[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]