for these projects to 
happen.
    To address the growing rural wastewater challenges, RCAP 
encourages the committee to create a small and disadvantaged 
community grant program specific to wastewater, like the 
drinking water program created in 2018. In creating this 
program, RCAP invites you to take a broad and holistic approach 
and include capital infrastructure funding for the centralized 
systems. Flexibilities should be included to help communities 
and households that are unserved and lacking modern 
infrastructure, and for systems struggling with operations and 
maintenance costs.
    On behalf of the RCAP network, I want to thank you for your 
program, for the programs you have created. As you all know, 
our work is not done. I look forward to your questions and 
continuing to work with you to ensure all rural people and 
places have the resources needed to thrive.
    Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Morales-Pate follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Senator Capito. Thank you very much, Ms. Morales-Pate.
    Next, I will introduce our second witness. John Byrum is 
the Executive Director of the Nueces River Authority. The River 
Authority is a special Texas State agency dedicated to 
providing safe water services to communities throughout the 
south Texas Nueces River Basin. Welcome.

              STATEMENT OF JOHN BYRUM, EXECUTIVE 
                DIRECTOR, NUECES RIVER AUTHORITY

    Mr. Byrum. Chairman Carper, Ranking Member Capito, and 
members of the committee, thank you and good morning, for the 
opportunity to address you here today.
    I am honored to serve as the Executive Director of the 
Nueces River Authority, a subdivision of the State of Texas, 
created by the legislature in 1935 to protect, preserve, plan, 
and develop the resources of the 18,000 square miles of the 
Nueces River Basin. The Authority is governed by 21 board 
members appointed by the Governor of Texas.
    The Authority's office is in Uvalde, Texas, the home of 
former Vice President John Nance ``Catus Jack'' Nance Gardner, 
the former Texas Governor Dolph Briscoe, and actor Matthew 
McConaughey. Those are all good memories. It is also the site 
of one of our Nation's most horrific memories, three blocks 
down the road from our general offices, which is the site of 
Robb Elementary School. The lives of those 21 victims still 
live in our hearts today.
    Today's hearing seeks insight on the State Revolving Loan 
programs for small, rural, and disadvantaged communities. For 
my part, I began working in the water utilities in 1979. Almost 
all of my career has been with small and rural providers, and I 
am proud to be a member of the AA club, holding an A water and 
A wastewater license.
    The committee is wise to be concerned about clean State 
water revolving funds and their performance with small, rural, 
and disadvantaged communities. Although 70 percent of Americans 
are customers of large drinking water systems, where the State 
Revolving Loan program has worked well, most community systems 
in the U.S. are small systems. In fact, the data shows that the 
small water systems serving 3,000 people or less account for 77 
percent of the number of systems in the U.S.
    There are not only more small systems, but these small 
systems have higher rates of water quality non-compliance than 
the larger systems. In addition, because the small systems lack 
economies of scale, their customers face heavy financial 
burdens to meet the clean water investments needed that are 
currently estimated at more than $130 billion.
    Of the 1,210 cities in Texas, 834 of them or 69 percent are 
small, serve small communities, less than 5,000 people. First, 
there is simply just not enough money for the State Revolving 
Loan Fund or from the general revenues for small and rural 
needs. In addition to the scarcity of dollars, the programs 
place hardships on small systems via the requirements necessary 
to apply, which is a form of access denial by process.
    To apply, an application detailing copious financial 
information and background and a preliminary engineering report 
must be submitted. Most small systems have limited credit 
history; nevertheless they are creditworthy. During my 43 years 
of professional water career, I have not heard of any entity 
defaulting on a water loan or grant in Texas. Simply put, the 
financial information required for the application far exceeds 
that required by the regulations and guidelines of the Federal 
program.
    An example of how a system is flawed is evident in a recent 
application for funds from the Uvalde County, Texas Reclamation 
and Conservation District. This district serves 360 people. The 
median household income is 44 percent of the average. The water 
system serving this community has been cited since 2015 for 
grossly exceeding the amount of contaminant level for arsenic 
in every sample taken. Their request for $1.7 million to remove 
the arsenic from the water supply was not accepted, due to the 
application not having a preliminary engineering report that 
met the State guidelines.
    This district has one employee who works 4 hours a day for 
the water system and 4 hours a day somewhere else to make a 
living. Hardly enough to fill out the copious information 
needed for the application. They did have a study that detailed 
levels of arsenic in the source water and how they proposed to 
remove it to safe levels. But it did not meet the requirements 
of the program. Because of that, these people woke up this 
morning drinking water with high arsenic and bathing in that 
water with high levels of arsenic.
    I believe the requirement of a preliminary engineering 
report that follows those rigid guidelines established in 
excess of the program requirements is an overreach. My ask 
today is that the overreaching of State agencies administering 
the State Revolving Loan funds be audited and forced to comply 
with the minimum requirements of the program.
    I also ask for a greater percentage of the total money to 
become available for small systems that need it.
    Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Byrum follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Senator Capito. Thank you.
    Now, I would like to recognize Senator Mullin to introduce 
our next witness.
    Senator Mullin. Thank you. Shellie is no stranger to this 
committee. She has been here twice, actually, before. She was 
here in 2011 and 2021, both times introduced by my predecessor, 
Senator Inhofe, which we miss him here on the committee.
    You have your son, Andrew, with you, is that correct?
    Mr. Chard. Yes.
    Senator Mullin. You are a senior at the University of 
Oklahoma, correct? Studying the same, following your mom's 
footsteps, I guess?
    Mr. Chard. Not too closely. I am in Public Administration.
    Senator Mullin. Well, I know your mom is a bright and proud 
graduate of the University of Oklahoma, too. We sure appreciate 
you here.
    Just to give you a little bit about her background, not 
only has she testified twice in front of this committee, but 
she has 31 years' experience implementing the Clean Water Act, 
Safe Drinking Water, and comparable State statutes and operator 
certification programs, which I was actually a certified 
operator for many years for wastewater and water. I would 
imagine there are not too many Senators that have that on their 
resume.
    She served on the board of directors for the Association of 
Clean Water Administration, the Groundwater Protection Council, 
Association for State Drinking Water Administrators, and is 
currently on the board of the Water Environment Federation. As 
a lifelong Oklahoman, we are extremely proud to have you here.
    And I got to say this, got to put it out there, we worked 
with DEQ, Department of our Environmental Quality, for many 
years in our company. I never had the privilege of working with 
you, I think you had only been there 11 years. And it was 
always a pleasure. You brought, it really is why we need to 
make sure that a lot of these regulations are on a State level. 
There is a big difference between working with DEQ and the EPA. 
You just, you get it, it is your home, you live there. And you 
bring a more human touch to it, because it is not always just 
simply black and white. There has to be, in water terms, a 
little bit of gray every now and then, to find the final 
solutions.
    So thank you so much for being here, and all our witnesses. 
Thank you for being here. I appreciate it. I yield back.
    Senator Padilla.
    [Presiding.] Thank you. Your statement, please.

    STATEMENT OF SHELLIE R. CHARD, DIRECTOR, WATER QUALITY 
     DIVISION, OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

    Ms. Chard. Thank you very much, Senator Mullin, for that 
very nice introduction. I am so happy to be able to be here 
before you today. So good morning, all committee members, those 
who are not able to be here with us, as well as those who are 
in the room with us. Thank you so much for this opportunity. It 
is such an important issue, and I am happy to be here to 
discuss how we can best address the infrastructure funding 
needs for our small, rural, disadvantaged and underserved 
communities.
    I am Shellie Chard. I am the Water Quality Division 
Director for Oklahoma DEQ. In addition to my activities in the 
State and regional area, I have had the opportunity to 
participate on the national level with various organizations 
all working to assist our communities with their water and 
wastewater needs and our work force development, which is 
critically important.
    Today I want to share with you my perspectives really on 
three main areas. One, specifically, the obstacles that we see 
our small, rural, underserved and disadvantaged communities 
when they are seeking Federal funding. I want to talk a little 
bit about the gaps that exist in the funding needs of these 
communities versus what is available or an eligible expense for 
them.
    Also I want to share a little bit about what Oklahoma has 
been able to do to address some of these obstacles and to help 
improve infrastructure for all of our citizens.
    Something I think that is really important that we all 
remember, and that is that the setting of Federal standards do 
not protect public health and the environment. It is the 
implementation of those standards that protects public health 
and the environment. For small, rural, disadvantaged and 
underserved communities, the Federal infrastructure is key to 
their ability to comply with regulatory limits and protect 
their way of life. In addition, this funding allows these 
communities to compete for new and expanding industries which 
provide opportunities for economic growth and provide 
opportunities for residents to work in their home town and to 
support other local businesses.
    In 2021, the American Society of Civil Engineers released 
its Infrastructure Report Card, which graded drinking water 
infrastructure a C-minus and wastewater infrastructure a D-
plus. This illustrates the condition of important water and 
wastewater infrastructure.
    While there are signs of improvement, including increased 
use of asset management in the industry, innovative 
technologies that are being introduced, restorative and 
preventive actions by water and wastewater systems, these take 
money and a properly trained work force. Econmoic prosperity is 
dependent on sustained infrastructure investment at all levels 
of government. Delaying investments in water and wastewater 
infrastructure increases capital costs in the long run and 
elevates the risk of catastrophic failures.
    Oklahoma is a State that encompasses approximately 70,000 
square miles and has a population just under 4 million people. 
Approximately 75 percent of those residents are served by one 
of the 1,274 public water supply systems and one of the 772 
publicly owned treatment works to treat their wastewater. Many 
of these water and wastewater systems serve populations under 
500. Without the Federal infrastructure funding, they would be 
unable to provide water and sanitation services to their 
citizens.
    These vulnerable communities face many obstacles in 
securing infrastructure funding. These include the need to 
navigate the various requirements of the different funding 
programs offered, the need to pay for engineering and planning 
services prior to making application, and confusion about how 
to comply with certain acts like Build America Buy America Act, 
and the requirement that emergent contaminants be identified 
prior to being eligible for funding.
    There are important needs that Federal funding could be 
expanded to include, such as certain operation and maintenance 
costs, planning and monitoring costs, and industrial pre-
treatment facility construction. The State of Oklahoma helps to 
address these obstacles and gaps in cooperation and 
collaboration with key partners. The funding agency 
coordination team, composed of State, Federal, and tribal 
funding agencies, meets with communities to help them build 
their funding package. Contracts with Oklahoma Rural Water 
Association consultants and agreements with tribal nations 
allow for low-cost or no-cost technical assistance.
    One key policy point that we can all agree on is that all 
levels of government must come together to fund infrastructure. 
It is necessary to protect public health, the environment and 
economic prosperity.
    Thank you for the opportunity to come before you today and 
participate in this important conversation. I look forward to 
working with you, the Federal agencies and all stakeholders as 
we work to protect public health and the environment and 
prosperity. Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Chard follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Senator Padilla. Thank you very much.
    Thank you to all three witnesses. As you can tell, both 
Senators Carper and Capito have stepped away to other 
committees, and will be back momentarily. In the meantime, that 
provides an opportunity for me not just to preside, but to ask 
my questions first, followed by Senator Mullin.
    Thank you all for your participation today. It is clearly 
an important topic that we care a lot about, the Clean Water 
State Revolving Fund, and what it means, particularly for our 
underserved communities across the Country. I think it is safe 
to say we all agree that there is no reason why anyone living 
in the wealthiest country in the world should lack access to 
clean, affordable water, water for drinking purposes, water for 
sanitation.
    But it has evolved into a multi-jurisdictional, multi-
committee, multi-agency challenge. But I am glad to see there 
is a collective commitment in the Senate to tackle it.
    In California alone, there is more than 100,000 miles of 
sewer lines, more than 900 utility providers and treatment 
plants. That is why this last July, California initiated a 
first of its kind study in the State to assess the needs of 
California's wastewater systems over the next 40 years, 
including identifying the particular challenges faced by 
tribal, rural, and unincorporated communities.
    What we know also is that wastewater should not be wasted 
water. Instead, we should see it as a critical resource that 
can be recycled as part of our drought resiliency strategies.
    The burden of unsafe and unaffordable water 
disproportionately impacts low-income communities and 
communities of color. The data is clear. Many rural 
communities, including tribal communities, farm worker 
communities, and communities near sites of legacy industrial 
contamination practically pay twice for water: once for the 
contaminated water flowing through their taps and once again 
for the cost of bottled water that they have to rely on.
    Unlike other forms of infrastructure, like bridges and 
roads, clean drinking water is not primarily funded by tax 
revenues. Instead, more than 90 percent of the average 
utility's revenues comes directly from constituents' water 
bills, their ratepayers.
    While there are many important Federal grant and loan 
programs to help water systems offset costs that would 
otherwise overburden ratepayers, programs like WIFIA and the 
SRFs, not every water system is equipped to access these 
programs, whether due to staffing or other capacity challenges.
    With all that being said, my first question is both for Ms. 
Morales-Pate and Mr. Byrum. In both of your testimoneys, you 
mentioned that small and disadvantaged communities lacked the 
resources or economies of scale to access SRF grants and loans. 
What specific policies would you suggest to make the SRFs more 
accessible to these communities? Ms. Morales-Pate?
    Ms. Morales-Pate. Thank you, Senator Padilla and members of 
the committee. Thank you for your question.
    In my opinion, and having 20 years of experience, 12 of 
those years being a technical assistance provider, flexibility. 
Flexibility is the key, in my opinion, to being able to allow 
communities to use the non-traditional approaches. We cannot 
look at every community as being centralized the only solution. 
Because that is not only not financially viable for a lot of us 
communities, but sometimes demographically makes no sense. So 
thinking outside of the box and funding outside of the box is 
important, in my opinion.
    Mr. Byrum. I agree with Ms. Morales-Pate in that there are 
communities that can take portions of their moneys in loans and 
then portions in grants. I do know of a situation where the 
money was tied to 70 percent grant and 30 percent loan. The 
water bill in this small community in Angelina County would 
have been over $90 a month for an area where the median income 
is way low.
    So I think allowing some flexibility to the States to 
administer more of that in the grant stage would certainly help 
in those situations in Texas.
    Senator Padilla. A followup question: how helpful would a 
permanent water rate assistance program be to help small towns 
and the utilities that serve them to ensure they have stable 
funding for operations and maintenance and help them provide 
safe and reliable water to the community, regardless of income?
    Ms. Morales-Pate. That kind of a system would be very 
beneficial for communities, and important to have some sort of 
supplemental funding to help them out. We haven't had anything 
like that, but it would be good to have an opportunity to 
supplement some of those expense, especially for the very 
small.
    Senator Padilla. Mr. Byrum?
    Mr. Byrum. That would help with the license to operate. 
That is one of the big issues we have in Texas now, is finding 
licensed operators. So I think something like you are talking 
about, great assistance, but also some type of educational, 
technical educational program assistance, where the local 
technical college can train more operators to become utility 
operators would certainly be helpful, too.
    Senator Padilla. This is a continuation in many ways of a 
conversation we have had at the subcommittee level, exploring 
both a permanent basis program, similar to what we have on the 
natural gas side, because we don't want people to freeze in the 
winter time. So we are building bipartisan support for 
something on the water side.
    I appreciate your point about the work force piece as well, 
especially for smaller utilities and smaller jurisdictions. 
People need trained, whether it is folks who work on the line 
or even at the management level. A lot of times in smaller 
communities, it is the same individual in charge of the water 
system that is in charge of the broadband deployment, that is 
in charge of other things. So supporting that capacity would be 
helpful.
    Senator Capito is ready to go. We will turn to Senator 
Mullin. Welcome back.
    Senator Mullin. Thank you. Adding to this line of question, 
adding to what was said on the operator side of it, 
fortunately, math was always a real strong point of mine. But I 
was shocked when I went to go take the test of how much math 
was included. I was shocked at the amount of math that was 
required for the operating test. When you start looking at 
rural towns, a lot of the people that are in the water 
department, they are laborers, they are workers. Most of them 
do not have what I would consider a degree in it.
    So for them to take the test is very difficult. And there 
has to be some type of development. At the time when I took 
mine, there was one class that you could take. There was one 
company that operated it, one in Tulsa, one in Oklahoma City. 
In my class, when I took it, I was the only person that passed. 
There wasn't even anybody else that passed it. And these were 
all individuals that needed to take it.
    So we need to be thinking about this in real development, 
so John, you are absolutely correct.
    Shellie, I will turn to you, because that is where my 
questions are going to be, not that we don't like Texas, we 
really enjoy beating them at football. But our kids are born 
doing this.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Mullin. Ms. Chard, in your experience as Director 
of Water Quality, how does water infrastructure investment 
contribute to economic development for local communities in 
Oklahoma?
    Ms. Chard. It is much needed, and it can have significant 
impact. A great example is the small city of Inola, Oklahoma, 
just under 1,800 population. They were able to work with the 
State Department of Commerce, our SRF funding programs, our 
State financial assistance programs, and were able to obtain 
about $60 million in funding in order to do some engineering 
planning to construct and improve water and wastewater 
infrastructure. They were able to attract an international 
paper company to come and build on a site there.
    Senator Mullin. One of the largest in the Country, I 
believe.
    Ms. Chard. It is one of the largest in the Country. They 
now have a new neighbor, a solar panel company has built the 
first facility in the U.S. in Inola, Oklahoma. The port area, 
Port of Catoosa, has now expanded. There is the Port of Inola, 
so that we can ship goods in and out.
    Senator Mullin. For everybody to understand, it is a water 
port in Oklahoma. I know it is not thought about, but we 
actually have a port.
    Ms. Chard. It is the most inland port in the United States. 
There was an American Cup yacht that was registered out of 
there a few years ago.
    They have brought in about 1,400 jobs, and a total of about 
$1 billion investment in a community of 1,800. They couldn't do 
that without water and wastewater infrastructure money. The 
questions these companies asked us were, is there enough land, 
and then immediately, do we have enough potable water, do we 
have adequate wastewater treatment services. That is what is 
allowing this incredible growth.
    Senator Mullin. I think a lot of people take that for 
granted, too. The small town that I live in, Westville, we have 
a factory. It is a small town of less than 1,200 people. We 
have one factory called Baldor Electric, where 600 of the 1,200 
are employed. So you get another factory coming in, it means a 
lot. We had a candle factory coming in, and a lot of people, we 
take the water for granted. You just assume it is going to be 
there inside the United States. It is something that we really 
don't even think about.
    They built the factory, and we couldn't get the water 
suppression for the sprinkler system approved, because we 
didn't have enough water pressure. The building sat vacant 
forever. Now there is a box company there, and instead of 
employing a few hundred people, it employs about 25 people.
    This is just one of the examples, if we would have had the 
resources, this could have had a huge economic impact. But 
because the Federal funding has so many strings attached, and 
there are so many hoops that you have to jump through, a lot of 
these small towns, they just don't have the ability to do it. 
They just can't get there.
    I think that is what we are hearing from John, that is what 
we are hearing from all of our witnesses. We need flexibility 
if we are really going to go after the rural areas. It is an 
economic engine. It drives the economy. We are here to try and 
help. But sometimes we are also the ones that create the 
barriers.
    Thank you all for being here and your testimony. This is 
one of those areas that is odd, but we are all on the same page 
on. I yield back.
    Senator Capito.
    [Presiding.] Thank you. Thank you, Senator.
    I am going to begin my questioning kind of where Senator 
Mullin left off, and that is on the flexibility issue. This is 
for you, Ms. Chard. I will call you Shellie.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Capito. I talked in my opening statement about 
EPA's role to ensure State implementation complies with law and 
regulatory requirements. We realize that you all know your 
communities better, and individualized communities, especially 
in the very rural systems, better than anybody else.
    Can you discuss how the EPA is utilizing a one-size-fits-
all approach to environmental justice to prioritize certain 
projects over another, even if they may not quite align with 
the specific needs and priorities that you see in your State?
    Ms. Chard. Thank you, Senator. This is an area where we see 
a squeaky wheel kind of approach. We hear a lot about a 
particular contaminant, and then suddenly across the Country 
everyone must treat for this contaminant or must take action. 
Some areas in Oklahoma where we have seen, we hear a lot about 
PFAS and those kinds of contaminants. While those are 
critically important to address, we see a lot of iron and 
manganese that we would like to address. That is the pressing 
need for some of our communities. But that is not the same 
priority.
    Senator Capito. What happens to those? Do those fall 
further down the list, or do they qualify for the Federal 
funding? How does that impact those systems?
    Ms. Chard. It could be either of those two options. In many 
cases, it may be something that is simply, well, that is not 
high enough priority, so you have to spend a set amount of 
money addressing something else. In some cases, we have to move 
to some of our State funding options, which do not have the 
Federal backing. But we are able to utilize our flexibility 
where we would like to be able to partner with our Federal 
funds in order to assist these communities in addressing those 
areas that are most important.
    Even in a State like Oklahoma, where we have, the eastern 
side of the State has very different water quality than the 
western side of the State, groundwater versus surface water, 
different aquifers, hydrogeology is very different, we feel 
like we can better identify what will help our communities most 
as opposed to just one size fits all.
    Senator Capito. Thank you for that very comprehensive 
answer.
    I don't have tribal communities in my State, but does this 
have an outsized effect on the tribal communities in terms of 
being able to meet their particular needs if it doesn't fit 
into the particular niche of the EPA?
    Ms. Chard. All small, rural, underserved, disadvantaged 
communities face these same issues. It is very important that 
no matter whether they are a tribe or a rural water district or 
a municipality, they struggle with the one-size-fits-all 
approach. We try very hard to work with them to help identify 
processes that can assist them in meeting their specific 
infrastructure needs.
    Senator Capito. Ms. Morales-Pate, in terms of the capacity 
issue, this is a, I have been on a bill for many, many years 
with Senator Booker to try to get more professional, more young 
people interested in professional water management. I guess it 
either sounds boring or it wouldn't be enough to raise a family 
on, when as Senator Mullin was talking about, the test is not a 
layup. It is a lifetime of employment and a very good career 
pattern.
    How are you through your organization trying to help with 
that issue?
    Ms. Morales-Pate. We provide technical assistance and 
training. Training is a big component of the work we do out in 
the field.
    To your point about keeping that capacity in the 
communities, one of the challenges that we have, in my opinion, 
there are two pieces to this situation. One is the training 
piece. But the other part is the retention. We can train all 
day long. But if the communities do not have the ability to 
offer competitive salaries and competitive benefits, the 
retention part becomes a problem.
    So what happens with our communities is they end up 
becoming the training ground for larger utilities.
    Senator Capito. Right.
    Ms. Morales-Pate. It is a real challenge.
    Senator Capito. Law enforcement has the same issue.
    Ms. Morales-Pate. Yes.
    Senator Capito. Mr. Byrum, I loved this quote you gave us: 
access denial by process, meaning the gobbledy-gook of getting 
all this put together, applications, Ms. Chard talked about it 
a little bit, what is the solution there? Is it a 
simplification? Is it to quit loading up guidance, they give 
you guidance all the time, it is not really a regulation, it is 
a guidance from the Federal? Is it, give the State all of the 
authorities?
    Where is the solution here to simplify this process to get 
the money where it really needs to go?
    Mr. Byrum. We were talking about flexibility. It is kind of 
one of those things where if you give States all the authority, 
well, then they still need some flexibility in there somewhere, 
I think. One State might be harder than the other, or whatever.
    I really believe in the case of Rialitos-Concepcion, the 
Duval County people I was talking about earlier, they got up 
this morning and drank water that was in excess of arsenic. 
That would be different than someone maybe in the eastern part 
of Texas where they have a city of 3,000 and they may not have 
the same issues. It may be a different issue there.
    So I think that there is room for some latitude there with 
the States, giving the minimum requirements of the Federal. So 
I think that what we need to do is go back and find out just 
what the States are requiring over and above those Federal 
guidelines.
    Senator Capito. Right.
    Mr. Byrum. I believe there are some differences there that, 
if we were to relax those back down to the Federal guidelines, 
I think in a lot of these cases, we might be OK.
    Senator Capito. That is interesting. Do you or any of your 
systems test for PFAS right now?
    Mr. Byrum. We just entered a contract with someone to test 
for PFAS down around the Gulf Coast. So yes, we are just 
starting that.
    Senator Capito. Do you have any experience with that, Ms. 
Chard?
    Ms. Chard. Yes, we do have some of our systems, our 
drinking water systems are of course participating in the 
Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule 5, where they are 
monitoring for a variety of PFAS. And then we have some of our 
larger systems that are monitoring not only drinking water but 
wastewater, at their wastewater treatment facility, their 
biosolids. They are monitoring inside their collection systems 
to detect where they may be receiving PFAS.
    Senator Capito. What about you?
    Ms. Morales-Pate. Yes. We do a lot of training across the 
Country, so part of the training we do is to train operators to 
test, to do their own sampling. So we have been doing that. 
Some of the regions have State-specific.
    One of the challenges, I guess, is that every State is 
handling it differently. So some of the States are doing the 
sampling in all their inventories. So there are different 
levels. We are in all 50 States and the territories, and 
everybody is like on different levels, but we are definitely 
involved in that, and educating the communities, the operators, 
the decisionmakers and all about the implications and potential 
solutions.
    Senator Capito. OK, thank you.
    Senator Fetterman.
    Senator Fetterman. Thank you. Thank you very much.
    Gosh, I love clean water. I find it useful all the time. 
Maybe you can relate. I believe in it. I think it is great.
    But Ms. Morales-Pate, I just want to ask about corporate--
private water. Just me, and I don't speak for anybody else, but 
I don't think that something like water should be for profit, 
profit for basic kinds of water service. And I am not talking 
about bottled water that you get from a Sheetz or a WaWa, 
usually Sheetz in Pennsylvania, over a WaWa. It is a scandal, 
but we won't get into that.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Fetterman. But at any rate, I do think for 
utilities and things like that, I believe it should belong in 
the public. Because it belongs to the public and it should 
remain there as well.
    In Pennsylvania now, two companies control water for 3.8 
million residents here in Pennsylvania. I don't think that is 
what it should be. In Pittsburgh a couple of years ago, there 
was an attempt to consider selling the public water. Of course, 
people rightfully pushed back. It was stopped.
    I think it can be often too easy to allow private 
companies, cheap EPO, it is a buy-up, those kind of wastewater 
ones as well, too. So, really, my question is, can opening the 
door for private wastewater cause the same problem we have seen 
with drinking water?
    Ms. Morales-Pate. Senator Fetterman, members of the 
committee, thank you for your question. I appreciate the 
question. One of the comments that I made earlier was about 
regionalization and regional solutions. One of the problems and 
one of the challenges that we have seen over 50 years of the 
RCAP is that it is increasingly complicated for small 
communities to be able to be sustainable. We have been at RCAP 
looking at regional solutions. By that I mean working with 
communities to make informed decisions on what are the best 
options for them.
    So when I ask about flexibility in the spending, I am 
talking about, specifically talking about funding planning 
studies that evaluate all the options, privatization should be 
one of those options to be evaluated, but it should not be the 
only option that communities are presented with.
    Too often in our communities where that has been the 
solution, we find communities without voice, without the 
opportunity to weigh in on the rates, without the opportunity 
to weigh in on their future. So is there room for it? Yes. The 
process in my mind is what hasn't been done correctly, and it 
is not necessarily being enforced at any level.
    So opening it up, I am not sure that we can close it. What 
we can do is put a system in place that evaluates all the 
alternatives, so that decisionmakers, as I said before, are 
able to make informed decisions and can weigh out the pros and 
cons on every option, from governance to operations to 
management, to financial implications at 5 years, 10 years and 
down the road. That would be my recommendation.
    Senator Fetterman. What I think about in this kind of 
question is Flint. How did that go really well? And that is 
shocking, that in our Nation something like that where you are 
poisoning residents as well. Flint is a larger version of the 
community that I was mayor and where I currently live, it is 
like fundamentally communities that are kind of left behind or 
devalued in a way. I just think that is why I am really 
concerned about the privatizing, or where can we get the water 
from the cheapest source. It is like, ship it on through as 
well.
    It is about other issues, too, in fact, infrastructure as 
well, lead and everything.
    But at any rate, communities, it sounds like privatizing 
water isn't the answer. I think I have been clear about that. 
What other kinds of solutions might work instead?
    Ms. Morales-Pate. I have been working on regionalization 
efforts and bringing communities together to create economies 
of scale while protecting their community identity. Every 
community wants to be protected, just like any of us here, we 
want to be able to keep that identity. But the flexibility and 
the support from States on legislation aimed at, and even from 
the Federal Government, on how that happens, I think it is very 
important.
    If we are not able to make a difference on the small system 
challenges, we should probably consider what else are we not 
doing that maybe we should start looking at, and let the local 
decisionmakers make those decisions, but make that an option. 
Right now it is not in a lot of our States across the Country.
    Senator Fetterman. Madam Chairwoman, perhaps 30 more 
seconds?
    Senator Capito. Sure.
    Senator Fetterman. Thank you. Also, and perhaps for my 
colleague in Oklahoma, fracking in my State can often 
contaminate waters. That is another water safety issue, too. 
Then when you have privatizing or things, sometimes there have 
been issues about some of the private companies being held 
accountable to the contamination. I want to make that point 
too, it is not just an urban issue, it can actually be a rural 
one, too.
    I thank you for the indulgence.
    Senator Capito. Thank you. Senator Mullin, did you have 
another question?
    Senator Mullin. Yes, I can go on that, I have to unpack 
that fracking comment. John, first of all, honestly, I get to 
know your sense of humor all the time, and I find it 
interesting to me. Seriously, I think we would have a lot of 
fun sitting down and having conversations.
    Fracking, when you start talking about fracking, though, I 
mean, when you start talking about where the aquifer is and the 
fracking that takes place, we are so far below that that I 
don't know if there is actually a case that can be found----
    Senator Fetterman. That was not a shot at you or anyone. 
You are a State that fracks.
    Senator Mullin. John, I know that. I was actually giving 
you a comment about your sense of humor. I enjoyed the water 
part. I am dead serious. But I was just trying to say about the 
fracking, fracking isn't causing water contamination. This is 
being debated, we have talked about this multiple times, and we 
understand this. We have been bragging for a long time in 
Oklahoma.
    But when you start talking about Flint, Michigan, Flint 
wasn't a private company. That was actually public works. And 
there is a huge difference between that. And I think John and I 
and maybe Shelley and all of us could actually discuss what 
happened and some of the chemical reactions that caused some of 
the discoloration that took place because of the electrolysis 
it caused because of some of the chemicals that eroded, some of 
the coating that was on some of the distribution pipes. You 
could go through this process and actually discuss what 
happened there.
    But it was poor management. That was what ended up coming 
out. Public-private partnership is something that might be able 
to work. I mean, everybody is paying a water bill. Sometimes 
government may not move, not sometimes, government just doesn't 
move as fast as private industries. Private industries can 
bring a solution and can do it in a very effective way. It is 
not that income isn't coming in; there is a tremendous amount 
of income that comes in in these places.
    It is just, because of the barrier that is there that is 
keeping public and private partners from actually being able to 
come together, are we actually losing technology that could 
help us be more efficient. I mean, there isn't any of us that 
would just allow a water leak to continue on our place of 
business. We wouldn't just let it pour through the concrete. We 
wouldn't let it just continue to flow in our front yard or flow 
underneath our house. We would fix it.
    Yet rural water, that is their biggest challenge. There are 
rural water departments in Oklahoma that are losing 50 percent 
of their water because of the distribution system. And there 
are solutions to that. But it may take private industry to go 
in and invest in those industries. Think of what quality that 
would help in the amount of water that we would be saving.
    So we have to think outside the box when we are talking 
about delivering these systems and what is working and what is 
not. No one can say that we can't improve. And sometimes we try 
to improve in Congress by regulating, by demanding that these 
small, rural water permits can't have more than a 20 percent 
loss or we are going to fine you X amount of dollars.
    If they could fix is with the money, they would already 
have it fixed. I mean, what good is that going to do? That is 
just going to penalize them, and then they are not going to be 
able to deliver the water. Who is going to come in and take it 
over?
    I mean, it is insane, some of the regulations that are 
coming out of these systems. It is just that, this is why I was 
talking to Shelley earlier about, it is better to be regulated 
at a local level because they bring the human side to it. It is 
not just black and white. Not ever system is the same. Every 
system is different, every water that you are treating is going 
to be different. Every time you get water from a different 
place, it brings in its own challenges of how to treat it, even 
if it is being treated at the same plant, is that not right, 
John?
    Senator Fetterman. Right.
    Senator Mullin. So one size does not fit all, and it will 
not fit all. And we need to give these States and these local 
municipalities and these rural waters flexibility to be able to 
do their job. We all want to drink water, because guess what, 
if you live there, there's a good chance you are drinking the 
water you are treating. There is a pretty good incentive by 
itself. I don't think you need any more incentive than that, 
right?
    Real quick, one question I have, ma'am, in your view, what 
are the biggest challenges small and rural communities are 
facing right now? I just ranted on that, but I am going to ask 
you the question?
    Ms. Chard. Of course. There are so many challenges that 
they are facing. What we see right now is trying to help them 
get the infrastructure funding that they need so that they can 
comply with the regulations they are required to comply with. 
We need to be able to help them, technical assistance angle, 
they have rate issues because they don't have the expertise to 
set appropriate rates. They may not have the technical 
expertise to run the facilities that have been designed and 
built for them.
    They are paying very low wages, not because they want to, 
but because that is the money that they have. And that is a 
huge challenge for them, is to be able to pay a rate that those 
operators, when they get them certified, can stick around and 
work in their home communities.
    We also see challenges in trying to go through some of the 
basics in order to apply for funding related to the emerging 
contaminants. PFAS has come up here, other contaminants. Some 
of the infrastructure funding, they have to have already 
sampled and identified that those contaminants are present 
before they can get funding to do anything to further study, to 
further identify the extent of that contamination.
    So that is something that is definitely a challenge for 
them, is how do they get the money to find out if they have a 
problem so they can get the Federal money then to address a 
problem. So there are several things like that, training, you 
mentioned the math aspect of operator licenses and work force 
development. That is absolutely a huge issue, and we have seen 
where for one of the community colleges in Oklahoma, Rose State 
College, was designated an environmental training center. So 
they have funding, and they do a lot of training with our 
operators on those basic skills, getting their skills up to 
date.
    We also have a program where we are working with some of 
the Oklahoma correctional facilities to train low-risk 
offenders who are likely to be released soon. They work at the 
treatment facilities at the correctional facilities, so that 
they then may be staying in those communities working for the 
municipality. We kind of solve a couple of different problems 
at the same time.
    Senator Mullin. I appreciate that. I have sat through many 
hours at Rose State continuing education classes. So I have 
been on that campus a lot.
    I yield back. Thank you.
    Senator Capito. Thank you. Senator Markey.
    Senator Markey. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    About 30 percent of Massachusetts families rely on 
decentralized septic systems to deal with their wastewater. 
Unfortunately, climate change-induced sea level rise, combined 
with more frequent and intense storms, causes flooding that 
drives up maintenance and operation costs.
    Without access to resource to repair these septic systems, 
sewage starts leaking into the environment. In fact, on Cape 
Cod, failing septic systems are a leading cause of water 
pollution.
    Now, apart from funding to address combined sewer 
overflows, we also need to help homeowners on decentralized 
wastewater systems to cope with these costly climate fueled 
stressors in order to fully protect public health and the 
health of the environment.
    So Ms. Morales-Pate, what would you change about the 
current way the Federal Government funds these infrastructure 
projects to make assistance more accessible to these 
communities?
    Ms. Morales-Pate. Senator Markey, thank you for your 
question, members of the committee.
    Flexibility I think is the one thing we keep saying over 
and over again this morning. Clmiate change is really pushing 
us in the direction that it is causing us to think outside of 
the box. A centralized system is really not the only solution 
for communities. We work in all 50 States and the territories, 
and we have plenty of communities that are on septic tanks.
    To your point, climate change is creating challenges that 
are really not funded by anybody. So the responsibility falls 
back on homeowners. I come from the Colonias area down in New 
Mexico. I can tell you that a septic tank costs more than some 
of the mobile homes that people live in. That is a problem.
    Senator Markey. And you are saying it is climate related?
    Ms. Morales-Pate. It is climate related.
    Senator Markey. Yes. So these people living with a problem 
they didn't create, they never assumed when they were buying, 
and now they are left with the responsibility of dealing with 
something and they need help.
    Ms. Morales-Pate. That is correct. Current funding that we 
have doesn't really allow the homeowner at the individual level 
to apply for and to receive----
    Senator Markey. You want flexibility in the program so it 
can be used for projects like this?
    Ms. Morales-Pate. Flexibility to be able to address--I 
think the responsibility that we have to protect the 
groundwater sources applies across the board, applies to all of 
us.
    Senator Markey. OK, so do you think the Federal Government 
should create a program, a grant program for small and rural 
and disadvantaged communities, even low-interest loans? Should 
there be something intentional, specific, for rural 
communities?
    Ms. Morales-Pate. I believe yes, Senator Markey, I believe 
that is necessary. It is definitely a gap that we are missing 
right now. Some of the States have it; not every State does.
    Senator Markey. OK, so let me move on. Small, rural, and 
disadvantaged communities who rely on centralized and 
decentralized wastewater systems often lack the resources to do 
the assessments, the planning and the grant writing necessary 
to access Federal support for wastewater infrastructure. That 
is why I fought hard to ensure that the Drinking Water and 
Wastewater Infrastructure Act of 2021 had a new provision to 
support technical assistance for these communities.
    Ms. Morales-Pate, can you speak more to the wastewater 
technical assistance needs of these communities, and the role 
that non-profit organizations like the Rural Community 
Assistance Partnership can play in helping to fill this 
expertise gap?
    Ms. Morales-Pate. Thank you for your question. Certainly, 
as technical assistance providers, we work with communities at 
a comprehensive level. So we work with communities on the water 
side and on the wastewater side. It is very important to take a 
comprehensive approach to the solutions that these communities 
need to have.
    Sustainability is very important. If we are not intentional 
on the work with this community sometimes, what ends up 
happening is that you have the water side subsidizing the 
wastewater side. So the average community member that we work 
with has not worked and doesn't understand how these projects 
operate, how they get funded. So it is a function of a 
technical assistance provider to guide them through this 
process.
    On average, we stay with these communities anywhere from 
seven to 10 years, especially for wastewater project 
development. It is a long-term relationship; it is a 
relationship of trust where we are probably the only constant 
piece throughout the development of these projects, so that 
they, to make sure that they----
    Senator Markey. So the Federal technical assistance grants 
have helped you----
    Ms. Morales-Pate. Yes, sir.
    Senator Markey [continuing]. to provide expertise to 
communities, otherwise who would have no expertise at all?
    Ms. Morales-Pate. Correct.
    Senator Markey. So that is absolutely critical.
    Finally, with your indulgence, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate 
it. I am proud to work on this committee with you, Mr. 
Chairman, on much-needed clean and safe drinking water funding 
in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, which has 
started to make its way to disadvantaged communities in 
Massachusetts and beyond. In Massachusetts, communities are 
using this funding to replace dangerous lead pipes that 
contaminate our drinking water and threaten our children's 
health.
    So first, I am concerned that the formula for lead service 
pipe replacement is disadvantaging Massachusetts, which has a 
dire need for funding. Second, I know we still have a lot of 
work to do.
    Ms. Morales-Pate, what can the Federal Government do to 
help ensure that all communities have lead-free pipes?
    Ms. Morales-Pate. Again, I think it is, part of the work 
that we do is working with communities on the inventories, what 
is actually on the ground and how do we get them funded and how 
do we get that replaced, and how do we get that health hazard 
out of the communities. The flexibility of the funding, both in 
the dollars and the timing, is critical, especially for small 
communities that lack the capacity to do all this work.
    Senator Markey. Thank you.
    Mr. Chairman, I was elected in a special election, because 
my predecessor passed away in 1976. And I found the first 
letter that I wrote in 1976, and it was to the EPA on lead in 
housing in the poorest communities of Massachusetts and how it 
was exposing children to lead.
    Here we still are in 2023, we are having a hearing on lead 
pipes and the need to ensure that States and non-profit 
partners get the help they need on a universal basis to deal 
with this legacy of lead having been used as a way in which 
paint is put on walls or water is transmitted throughout our 
society, and maybe they were well-intentioned at the time, but 
science has caught up to it and we need that additional 
funding.
    I thank you again for all of your leadership on this over 
all these years, Mr. Chairman. And I thank our great panelists 
for your instruction to the committee on these issues. Thank 
you.
    Senator Carper.
    [Presiding.] Thank you. Senator Markey and I have been 
privileged to work together for a long time. In 1976, when he 
was first elected, I was first elected States Treasurer of 
Delaware. Nobody wanted to run. We had the worst credit rating 
in the County. And I said, I will run. I was about 3 years out 
of the Navy, and I got to run.
    Senator Markey. I will say this. That was not true for my 
first race. Twelve people were running.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Markey. I was raising $30,000 to win the race, and 
on my first poll, in the 12-way race, I was at 3 percent with a 
5 percent margin of error in my own poll, meaning I could have 
been minus 2 in that first poll. So I wish I was in your 
position to say, we want you, Tom, there is one guy to fill 
this seat.
    Senator Carper. Two months after I was elected, Pete du 
Pont was elected. Remember Pete du Pont? He was a former 
Congressman, then Governor, and turned out to be a great 
Governor, a great mentor for me.
    Senator Markey. Yes, the du Ponts and the Carpers, you guys 
were growing up together.
    Senator Carper. We wish we could have half, even a quarter 
of their money. But anyway, Pete du Pont, 2 months after the 
election, was giving his first State of the State address. I am 
sitting in the back of Legislative Hall, next to crusty old 
Democratic Senator Thurman Adams. Pete du Pont announced in the 
State of the State address that year that we were bankrupt. And 
the State Senator Adams turned to me and said, Treasurer 
Carper, now you know why nobody wanted to run for Treasurer.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Carper. But it has turned out OK.
    Senator Markey. It turned out OK for us, but not for people 
who have lead in their pipes.
    Senator Carper. There you go. Get the lead out.
    Senator Markey. We still haven't solved it. Thank you, Mr. 
Chairman.
    Senator Carper. Thanks so much.
    Next, Senator Ricketts, you are on. Thanks so much. Thanks 
for joining us. Thanks for all your work.
    Senator Ricketts. Thank you, Chairman Carper, for holding 
this important hearing about drinking water and wastewater 
systems and how it impacts rural communities and the 
implications. So thank you very much.
    I believe I went over my time yesterday quite 
significantly, so you were very indulgent and kind yesterday, 
Senator Markey. Thank you.
    Next month, the EPA is expected to release proposed 
rulemaking regarding meat and poultry producers effluent 
guidelines and standards. I joined my senior Senator Fisher 
from Nebraska in sending a letter to the EPA encouraging them 
to work with small meat and poultry processing plants to ensure 
that regulations are practical, science-based, and without 
imposing undue burdens on many of these facilities that are 
oftentimes small businesses.
    The EPA itself estimated the initial cost of compliance is 
$800,000 for facilities processing one million pounds of meat a 
year, which is probably not very much. I was actually talking 
to a meat processing facility on Saturday night, a gentleman 
who runs it. He has about 260 people, and he is estimating it 
is going to cost millions of dollars to be able to apply. He 
said, we can probably make that work, but smaller facilities 
are going to be much more challenged.
    So Ms. Chard, I assume that Oklahomans share our concerns 
with regard to the EPA missing the mark on this rulemaking. 
Could you elaborate on the need for practical, science-based 
regulations, especially as it applies to effluent guidelines 
and meat processing facilities?
    Ms. Chard. Yes, thank you, Senator. Effluent limitation 
guidelines serve a purpose, setting that national standard. 
This does speak a little bit to a topic from earlier about one 
size does not necessarily fit all. We do in Oklahoma have large 
meat processors, but we have significantly more that are one or 
two or three or ten people tops that work there that are 
processing a very small number of animals a year.
    Where I see one of the potential issues with these effluent 
limitation guidelines on those smaller processors is where 
maybe they are located in a rural community, they don't have 
their own wastewater treatment. They may be looking at trying 
to discharge to the municipal system. The way that the 
regulations are set up, that does still put those same 
discharge limits on those processing plants, regardless if they 
are going to a water body or to a treatment plant.
    That can be very challenging. It can be very challenging in 
how do you fund the necessary pre-treatment that goes into 
those systems. As it is now, the municipality can obtain that 
funding, not the actual industry who is required to construct 
it, build it, operate it, maintain it. So that is particularly 
challenging.
    If we don't take into account the difference in size, that 
is a very different volume of water. It may be different makeup 
depending on the type of animals, the type of pretreatment, the 
type of processing process that they utilize. All of those 
processes factor in to what makes sense and what doesn't make 
sense as opposed to here is the limit, everybody, good luck.
    Senator Ricketts. Right. Thank you very much, Ms. Chard, 
for that excellent answer about all the implications of that. I 
really appreciate it.
    It really highlights that many water systems, especially 
those in small, rural communities are concerned about the one-
size-fits-all, and also the costs that go along with it and how 
they are going to be able to manage that, especially when they 
have a limited ratepayer base and so forth. One of the ways is 
obviously through the EPA and some of the dollars they have 
available.
    Ms. Chard, through the award decision process, is it your 
opinion that EPA has taken an unbiased approach to delivering 
these dollars or have projects been prioritized which tie water 
infrastructure to climate goals?
    Ms. Chard. I am not sure that I can accurately speak 
completely to that. What I can say with confidence is EPA does 
establish what eligibility criteria and types of projects that 
are available to receive funding. That is a requirement, then, 
that the States, if they want to receive that money to do loans 
or grants, anything that the Administration puts in those 
requirements and the State is obligated to enforce that is 
well.
    Senator Ricketts. Have you seen, though, that they have put 
climate goals as part of that, versus we are just talking about 
some of these effluent standards, which are more directly 
related to the business of processing the meat, have they tied 
some of these dollars to climate goals? Have you seen that as 
part of the requirements they have put out?
    Ms. Chard. I suppose that when you look at some of the 
stormwater funding that is available, that is definitely 
related to climate change and rainfall events. That absolutely 
is part of the conversation.
    The effluent limitation guidelines are technical limits 
that are established through the Office of Science and 
Technology, which is very different from the funding arm of 
EPA. But all of those topics are very much part of the 
conversation, part of the guidance.
    Senator Ricketts. All right, thank you.
    Can I have just one more question, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Carper. You may.
    Senator Ricketts. Thanks. So as these dollars have gone out 
to communities, what issues have arisen in both the application 
and implementation process? I am talking about broader, not 
just on the effluent guidelines, but anything at all. What are 
some of the things that you have seen with regard to especially 
impacting small and rural communities with regard to the 
application process or the implementation process of getting 
these dollars to help them?
    Ms. Chard. Great, Senator, thank you very much. Something 
that we definitely see, of course, we have talked about the 
challenges sometimes of making application and of being able to 
afford the planning and the study documents that have to come 
before those applications happen.
    But something that we see that doesn't get talked about 
very often that definitely we see in Oklahoma and across the 
Country impacting these small, rural, and disadvantaged 
communities, we have permits that are 5 year duration. So we 
have limits that take effect, they will borrow millions of 
dollars, construct treatment equipment in order to meet the new 
limits. The permit has now expired, it has been 5 years, they 
are getting a new permit. And now they may have new limits that 
take effect and they still have maybe 5, 10, 15 years left to 
repay a loan and now they are looking at how they can obtain 
funding to meet that next challenge.
    So certainly, long-range planning becomes very important, 
and the rate at which new requirements go onto wastewater 
treatment facilities.
    Senator Ricketts. So again, if I can understand what you 
are saying, I got a 5-year permit, I took out a bunch of money 
to be able to meet the requirements of that 5-year permit. Now 
that 5-year permit expires. I still haven't paid off the loans 
for the equipment I bought already, and now there is more 
stringent requirements, the requirement to go out and borrow 
even more money to be able to meet those requirements. Is that 
fair?
    Ms. Chard. Absolutely.
    Senator Ricketts. And so what would be a solution? Would it 
be to extend the life of the permits to be longer? How will we 
address that?
    Ms. Chard. I think reevaluating permit timelines definitely 
makes sense. Five years is what was established in the Clean 
Water Act in 1972. It may be time to take a look at, does 10 
years make more sense, or maybe you have to put additional 
guardrails on it, so that we are looking at site--specific 
characteristics of the receiving water.
    But that would definitely be something that would be 
beneficial for all of the compliance dates that come in. It 
would also be beneficial if there is funding, that can be 
additional grant funding or a criteria to move to a higher 
grant percentage versus loan percentage. Are those compliance 
issues, the indebtedness factor, those are some things we could 
think about.
    Senator Ricketts. Great. Thank you very much, Ms. Chard.
    Ms. Chard. Thank you.
    Senator Carper. Senator Sullivan, your timing is 
impeccable. Are you ready to take the handoff from Senator 
Ricketts?
    Senator Sullivan. Yes.
    Senator Carper. You are recognized. Go ahead.
    Senator Sullivan.
    [Remarks off microphone.] I appreciate your holding this 
hearing. I think it is a topic that is all too often 
overlooked. It is a huge issue in Alaska, in my State.
    There is usually debate about aging infrastructure here, 
that big issue with the town in Michigan, Flint. But that was a 
big problem, no doubt about it. But my constituents were like, 
well, I get aging infrastructure, what about communities with 
no infrastructure? What about communities with no water and 
sewer, none? No flush toilets, American citizens.
    By the way, in my State, some of the most patriotic 
Americans, Alaska Natives, serve at higher rates in the 
military than any other ethnic group. Then they go home from 
wars they serve in, they go to communities with what we call in 
Alaska honey buckets, which are not very sweet smelling, 
despite the name.
    So can I ask the witnesses first, the first question is, 
don't you think that when we have these kind of programs, it is 
kind of like the same argument we have with broadband 
connectivity, that the Federal funding and programs should be 
focused on the communities that don't have anything?
    I have over 30 communities in my State that don't have any 
flush toilets or running water. During the pandemic, the CDC 
was like, wash your hands five times a day, and they were like, 
we don't have running water. America. It is really horrendous, 
a topic I care deeply about.
    Could I just get from each of you a view on that? Maybe we 
will start with you, Ms. Chard.
    Ms. Chard. Thank you, Senator. Absolutely, we have to do 
better at funding infrastructure.
    Senator Sullivan. But the priorities should be----
    Ms. Chard. I would say, rather than focusing on compliance 
with regulatory standards, maybe it is compliance with 
construction in addition to the replacement. But you have to 
have it first. You can't protect public health without water 
and sanitation.
    Senator Sullivan. Yes. How about you, Mr. Byrum?
    Mr. Byrum. Absolutely. Those services, we are seeing that 
in the southern part of our base, in our 18,000 square mile 
base, and we are seeing a lot of heavy nutrients added to the 
Gulf Coast area because of lack of services like wastewater 
service, maybe lack of septic services that we are taking care 
of, septic tanks and those that are taken care of.
    A few of those programs we have had we did get some money. 
We live in a State where they will put some money together to 
fund wastewater onsite septic facilities replacements. In those 
few programs that we have administered, we have had enough to 
replace like 50 septic tanks, 50 septic services. But we have 
had applications for well over 150 of those.
    So it is a big problem not only in, and I am certainly sure 
it is a problem in Alaska, but it is a problem in other areas 
too. So yes, that needs to be a priority.
    Senator Sullivan. OK. Ms. Morales-Pate.
    Ms. Morales-Pate. Thank you, Senator Sullivan. I happen to 
work with the Rural Community Assistance Corporation, which is 
the western RCAP. Alaska was one of my territories.
    Senator Sullivan. I know you have a lot of experience.
    Ms. Morales-Pate. I do have a lot of experience.
    Senator Sullivan. What is your view? Don't we need to get 
the Federal dollars to the places that don't have anything 
first?
    Ms. Morales-Pate. Yes.
    Senator Sullivan. It seems pretty obvious.
    Ms. Morales-Pate. It is very obvious. I will say that it 
has been one of the hardest boulders to push up the hill, 
because we don't have the infrastructure on the ground then to 
develop those projects, to manage those projects, to own those 
projects. So in my mind, yes, we need the physical 
infrastructure, but we also need to invest in the human element 
that will make those projects sustainable to address the needs 
of those communities.
    Senator Sullivan. Yes. Thank you.
    I just want to mention one other thing. I always bring this 
chart out; I am going to bring it out again. This is a chart 
that I like to highlight in Alaska. It shows life expectancy 
changes in the last 25 years in America, and the State and the 
region of my State that has had the most increase in life 
expectancy of any State in the Country, from 1980 to 2014 was 
Alaska. Up to 13 years of increased life expectancy, which to 
me is like hey, that is the most important indicator of policy 
success there can be, the people you represent, are they living 
longer. I think that is pretty obvious.
    I bring this up because a lot of this has to do with 
resource development, job opportunities, but a lot of it has to 
do with this. Water and sewer are basic services that most 
Americans think, of course every American has flush toilets and 
running water. No, that is not the case.
    So I always like to remind people, hey, when you are 
shutting down opportunities, when you are shutting down 
resource development, yes, oil and gas, we need it, the Native 
people in my State certainly are really focused on this. Matter 
of fact, the leaders from the North Slope Borough are in town 
right now, the elected leaders, tribal leaders, Alaska Native 
Corporation leaders. They tried to meet with Secretary Haaland 
seven times in a row since they have been here. Seven times. 
She won't meet with them. Crazy. I don't know why that is 
happening. It is happening again today.
    But I want to thank the witnesses. It is a really, really 
important issue. Again, Mr. Chairman, I think the idea of 
prioritization of the places that don't have anything to begin 
with, and then you can upgrade Flint, Michigan, and other 
things. But I think it is really an issue of fairness and it 
looks like all the panelists would agree with that approach.
    Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for holding this important 
hearing. Thank you.
    Senator Carper. Thanks for joining us.
    We have votes that have just been announced on the floor. 
Another committee I serve on, the Finance Committee, is voting 
on legislation involving PBMs. They are trying to figure out 
how to provide pharmaceuticals to people, particularly seniors, 
in a more affordable way. We have the three of you who are 
going to help us wrap up this hearing, so there is a lot going 
on. You have come on an interesting day.
    I get to travel around the Country a fair amount, around 
the world, actually. You probably do too. One of the questions 
I ask people wherever I go is, what brings you joy in your 
life. I ask that a lot, what brings you joy in your life. 
Believe it or not, the answers are pretty similar. For the most 
part, people say, I like helping people. I like helping, I hear 
it all over the time, from all over the Country, Alaska, 
Delaware, you name it.
    One of the ways we can help people is to make sure we are 
meeting the drinking water needs, and also their wastewater 
sanitation needs. The comments of Senator Sullivan are really 
very much on point.
    I have a couple questions I am going to ask you, and then I 
am going to head off, join my colleagues on the Finance 
Committee vote, and then go vote on the floor. So again, thank 
you so much for joining us today.
    The first question I am going to ask is, Ms. Morales-Pate, 
do you pronounce your name Morales-Pate?
    Ms. Morales-Pate. Yes.
    Senator Carper. I want to call it Pate, but that would 
probably get me into trouble with your family.
    Ms. Morales-Pate. My husband might have an issue with that.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Carper. I am sure. Well, I will try to stay out of 
trouble with him, and you.
    A question, if I could, for you and Mr. Byrum. It is an 
honor for me to serve on this committee with Senator Capito and 
our colleagues, Democrat and Republican, where the Bipartisan 
Infrastructure Bill actually began, right here in this room. 
Major pieces of the Inflation Reduction Act began in this room, 
Water Resources Development Act, right here in this room. If 
the walls of this room could talk, it would say a lot. A lot of 
the work we do is actually across the aisle in a bipartisan 
nature. I am proud to be part of the committee, honored to lead 
it with Senator Capito.
    I am also proud of the committee's work to improve 
wastewater infrastructure for communities large and small, 
especially underserved communities that Senator Sullivan and 
others have talked about. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill 
that I mentioned, which was signed into law by the President 
almost exactly 2 years ago provides over $55 billion for 
drinking water and wastewater infrastructure, including almost 
$12 billion in supplemental funding for the Clean Water State 
Revolving Funds.
    That said, much of the funding was meant to help small and 
underserved communities, as you know. Yet we have continued to 
hear that these communities, too many of these communities are 
having trouble accessing the funds because they do not compete 
well or that the community is only being offered a loan, not a 
grant.
    My question for the two of you, if I could, and then I will 
ask other questions of you, Ms. Chard. First, Ms. Morales-Pate, 
Mr. Byrum, here is my question for the two of you. Will you 
please share with us some examples of how underserved 
communities are struggling to access these funds?
    I will say that again. Will you please share with us some 
examples today of how underserved communities are struggling to 
access these funds? The second question is, why is it 
important? Why it is important for the Federal Government to 
offer grant programs in addition to loan programs?
    Ms. Morales-Pate, would you go first?
    Ms. Morales-Pate. Thank you for your question, Senator 
Carper.
    One of the struggles that we seek, and it was mentioned 
before by the fellow panel members, has to do with the 
requirements for a PER, a preliminary engineering report. In 
the communities that we work with, the kind of funding needed 
to complete a PER sometimes is just not there. A lot of our 
State are not offering planning dollars.
    So that is the very first step. If we cannot get them to 
that step, then we really don't even have a chance.
    Other challenges that are also part of it is financing. We 
need to provide financials for the last 3 years. In some cases, 
we are talking about finances that have been put together in a 
shoebox with just receipts. Sometimes they don't even have a 
budget put together that has been approved that supports the 
operations of the utility. So it is working on this finances 
and going back.
    Sometimes it is leadership that has changed, the members or 
the decisionmakers have changed over time, and we don't have 
all the paperwork necessary to begin to put a solid application 
together. There is more to be said, but I will turn the rest of 
my time.
    Senator Carper. I am going to ask you to hold it right 
there. I have just been contacted by the Senate Finance 
Committee. They are now voting on important prescription-
related issues. They need me to be there to vote. I am going to 
recess this hearing for probably less than 10 minutes, and come 
right back. When I come back, Mr. Byrum, you are up. Don't go 
anywhere.
    We are standing in recess. Thank you.
    [Whereupon, the committee was in recess from 11:39 a.m. to 
11:45 a.m.]
    Senator Carper. The committee will come to order.
    I think we passed the baton to Mr. Byrum. Mr. Byrum, same 
question. If you want me to repeat the question, I will. OK, 
sure.
    This is a two-part question. I asked both of you if you 
would share with us some examples of how underserved 
communities, how underserved communities are struggling to 
access some of the funds that we are talking about, State 
Revolving Funds and the moneys for wastewater infrastructure. 
But some examples of how underserved communities are struggling 
to access these funds. The followup question is, why is it 
important for the Federal Government to offer grant programs in 
addition to loan programs? Why is it important to offer both? 
Go ahead.
    Mr. Byrum. Thank you, Senator Carper. First of all, we had 
a conversation before about your service in Corpus Christi and 
learning to fly there in Corpus Christi. Thank you very much 
for your service, by the way.
    Senator Carper. I loved it.
    Mr. Byrum. We are safe today because of folks like 
yourself.
    Senator Carper. Thank you so much.
    Mr. Byrum. One of the things that you probably flew over 
back in the day was a place called Baffin Bay. I don't know if 
you remember that term or not, but it is a great fishing place, 
it is hypersaline, very unique situation. The people around 
Baffin Bay have experienced----
    Senator Carper. I don't know if I remember Baffin Bay. I 
remember going to bullfights down on the border of Mexico.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Carper. At the end of the night, I think there was 
about seven or eight bullfights there, but at the end of the 
night, it was bulls five, matadors two. Not a fair fight. Back 
to you.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Byrum. These people living around the Bay have 
experienced some water quality issues. We went to researching 
that as a subdivision of the State that is protected resources. 
We went down and researched that and some other political 
subdivisions and action committees did that. They found that 58 
percent of the nutrients in the bay, the high nutrient load in 
Baffin Bay was contributed from human sources.
    Senator Carper. What percentage?
    Mr. Byrum. Fifty-eight percent. The other 42 percent was 
from agricultural and wildlife sources, which are easy enough 
to treat also. But the problem is, the people need money. These 
are poor communities. When you trace that back up, Petronella 
Creek, which feeds into Baffin, one of the tributaries into 
Baffin Bay, you find that the wastewater treatment plants there 
were built under Public Law 92-500, a great law back in the 
late 1970's, that funded 75 percent, EPA funded 75 percent of 
these wastewater plants, and 25 percent local. They were able 
to build wastewater plants, and they have served their purpose.
    The problem is, they are at the end of their operational 
life. They have tried to get funding through the State 
Revolving Loan Fund and grants, and they just haven't been able 
to get there. Again, they are poor communities. The median 
income in these communities is well below the national average. 
And they just can't access them.
    So what we are trying to do is put together a regional plan 
to address the needs of the 58 percent, the lion's share of 
that is from these wastewater plants. They had to have the 
grant the first time to build the plant and build the 
facilities. They need it again so they can rebuild the 
facilities some 50 years later.
    Senator Carper. All right, thank you.
    My next question, Ms. Chard, we will get you into the 
action here. I am going to ask this question of all three of 
you, and ask you to lead us off. Many disadvantaged communities 
face significant environmental challenges and have extensive 
infrastructure needs. That is true in Delaware and I think 49 
other States as well. Certainly, it is true in Alaska, as we 
have heard.
    These communities have historically struggled to access 
Federal funding, as we mentioned earlier. In part this is 
because they have lacked the technical expertise, we heard this 
again and again, they have lacked the technical expertise to 
navigate the application process.
    Yesterday, EPA announced it was expanding the Lead Service 
Line Accelerator program. For most people, they would say, what 
is that? But it was an important announcement. This is a 
technical assistance program that is helping communities 
identify lead lines and to make plans for their removal. EPA is 
also helping these communities with their State Revolving Fund 
applications.
    Question, starting with you, ma'am. Will you please explain 
the importance of technical assistance for disadvantaged 
communities? What more could the Federal Government do to help 
disadvantaged communities be more competitive in the State 
Revolving Fund application process? Ms. Chard?
    Ms. Chard. Great, thank you, Senator. Something I am very 
proud of that we have done in Oklahoma is we take that 
technical assistance challenge away. We invite in our 
communities, we will find communities that have similar 
compliance issues, have them all come in at the same time. We 
work through the application process with them. We can connect 
them to either EPA contracted technical assistance providers or 
other technical assistance providers in the State. We have a 
relationship, of course, with RCAP and also National Rural 
Water.
    We also have formed a funding agency coordination team in 
Oklahoma, where we invite communities in and help them put 
together those funding packages, so that it maybe that they 
would benefit from a particular Federal loan, a particular 
Federal grant from another agency. And then a loan or a grant 
from Indian Health Service, a tribal nation, or the State 
financial assistance programs.
    So that technical assistance funding that Congress makes 
available definitely plays a big role. If we can keep that 
money going to technical assistance providers, whether they be 
a private company, a non-profit or State agencies, that can go 
a long way to assisting our communities.
    Senator Carper. Thank you for that.
    I am going to repeat the questions, Mr. Byrum. Two 
questions. Will you please explain the importance of technical 
assistance for disadvantaged communities? That is one. The 
second half of the question is, what more could the Federal 
Government do to help disadvantaged communities be more 
competitive in the State Revolving Fund application process?
    Mr. Byrum. Great question. I am not sure that one answer 
will fit every bill. Again, it is the flexibility that we have 
been talking about.
    But in this case, it is super important that they get that 
technical assistance they need. We have a relationship with 
Communities Unlimited down in Texas. They provide that in a lot 
of the areas in our basin where we serve. But this technical 
assistance will go a long way. But it is not going to go all 
the way, because they still have the issue of trying to produce 
the reports and the financials out of this black box to apply 
for loans.
    So I think there needs to be some flexibility there. We are 
looking at municipal governments with steady revenues. We are 
not looking at a private industry that just got started that is 
trying to prove a credit, improve up their credit.
    So I believe there is some room there that we can relax 
some of those financial requirements with the application, and 
possibly up front fund some of the preliminary engineering. If 
a detailed preliminary engineering report is required at that 
point, them somehow or other these small communities need help 
funding that preliminary engineering.
    Senator Carper. Thank you for that.
    Ms. Morales-Pate, please, same question, same two 
questions.
    Ms. Morales-Pate. Thank you for the question. Both of them 
are very important. Obviously, the technical assistance piece 
is what we do. Technical assistance provides the work within 
the communities individually in helping them build the 
capacity.
    Let me just say a little bit about the work that we do. We 
work with volunteers. These are community volunteers who are 
doing a second job that they are not getting paid for. So it is 
very important for them to lean on and guide them through this 
process.
    One of the things I would like to say that I think is very 
important is, as we are talking about small communities, we 
consider 100 percent grant. Because even that itself doesn't 
mean that it is going to exempt them from all the requirements 
that are needed. They still will have to check a lot of boxes 
to get that money. They still have to meet a lot of the 
requirements.
    But what is really keeping a lot of these communities from 
being able to succeed is the lack of expertise, the lack of 
economies of scale. So when we work with communities that are 
primarily operated and managed by volunteers, it takes a 
consistent set of technical assistance providers to see those 
projects through to the other side.
    As far as what else can be done, one of the things that I 
haven't mentioned but I think is important to say is that the 
guidelines and the requirements are not designed for the size 
communities that we are discussing. From that point, we have a 
disadvantage. They are designed for municipalities that have 
the capacity, that have the staff, that have the resources, and 
we are competing with that. When that is something that our 
communities are going up against, our chances of success have 
pretty much been taken away from us.
    So it really takes technical assistance that is very 
committed to stay on top of those projects to make sure that 
communities succeed. But we need to do something about those 
requirements.
    Senator Carper. Good, thank you.
    My next question would be for Ms. Chard and Mr. Byrum. Let 
me start with you, Ms. Chard.
    Wastewater systems that serve small and rural communities 
typically have a relatively small ratepayer base from which to 
finance infrastructure projects. This makes it challenging for 
them to afford local cost shares for water infrastructure 
projects without ballooning costs for ratepayers.
    At times, this may mean that critical maintenance is 
delayed, and sometimes it is actually forgotten. This only 
leads to more expensive repairs later on, and this kind of 
stuff we have seen in Jackson, Mississippi.
    My question, Ms. Chard and Mr. Byrum, have you observed 
small and rural communities deferring needed maintenance and 
systems improvements? That is the first part of the question, 
have you observed small and rural communities deferring needed 
maintenance and system improvements?
    Second, would you provide any or could you provide for us a 
couple of examples maybe of delayed maintenance being a problem 
for public safety and the environment? How can Congress help?
    Ms. Chard. I will give you a one-word answer to your first 
question, and that is, absolutely.
    Senator Carper. I don't get many one-word answers. Could 
you be more definitive?
    [Laughter.]
    Ms. Chard. As far as what have we seen, we absolutely see 
the delayed maintenance. On the drinking water side, we 
sometimes see issues of, do we comply with one standard or 
another standard, because we can't afford to comply with both, 
so it is choose the lesser of two evils, which is very 
unfortunate.
    On the wastewater side, years ago I was in the city of 
Lawton, Oklahoma, and as they were, the garbage truck was 
sitting at a stoplight, it sank up to its bumper because the 
sewer line beneath it collapsed. The reason it collapsed was 
they knew it had leaks, they knew it had cracks, but they had 
not been able to make the needed repairs. So they had a main 
sewer line that now had a trash truck sitting on top of it.
    Senator Carper. Say that again? Had a what sitting on it?
    Ms. Chard. Trash, a garbage truck sank up to its bumper and 
was sitting at a stoplight. The road collapsed. The trash truck 
went down to its bumpers because the sewer main collapsed due 
to lack of maintenance. That is a pretty substantial issue.
    We have seen cases where, in northeast Oklahoma, that we 
had treatment plants fail and they went from not treating well 
to essentially discharging raw sewage into a river that is 
known for kayaking and floating the river. It is kind of rite 
of passage, everybody has done it at least once.
    So now there was raw sewage in that pristine water body 
because of lack of maintenance.
    Senator Carper. That is a pretty good example. Do you want 
to yield to Mr. Byrum?
    Ms. Chard. Yes.
    Mr. Byrum. The answer is yes, they do defer maintenance. In 
some of the lower part of our basin, and the western Nueces 
County, it has actually gotten to the point in the collection 
system, and eventually it will rain again. During the last big 
rains we had there, they had to shut the school system down 
because, shut some elementary school systems, some junior high 
systems down, some buildings, because the sewage was backing up 
in the floor drains.
    This is an issue, an issue that has to be taken care of. 
The only way these people are going to do it is through some 
grants, because they are poor communities.
    Senator Carper. OK. We don't always give our witnesses a 
shot, but any closing thoughts you want to leave with us before 
we wrap it up and I go vote on the floor? Ms. Morales-Pate, 
just a very brief closing thought?
    Ms. Morales-Pate. Senator Carper, thank you for the 
opportunity. Certainly, it is very much welcomed from the RCAP 
network to have the opportunity to bring up the issues that we 
deal with as technical assistance provider on the ground every 
day.
    When we are talking about the sustainability of communities 
across the Country, we cannot have a conversation about 
economic development and sustainability if we are not talking 
about sustainable infrastructure on the ground. That being 
water and wastewater. For some of our communities, that reality 
is not going to happen unless we have grant dollars available 
to get them there. We cannot build the vertical infrastructure 
if the horizontal infrastructure is not there to support that.
    So I really appreciate the opportunity for this 
conversation. I invite you to reach out to us for any 
questions. We will give you examples of how we work with 
communities every day and what more can be done. But certainly, 
I would once again stress the importance of considering grants 
to really be talking about long-term solutions for rural 
America. Thank you.
    Senator Carper. Thank you, ma'am.
    Mr. Byrum, closing thought?
    Mr. Byrum. I can't thank you enough for allowing us to come 
up and talk. I am leaving here really pumped. I am really 
motivated, because the line of questioning, the comments seem 
to be right on track with what we are seeing.
    Senator Carper. Good.
    Mr. Byrum. I am convinced that we are going to find a way 
to make the State Revolving Loan Funds work for the smaller 
cities just as good as it has worked for the larger cities. It 
has done a very good job with the larger metropolitan areas. I 
am confident after leaving here today we will find a way to 
make it flexible enough and provide enough grant moneys that it 
will work for the small rural communities, too. Thank you.
    Senator Carper. You bet. I think there is a Chinese word 
for danger that is also a word for opportunity. Henry Ford, I 
never met Henry Ford, but I like to quote him. He once said 
this, I think it is relevant to what we are doing here today. 
He used to say, and I appreciate your positive, upbeat 
comments, but Henry Ford used to say, if you think you can, or 
you think you can't, you are right. Isn't that good?
    OK, Ms. Chard, do you want to take us home?
    Ms. Chard. Thank you so much, Senator Carper, for holding 
this hearing and for the work that this committee does. We are 
all in it together. We do have to figure this out.
    I think I will go back to something I said in my opening 
statement, and that is setting standards doesn't protect public 
health and the environment or promote economic prosperity. It 
is figuring out how to comply that is going to protect our 
public health. We need the assistance at all levels of 
government to ensure that our small, rural, disadvantaged 
communities get to come along with the large, well-populated, 
well-funded cities.
    I think we have to remember that we are all in it together, 
and partnership and collaboration is what it is going to take. 
I would love to be able to continue this dialog with the 
committee, however you would see fit. We have to figure it out. 
Thank you so much.
    Senator Carper. Our thanks to all of you. Thank you for 
putting up with the stop and go that we are going through right 
now. When you have all these committees that are meeting and 
voting, and we are voting on the Senate floor and trying to do 
the Lord's work here, it can be challenging.
    Before closing, I want to thank all of you for taking the 
time to be with us today. Thanks very much for sharing your 
insights and opinions with us. It is enormously helpful.
    I want to thank out staffs. We are Democrats and 
Republicans here, and we actually like each other, and we like 
working together, we like getting things done. I mentioned some 
of the major, major legislation that was literally formulated 
right here in this committee in the last couple of years, 
signed into law by the President.
    One of my favorite quotes that we had in a hearing in 
another committee I used to chair was, bipartisan solutions are 
lasting solutions. I will never forget that. Senator John 
Barrasso was a witness before us on the Homeland Security, and 
that is what he said. I think it was the Homeland Security 
Committee. He said, ``Bipartisan solutions are lasting 
solutions.'' We are pretty good at those.
    You have helped make us be a little bit better by your 
testimony today and by your responses to the questions that I 
have asked. Again, our thanks to not just the members who were 
able to come, I know they are all busy, but I want to thank 
especially the staffs who make it possible for us to do this 
work on behalf of the people of this Country.
    This is the end of the hearing, my staff gives me this 
boilerplate language. I will read it, or get into trouble. 
Again, I want to thank all of you for joining us today, some 
have come quite a way. Thanks for sharing your perspectives on 
clean water infrastructure systems for disadvantaged and 
underserved communities. There are a bunch of them in every 
State that we have in this Country. We look forward to our 
continued bipartisan work together to support these 
communities.
    Before we adjourn, I need to address just a couple of 
formalities. Senators will be allowed to submit written 
questions for the record by close of business on Wednesday, 
November 29th. I will ask Senators to submit any written 
questions they have for the record by the close of business on 
Wednesday, November 29th. We will compile those questions and 
we will send them to each of you. We will ask you to reply to 
us by noon of that day.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Carper. No, not really. Just wanted to make sure 
you are listening. We will ask you to reply to us by Wednesday, 
2 weeks later, Wednesday, December 13th.
    That, as we say in Delaware, is a wrap. Thank you so much. 
God bless. We are adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 12:07 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

                                 [all]