[Senate Hearing 119-296]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 119-296
BUILDING ON THE IIJA'S SUCCESSES: IDENTIFYING
OPPORTUNITIES TO STRENGTHEN WATER
INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAMS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
April 30, 2025
__________
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
62-895 WASHINGTON : 2026
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia, Chairman
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island, Ranking Member
KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon
JOHN R. CURTIS, Utah EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina MARK KELLY, Arizona
DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska ALEX PADILLA, California
PETE RICKETTS, Nebraska ADAM B. SCHIFF, California
ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware
JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas ANGELA D. ALSOBROOKS, Maryland
JON HUSTED, Ohio
Adam Tomlinson, Republican Staff Director
Dan Dudis, Democratic Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
APRIL 30, 2025
OPENING STATEMENTS
Capito, Hon. Shelley Moore, U.S. Senator from the State of West
Virginia....................................................... 1
Schiff, Hon. Adam, U.S. Senator from the State of California..... 3
WITNESSES
Dreyfuss-Wells, Kyle, Chief Executive Officer, Northeast Ohio
Regional Sewer District, on behalf of The National Association
of Clean Water Agencies........................................ 5
Prepared statement........................................... 8
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Markey........................................... 10
Senator Blunt Rochester.................................. 13
Goulette, Tom, City Administrator/Utility Superintendent, West
Point, Nebraska, on behalf of The National Rural Water
Association.................................................... 16
Prepared statement........................................... 18
Responses to additional questions from Senator Blunt
Rochester.................................................. 30
Oswald, Eric J., President, Association of State Drinking Water
Administrators................................................. 33
Prepared statement........................................... 36
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Markey........................................... 41
Senator Blunt Rochester.................................. 46
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Letter to Senator Capito and Senator Whitehouse from:
Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies................... 63
California Association of Sanitation Agencies................ 72
Letter to the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works
from the Community Water Center................................ 73
BUILDING ON THE IIJA'S SUCCESSES: IDENTIFYING
OPPORTUNITIES TO STRENGTHEN WATER
INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAMS
----------
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 30, 2025
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:02 a.m. in
room 562, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Shelley Moore
Capito (chairman of the committee) presiding.
Present: Senators Capito, Sullivan, Ricketts, Boozman,
Husted, Padilla, Schiff, Blunt Rochester, Alsobrooks.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA
Senator Capito. Good morning, everybody. We are in our new
temporary hearing room for several months, maybe as much as a
year, while they remodel our hearing room. I think most of us
would admit who have to walk behind the dais of our regular
hearing room, it needs some readjustments. We are trying to get
back to the way it was historically. We will be meeting here,
and actually, this is a little bit larger than ours, so it is
quite nice.
I want to thank everybody for being here. I think Senator
Whitehouse is unable to come today. I know he is very
interested in this topic, but he is not going to be here.
Senator Schiff is going to kind of run the show for his side,
and we will be in and out. I do not want the witnesses to take
any offense that people are in and out. There is lots going on
today in various committees.
I will give my opening statement, then Senator Boozman is
going to take the gavel while I run out and over to Commerce. I
am sure you have other meetings as well, too; everybody does.
Welcome to the witnesses. Welcome to today's hearing to
examine the policies to strengthen our Nation's water
infrastructure. Again, I want to thank the witnesses for
joining us, and the important work that you do every single day
to deliver safe, reliable water and sanitation services in your
various communities.
This is our first hearing to discuss how we can build on
the successes of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act
(IIJA), the IIJA, the water infrastructure provisions, as we
prepare bipartisan legislation to reauthorize those programs.
In November 2021, Congress passed the IIJA, which included the
Drinking Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Act, a bipartisan
bill that was developed, negotiated, and championed by this
committee. It is one of the bases of the IIJA.
That legislation represented the largest Federal investment
in water infrastructure in our Nation's history, delivering
more than $50 billion for drinking water, wastewater, and
stormwater programs. Since then, thousands of projects have
started, including projects to upgrade treatment plants,
replace aging systems and support the needs of our small
communities. In short, this law is moving our Nation's water
infrastructure systems forward.
Despite this progress, the historic investment of the IIJA
expires next year. We must get to work now to build on that
progress, while addressing any concerns with its
implementation.
As we work together to reauthorize the IIJA water programs,
I will prioritize policies that strengthen underserved
communities' abilities to deliver water projects, reinforce the
cooperative federalism principle embedded in our laws, and
focus our outcomes on outcomes that prioritize safe water and
sound infrastructure.
I can say anecdotally in my small State of West Virginia
there are still pockets of our communities that do not have the
access to clean water or drinking water that they should, and
deserve to have. Achieving those goals requires us to take a
clear-eyed look at the challenges communities face and ensure
the tools we are provided are as effective and as accessible as
possible.
First, we must seek to simplify the delivery mechanisms for
water infrastructure funding. This is a repeating theme in just
about everything that we have been looking at. Many small and
underserved communities continue to face barriers to access to
Federal money.
Communities may struggle with capacity, technical
complexities and long Federal timelines of dispersing the
funding. This can lead to communities giving up before they
even get a shovel in the ground.
We can fix these issues by providing targeted technical
resources and assistance to help utilities and local
governments navigate complex funding applications and
simplifying the Environmental Protection Agency's processes.
Second, our reauthorization should reinforce what works,
including honoring the foundational principle of cooperative
federalism. For decades, the Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking
Water Act have recognized that States, not Washington, are best
positioned to understand the infrastructure needs of our
communities. Federal funding and oversight are important, but
implementation must be led by the States.
The Biden Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, shifted
away from that balance that Congress intended between Federal
support and State leadership by pushing one-size-fits-all
mandates and layering on new criteria that go far beyond what
Congress has authorized.
We have also seen the increased emphasis on environmental
justice initiatives. While the goal of supporting all
underserved communities regardless of background is broadly
supported, implementation of these environmental justice
initiatives has at times departed from the statute's original
direction and strayed from that broader goal.
Directing resources to underserved communities was a shared
goal when we wrote the IIJA and the commitment remains. We did
not write a law that allows agencies to introduce new
eligibility standards or funding formulas that may
unintentionally overlook real infrastructure needs or second
guess shared priorities and State priorities. That approach is
not only counterproductive; it risks leaving behind the very
communities that these programs were designed to help.
Across the Country, many low-income and underserved
communities continue to grapple with major water infrastructure
needs, yet rigid eligibility requirements in recent funding
programs have left some of them behind. That runs counter to
the bipartisan goals that we set when this law was written, to
ensure all communities have a fair opportunity to benefit from
these important programs. That is why we dedicated funds for
systems of different sizes, and why we provided State Revolving
Funds the flexibility for each State to meet their individual
needs.
This committee worked in a bipartisan way to craft these
programs, and going forward, implementation must remain true to
the intent, not drift into interpretations that complicate
access or confuse applicants.
My third guiding principle is that a successful bill and
implementation of EPA water programs must be focused on
outcomes. Enacting policies that are not consistently driven by
successful outcomes will help ensure that every American, no
matter where they live, can count on the basic services that
they deserve. That is what the committee has always focused on
and it is what I will continue to prioritize as the Chair.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses, and to kick
up our work to reauthorize and improve our Nation's water
infrastructure programs.
I will now recognize Senator Schiff, the Ranking Member of
the Fisheries, Water, and Wildlife Subcommittee, and as I have
said earlier, he will give an opening statement in lieu of
Ranking Member Whitehouse's absence.
Senator Schiff, you are recognized. Thank you.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ADAM SCHIFF,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Senator Schiff. Thank you, Chair Capito, for your focus on
improving community water infrastructure and for your hard work
on the water provisions in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law
that we are talking about today.
I want to thank the witnesses for being here to discuss
this important topic. As the Chair mentioned, Senator
Whitehouse could not be here today, and I am happy to step in
for him in my role as Ranking Member on the Fisheries, Water,
and Wildlife Subcommittee.
Reliable access to safe drinking water is a right, not a
privilege. We all understand that we cannot survive without a
safe and reliable supply of water. Yet there are far too many
communities in my home State of California and across the
Country that struggle with old, dilapidated water
infrastructure and lead pipes. These systems need to be brought
into the 21st century.
We do not use lead in our water service lines any more,
because we know that there is no safe level of lead in our
water. Lead can cause fertility problems for men and women,
high blood pressure, nervous system disorders, memory issues,
and decreased kidney function. Lead exposure is especially
dangerous for children. It can cause children to suffer from
lowered IQ, behavioral problems, slowed growth, and hearing
issues.
We have known all this for a while now. It is why the U.S.
Government has invested so much on a bipartisan basis on lead
abatement. Yet more than nine million lead service lines run
through communities across America. These pipes are not cheap
to find, remove, and replace. I can tell you this: it remains
absolutely necessary that we do so.
This is not optional; it is not something that we can
minimize or defund.
Water systems across America are also grappling with the
pervasive challenge of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl substances
(PFAS), contamination. Yorba Linda, California, is home to the
largest PFAS water treatment plant in the Country, and
California's water utilities have been ahead of the curve when
it comes to investing in PFAS filtration.
Our utilities, especially the ones in California's rural
areas, desperately need Federal support to address PFAS and
other contaminants. Aging water infrastructure not only
threatens our public health, it also threatens our national and
economic security.
According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
there are more than 150,000 public drinking water systems in
America. The U.S. Government Accountability Office has warned
us they are all facing increasing cybersecurity related risks.
These water systems tell Congress all the time that they are
having to defend against consistent cybersecurity threats, and
attacks from nation states like China and Iran, as well as from
rogue cybercriminals. A successful large scale attack could
have tragic and catastrophic results.
Californians know that the United States is currently the
global leader in Artificial Intelligence (AI), innovation and
development. We want to keep it that way. It takes hundreds of
billions of gallons of clean water, not to mention a lot of
energy, to run data centers and manufacture microchips in the
U.S. each year. If we do not provide the necessary support to
ensure America has a water infrastructure system, a modern one,
we risk ceding our economic and technological dominance to
China.
Much of the Nation's drinking water infrastructure is in
need of repair or replacement. The EPA estimates that we will
need to address at least $625 billion over the next 20 years to
bring it up to par. Wastewater and stormwater systems will need
another $630 billion.
The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law invested over $50 billion
in our water. Thanks to this committee's work, communities are
able to access financial support for water infrastructure that
was previously out of reach through mechanisms like principal
forgiveness or grants.
Finally, I would be remiss if I did not emphasize that this
is why we need a high functioning EPA. The current
Administration has fired hundreds of EPA employees without
cause, and is reportedly trying to fire potentially thousands
more. The administrator has also clearly stated his intent to
submit a huge budget cut to Congress.
We need experts at EPA to implement funding for water
infrastructure, to write reasonable science-based protective
standards that keep contaminants out of our water, and to work
with States and communities to ensure our water systems are
ready to face modern challenges, especially as the changing
climate puts added stress on water systems across the Nation.
The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law was a great start in
providing needed investments to our community water systems. It
must be just that: the start. To support healthy, thriving
communities and global economic leadership, we must come
together as we have before to deliver on this fundamental need.
With that, I yield to the Chairman.
Senator Boozman. [Presiding.] Thank you, Senator Schiff.
We will now turn our attention to the witnesses for their
opening remarks. Our first witness is Kyle Dreyfuss-Wells,
Chief Executive Officer of the Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer
District. In this role, Ms. Dreyfuss-Wells works to provide
regional sanitary and stormwater management services to more
than one million residents in 63 communities across the Lake
Erie Watershed.
This morning, Ms. Dreyfuss-Wells is testifying on behalf of
the National Association of Clean Water Agencies.
I will now recognize Ms. Dreyfuss-Wells for five minutes
for her opening statement.
STATEMENT OF KYLE DREYFUSS-WELLS, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
NORTHEAST OHIO REGIONAL SEWER DISTRICT, ON BEHALF OF THE
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CLEAN WATER AGENCIES
Ms. Dreyfuss-Wells. Good morning. Thank you, Chairman
Boozman, Senator Schiff, and members of the Committee on
Environment and Public Works. I am Kyle Dreyfuss-Wells, Chief
Executive Officer of the Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer
District, a public utility serving Cleveland, Ohio and 62
surrounding communities.
We are also members of the National Association of Clean
Water Agencies (NACWA), and I am NACWA's Treasurer.
Thank you for inviting me to testify this morning about the
importance of the Clean Water State Revolving Fund and the
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. The Northeast Ohio
Regional Sewer District is one of the largest wastewater
treatment and stormwater management utilities in Ohio, serving
one million customers across 363 square miles of the Lake Erie
watershed. We do this in 2025 with a $191 million annual
operating budget and a $276 million capital program.
The Clean Water State Revolving Funds (SRF), is an
essential financing tool that helps us, and our member
communities, to maintain the clean water infrastructure
necessary to protect public health and the water quality on
which the economic vitality of Northeast Ohio depends. Through
my work with NACWA, I know that Northeast Ohio is not alone:
the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF), is critical for
utilities and communities across the Country.
IIJA's increases accelerated clean water investment, and
NACWA strongly supports the Clean Water SRF reauthorization
with IIJA funding levels as the baseline. As one of the largest
users of the Clean Water SRF in Ohio, Northeast Ohio Regional
Sewer District (NEORSD), has financed 111 wastewater projects
to date. Our decision, beginning in the 1990's, to use the
Clean Water SRF over other funding sources has resulted in
significant savings.
For example, our Shoreline Storage Tunnel is a $220 million
project under our $3 billion federally mandated program to
reduce combined sewer overflow. It is one of seven deep tunnels
we are constructing, is 14,500 feet long, 23 feet in diameter
and will eliminate 350 million gallons of Lake Erie pollution
each year.
It took us 5 years to construct, and we financed it through
the Clean Water SRF at very favorable terms, 40 years at 1.57
percent interest, while also deferring principal payments for
20 years. If we compare this to realistic financing through
bonds with less advantageous terms, 40 years at 3 percent
interest over the length of this one loan alone, we estimate
that this equates to $50 million in savings.
Beyond these savings, we have found that the flexibility
provided under the Clean Water SRF program brings great value
to our ratepayers and customers as part of our overall effort
for long-term rate control and stability. These flexibilities
include below-market interest rates, deferred principal,
extended terms, no need for offering documents or official
statements, and no bond rating and bond counsel costs.
It is these features of the Clean Water SRF program that
set it apart and are particularly helpful for smaller, less
sophisticated borrowers with limited exposure to debt
financing.
We are also grateful for the IIJA's inclusion of
supplemental grant funding through principal forgiveness. This
brought the Clean Water SRF to the attention of many of our
member communities as they work to address the $3.4 billion in
local clean water infrastructure needs impacting the quality of
life of their residents.
However, over the last 2 years working with our member
communities, we have found that it is still difficult for them
to access the fund. This is largely due to local governments'
hesitancy to absorb additional debt, staffing capacity, and
competing community priorities.
To mitigate these barriers, in 2023 we began assisting our
member communities. Maple Heights, Ohio is one example of a
community that has received more than $875,000 in principal
forgiveness since 2023 to address basement flooding and failing
local infrastructure. They addressed 50 flooded basements and
replaced 56,000 linear feet of sewers.
As I close, I would also like to emphasize that our work in
Northeast Ohio would not be possible without the commitment and
innovation of Ohio EPA and the Ohio Water Development
Authority. Together, these agencies implement the Ohio Clean
Water SRF, and are continually working to make the program more
accessible and usable for Ohio communities.
The Clean Water SRF is an important and highly successful
Federal, State, and local partnership that we can see is
accelerating critical clean water investment.
I appreciate the opportunity to testify and I look forward
to the discussion.
Thank you, Senator.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Dreyfuss-Wells follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Boozman. Thank you.
Our next witness is Tom Goulette. Mr. Goulette is the City
Administrator and Utility Superintendent for the city of West
Point, Nebraska. He has more than 40 years of experience in the
utility industry and has served as Nebraska Rural Water's
National Director since 2005.
This morning, Mr. Goulette is testifying on behalf of the
National Rural Water Association.
Mr. Goulette.
STATEMENT OF TOM GOULETTE, CITY ADMINISTRATOR AND UTILITY
SUPERINTENDENT, CITY OF WEST POINT, NEBRASKA, ON BEHALF OF THE
NATIONAL RURAL WATER ASSOCIATION
Mr. Goulette. Good morning, Chairman Boozman, Senator
Ricketts, Senator Schiff, and members of the committee. My name
is Tom Goulette, I am the President of the Nebraska Rural Water
Association, which represents 467 rural water utilities, about
92 percent of all systems serving under 10,000 people in
Nebraska.
I am here today on behalf of the National Rural Water
Association, where I serve on the executive committee as
treasurer. National Rural Water Association (NRWA), is the
Country's largest utility association with over 31,000 members
dedicated to drinking water, environmental protection, and
public health in all 50 States.
I come from the city of West Point, Nebraska, a rural
community of about 3,500, roughly 30 miles north of Omaha,
where there are more cattle than there are people. I serve our
community as City Administrator and Utility Superintendent
responsible for our water, wastewater, and electric utilities.
We operate about 1,600 water meters, 1,900 electric meters, and
employ 32 full-time staff. Four employees work in the water
department.
I started municipal work in the early 1980's as a
maintenance laborer at a wastewater plant and worked my way up,
gaining experience operating and evaluating facilities across
the Country. Since then, I have spent the last 30 years helping
small communities like mine address infrastructure challenges.
In rural America, we do not have the luxury of passing the
buck. During my time in West Point, we completely reconstructed
our wastewater treatment plant with State Revolving Fund
assistance, a loan we are close to paying off. Today, we are
preparing to update that facility once again, using SRF
financing.
Most recently, we faced a serious problem with our water
system. Our aging filters failed to remove iron and manganese,
leading to discolored water across the community. Restaurants,
schools, and our hospital had to install additional filtration
or switch to bottled water. High levels of manganese can pose
real public health risks, especially to the nervous system.
Thanks to a low-interest drinking water SRF loan, 1.5
percent interest plus a small administrative fee, and $553,000
in principal forgiveness, we secured $2.76 million to replace
our filters, piping, valves, controls, and install a backup
generator. Without that assistance, our residents would be
facing bills they simply could not afford.
It is an honor to small, rural community perspective on the
water provisions contained in the Infrastructure Investment and
Jobs Act. For towns like West Point, the IIJA will make
historic investments possible with funding that respects local
leadership and helps us to be better public servants.
Without meaningful grant assistance, the price of water and
wastewater services would become unaffordable for working
families. This assistance is imperative to prevent rural
depopulation and a shrinking customer base, which in turn
drives up the cost per household, especially as repairing and
replacing aging infrastructure is getting harder every year,
and the regulatory compliance landscape continues to grow more
complex.
That is why the technical assistance provisions you
included in the IIJA are so important. Many small communities
simply do not have the financial, managerial or technical
capacity to access Federal programs on their own. Rural water
has built a trusted network of local experts who help small,
rural, disadvantaged and tribal communities meet EPA compliance
standards, avoid penalties, and access SRF infrastructure
funding.
Without this technical assistance offered by each State
rural water association, many communities would be left behind.
Another major concern is PFAS regulation. Water systems
across rural America support the removal of these harmful
substances from the water supply. However, we did not put PFAS
into the environment, and we should not be penalized for it.
That is why we strongly support the Water Systems PFAS
Liability Protection Act. This legislation upholds the polluter
pays principle of the Superfund law while protecting water
systems and their customers from devastating fees and cleanup
costs.
Last, the water sector work force crisis is growing. Over
half of our skilled operators are expected to retire within the
next decade. Thanks to the committee's leadership and Chairman
Capito's longstanding support, rural water launched the first
federally approved apprenticeship program for water and
wastewater operators.
Today, 34 State rural water associations have earned
Federal approval of their apprenticeship programs. We have
enrolled or graduated over 900 apprentices nationwide, and so
far are actively training the next generation of operators who
will be on the front lines of the public health protection in
small and rural communities across the Country.
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you for the
opportunity to testify today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Goulette follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Boozman. Thank you.
Our final witness this morning is Eric Oswald, the Director
of Drinking Water and Environmental Health Division of the
Michigan Department of Environment Great Lakes and Energy. In
2017, Mr. Oswald retired as a Colonel from the U.S. Air Force
with 28 years of experience in construction, repair and
maintenance of critical infrastructure. Mr. Oswald also serves
as the President of the Association of State Drinking Water
Administrators, and is testifying on their behalf today.
Mr. Oswald.
STATEMENT OF ERIC OSWALD, PRESIDENT OF THE ASSOCIATION OF STATE
DRINKING WATER ADMINISTRATORS
Mr. Oswald. Thank you, members of the Environment and
Public Works Committee, my name is Eric Oswald. I am the
President of the Association of State Drinking Water
Administrators (ASDWA), whose 57 members include the 50 State
drinking water programs, five territorial programs, the Navajo
Nation, and the District of Columbia, referred to in the
remainder of this testimony as States.
ASDWA's members work on the front lines every day to
protect public health and ensure safe drinking water through
the implementation of the Safe Drinking Water Act.
I am also the Drinking Water Administrator for the State of
Michigan; however, I would like to make it clear that my
testimony today is on behalf of ASDWA, and that I am not
testifying on behalf of the State of Michigan.
Thank you for this opportunity to provide the perspective
of ASDWA on this historic investment in drinking water
infrastructure provided through the Bipartisan Infrastructure
Law, or BIL. The provision of safe drinking water and
investment in our Nation's drinking water infrastructure is
paramount to economic development and public health protection.
This testimony will highlight the nationwide State Drinking
Water Program successes of the BIL investment and will provide
recommendations that can streamline future infrastructure
project implementation.
BIL provides an unprecedented and much-needed investment in
our Nation's drinking water infrastructure. This funding is
stimulating long-overdue infrastructure projects that would not
have otherwise been possible. These projects address a wide
range of needed improvements and range in size from $43,000 to
$65 million. Projects include basic upgrades to address
longstanding needs to full-scale infrastructure overhauls, lead
service line inventories and replacements, improvement of
distribution systems and installation of treatment for PFAS and
other emerging contaminants.
In addition to the infrastructure projects, several States
use portions of the funding for staff for both implementation
of BIL projects and to address regulatory requirements that
have been unfunded through a stagnant Public Water System
Supervision (PWSS) grant and a decreasing Base, Drinking Water
State Revolving Fund (DWSRF), capitalization grant.
Importantly, Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL), creates
visibility and momentum around water infrastructure needs, and
reinforces the role of DWSRF programs as trusted partners in
long-term infrastructure resilience.
The PWSS grant program is a critical funding source for
State programs, but has not kept up with inflation and the
costs associated with maintaining a State drinking water
program. PWSS grants are used to support staff salaries,
including inspectors, support staff, and engineers. With the
expected end of bill in Fiscal Year 2026, States will
experience major funding cuts, and without full restoration of
State Revolving Fund based capital grants, States will have to
begin cutting important programs and services.
While the BIL funding is a historic investment in drinking
water infrastructure, the needs dwarf the available funding.
According to EPA's most recent needs survey, $625 billion is
needed over the next 20 years to maintain and upgrade drinking
water systems, underscoring the importance of continued Federal
investment.
Our recommendations, waivers. While BIL funding has been
immensely beneficial, State programs have faced several
challenges. Flexibility with future funding will be critical to
achieving the goal of helping citizens and communities that
need the funding the most. States and EPA must continue to work
together to make funding applications streamlined, efficient,
and simple.
ASDWA recommends the development of waivers in limited
circumstances for the requirements of the Buy America, Build
America, and Davis-Bacon Acts to make these funds simpler to
obtain for those most in need.
Greater flexibility in how States meet subsidy requirements
is essential. Current funding requires exact percentages for
principal forgiveness, which creates administrative challenges.
For example, 49 percent of funding for lead service line
replacement must be provided as additional subsidy through
principal forgiveness or grants. Allowing a range of up to a
percentage rather than a fixed threshold would ease
implementation.
Future investments should allow States more discretion over
project eligibility and priority. While dedicated funding for
lead service line replacement and emerging contaminants is
critical, the prescriptive nature of some bill funding limits
the ability of States to fund projects that address more urgent
local needs.
An extended timeframe, ideally longer than 5 years, would
also be beneficial for the States. A 5-year timeframe is not
feasible for complex projects and the detailed funding
requirements.
The current funding approach results in a resource strain
on States to administer and separately track multiple grants,
each with unique requirements. To improve long-term success,
future funding should be accompanied by streamlined Federal
guidance and simplified reporting.
Sustainability is critical for Federal and State funding
programs as well. While the additional subsidy provided through
BIL is essential, there may be unintended consequences of an
over-reliance on grant funding. While BIL funding is
substantial, we need to ensure the public water systems
successfully operate and maintain their infrastructure. Systems
using BIL funds should not view DWSRFs as a long-term financial
strategy.
The BIL funding should be viewed only as a first step in
addressing the current and future needs of our drinking water
infrastructure.
Cybersecurity, again, is an important and challenging
issue, due to limited resources and the lack of detailed
knowledge across the sector. Federal oversight and leadership
is needed to make the most efficient and impactful steps
forward.
Cybersecurity accountability must be approached
holistically, recognizing that responsibility does not rest
solely with the water sector.
In closing, ASDWA and its members remain deeply committed
to safeguarding our Nation's drinking water. We greatly
appreciate BIL funding and have suggestions to maximize its
impact nationwide, and look forward to working together to
continue to protect the public health of all Americans.
On behalf of ASDWA's members, I want to sincerely thank you
for your continued investment in America's public water
systems, and the people they serve. I would be happy to answer
any questions you may have, and again, thank you for inviting
me to speak today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Oswald follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Boozman. Let's begin the questioning phase of the
committee.
Senator Padilla.
Senator Padilla. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I very much
appreciate the opportunity to chime in on the subject at hand.
In 2021, one of the first things we did in this committee,
and you may recall, was pass the Drinking Water and Wastewater
Infrastructure Act, which became the foundation for the
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. I am especially proud that the
BIL included provisions and it championed both water re-use and
stormwater management, replaced lead service lines, and to
prioritize technical assistance, which, Mr. Goulette, you spoke
to this a minute ago, technical assistance for small systems
that oftentimes struggle to be able to provide that for
themselves.
I am proud that the committee's bipartisan efforts became
the largest single Federal investment in water infrastructure
in history.
Thanks to the IIJA, small water systems in Tulare County,
for example, Senator Schiff and I both represent Tulare County,
California, they can now treat pervasive contaminants in
drinking water. Farmworker communities like those in Pajaro who
can now rebuild their water systems after historic storms left
the town completely underwater. The community of Colusa was
able to install water meters and fire hydrants to prepare for
inevitable western drought conditions.
Whether they face fire, floods or droughts, or aging
infrastructure and emerging contaminants, water systems and the
customers they serve are now facing more than $1.2 trillion in
infrastructure needs over the next two decades. As the
witnesses today know better than most, ratepayers will bear the
brunt of those costs, especially in small communities, rural
communities, and tribal communities. By nature, they have much
smaller rate bases.
For many rural communities, including the tribal
communities, farmworker communities that have spoken up and
communities near sites of legacy industrial contaminants end up
paying twice, in reality: once for the contaminated water that
is flowing through their pipes, and once again for the much
costlier bottled water that they are forced to rely on.
It is hard to believe that in Fresno County, a typical
family has to pay $280 a month for water that fails to comply
with our Clean Drinking Water standards. It is one of the
reasons I have been pushing for years for a permanent national
water assistance program, just like we do for energy bills.
My question, frankly, is for all of you, starting with Ms.
Dreyfuss-Wells. As we examine the different ways to improve
administration of the SRFs, bolster technical assistance, how
could a permanent water assistance program help cushion the
impact of infrastructure upgrades for water systems and the
people that they serve?
Ms. Dreyfuss-Wells. Thank you, Senator. Yes, very important
to make sure that we bring all of our customers along with us.
As you point out, low-income water assistance is very important
to make sure that those folks who do have difficulty paying
their bills have the support to be able to pay their bills.
I will say that that at the Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer
District, our leadership has taken this seriously since 2009.
We have had our own affordability programs. We work very hard
to make sure that we connect eligible customers with those
programs, which is another significant barrier.
Low-income household water assistance is important to make
sure that you bring all of your customers along with you and
can keep the cost low for your utility across all of your
ratepayers.
Senator Padilla. I would like to hear from each of you.
Mr. Goulette. To go along with that, many small communities
already stretch their dollars. They are being forced to shelve
projects just to make ends meet. We do not want them to become
more disadvantaged because they feed us, they feed us into
other systems, other programs.
You know, keeping the rates competitive while making them
reasonably desirable and affordable, I think that is the key.
Mr. Oswald. Yes, I think those types of programs are
incredibly important. I know they lessen the burden of
regulatory authorities by providing technical and financial
assistance to these smaller communities. We have many regional
systems that do these programs on their own that try to give
back and make water more affordable. It is a very big challenge
for them.
I know the Federal funding has made a huge impact for our
systems.
Senator Padilla. Just a followup question for you, Mr.
Oswald. Correct me if I am wrong, but Federal investment in
water infrastructure has declined, if my numbers are correct,
by 77 percent since their peak in the 1970's. The Federal
Governments' share in new infrastructure upgrades, let alone
operations and maintenance, that is another whole conversation.
How critical is Federal investment in water infrastructure
for supporting water affordability?
Mr. Oswald. It is incredibly important. It offsets
ratepayer expenses; it can make more efficient investment
across the board in drinking water. It has to be followed up.
We have this incredible investment in infrastructure, we need
to make sure we maintain that investment as well, and not
ignore it as we go into the future, or we are going to be
facing this problem again in 20, 30 years.
Senator Padilla. Thank you all. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Senator Boozman. I apologize; I woke up this morning with
some sort of allergy thing. Hopefully my voice will hold up for
a little bit.
In Arkansas, we are finding ourselves in a position where
IIJA lead service line funding is simply not being spent, and
leftover funds will end up going to other States under current
law. This is not because there is not a need for water
infrastructure upgrades, but it is largely due to the
requirement of the 50 percent match to grant funds and many
small and disadvantaged communities simply can not come up with
the funding.
In a recent survey, the Arkansas Natural Resources
Commission received over $5 billion in requests for water and
wastewater projects. In other words, we have this tremendous
need and could use any leftover lead service line replacement
funding for traditional water infrastructure projects. Simply
put, our needs are just different.
Let's start with Mr. Goulette. You mentioned in your
testimony small communities in Nebraska are having a similar
program. Can you speak to your experience navigating the
matching requirement and how increased flexibility, whether in
eligible uses or match waivers, could help your community and
others like it better meet their water infrastructure needs?
Mr. Goulette. Sure. One of the struggles was the matching
funds, as you mentioned, coming together for that purpose.
Those communities will be taking those funds from somewhere
else to bring that match to that water system.
For us in West Point, we were fortunate enough where we did
some planning, we did some set-asides and we were able to
retire some debt early on, expecting the water project that we
just completed. That was one of the big I guess proactive
aspect of it. That is one of the things that we do on the rural
water side, is we try to remain proactive, plan in advance of
what the upcoming needs of the communities are as we did in
West Point.
Senator Boozman. Very good.
Ms. Dreyfuss-Wells.
Ms. Dreyfuss-Wells. Yes, I think, Senator, to your point,
the way that communities are able to get projects done is
through long-term planning. Understanding the need in their
community and then to your point, being able to actually build
a project funding portfolio around any given project.
What we have seen in Northeast Ohio is that our under-
resourced communities have actually been able to have the
funding to be able to put together a plan. We have supported
that at the sewer district. Then they can rely on IIJA
principal forgiveness as well as State funding, as well as some
funding from the sewer district, to put that together and meet
those match requirements.
Any reduction in those match requirements would help
communities take advantage of this funding and get projects
done.
Senator Boozman. Very good.
Mr. Oswald.
Mr. Oswald. Yes, I would agree with that. We need
flexibility. The prescriptive 49 percent or 50 percent subsidy
creates problems when actual construction costs come in and
they differ from what the estimates were. We have found that to
be an issue.
It also prevents communities from doing a dig once, if they
have to defer those lead service line, or execute those lead
service line replacements apart from water main replacements,
and creates an unnecessary burden on the community to dig up
roads more than one time.
Senator Boozman. Very good.
For all of you, can you give us one or two examples from
your community where recent Federal or State investments made a
measurable difference in water or wastewater infrastructure?
Based on those experiences, what improvements could help ensure
funding reaches the communities that need it most and is used
as effectively as possible?
Ms. Dreyfuss-Wells. Senator, I will give two examples. I
talked about Maple Heights, Ohio, which is a very typical
Cleveland first-ring suburb, under-resourced community that has
taken a very deliberate approach to deal with its financial
issues. They were able, through the Infrastructure Investment
and Jobs Act principal forgiveness, as I said, to address
basement flooding and failing sewers in their streets.
When we are talking about basement flooding, we are talking
about sewage in people's basements, which is really the first
line of a public health issue that needs to be addressed. Maple
Heights, Ohio, has had significant success, Richmond Heights as
well, addressing flooded streets, basement flooding, through
the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. It has been a
wonderful resource for those communities.
Senator Boozman. Very good.
Mr. Goulette. Senator, I do not have a good answer for you
on that at this time. I would have to defer back to our State
primacy agency and get that information back to you.
Mr. Oswald. I am going to use the example of Benton Harbor,
Michigan, where a cooperative effort between the local
citizens, the State of Michigan, and the Federal EPA resulted
in the elimination of all lead service lines in the community
over a year timeframe. That would not have been possible
without this infrastructure funding. That was a great example
of how cooperative federalism and everybody working in
partnership can make a huge impact on a community.
Senator Boozman. Very good.
Senator Schiff.
Senator Schiff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Oswald, during the last Administration, EPA issued the
first-ever legally enforceable drinking water standard for
PFAS, forever chemicals. In California, many of our water
systems were already working on this issue and started
investing in PFAS filtration years before the regulation.
Nevertheless, both in California and around the Country,
the need to continue focusing on getting PFAS out of our water
is overwhelming and it is expensive. How would you prioritize
the need to remove PFAS, that is given that the cost of removal
is extraordinary, the cost of not removing it is far greater?
Nevertheless, how do we triage that problem? How do we
identify where we make those investments first?
Similarly, the cost of getting all the lead out is
extraordinary. It is well beyond anything we put in the
Infrastructure Bill. How do we triage that problem as well?
Mr. Oswald. For PFAS, we have been testing for PFAS for
over 5 years now. The first step is to know where it is at. We
take a balanced approach to systems that exceed Per- and
Polyfluoroalkyl substances Maximum Containment Levels, PFAS
MCLs. We first look at their source water to see if they can
change source water.
We then look to see if there is a community near them that
they could hook up to that maybe does not have the PFAS issue
and foster a regional approach to PFAS.
Then obviously, to treatment, which can be extremely
expensive. Then you have to deal with the waste product of that
treatment as well.
Lead service lines, again, is a huge balancing act. It is
incredibly expensive. When we started in Michigan, I think the
average cost was $5,000 to remove a lead service line. It is
upwards of $8,000 to $10,000 now. You have to balance that
investment against investments in distribution systems and
water treatment plant upgrades.
I think a balanced approach and a given timeline is the
best way to address that so we do not bankrupt the checkbook
with removing all these lead service lines at once, with
upgrading water treatment plants and doing things on that end
of the scale.
Again, it is a balanced approach, and like you said, it is
triage. It is looking at what we can do in a reasonable manner
and a reasonable timeframe, not on the backs of ratepayers in
totality, but to use a balanced approach of funding.
Senator Schiff. Opening up the question to the other
witnesses, what is the State of the treatment to remove PFAS?
Are we able to remove all PFAS chemicals or only certain PFAS
chemicals? How do we deal with the waste that is created as a
result? Can you shed some light on that?
Mr. Goulette. For Nebraska and rural water systems, it
becomes an economy of scale as to what that financial impact
would be to the users. For example, we have a small community
just south of us, about 240 residents, that have a significant
PFAS showing up in their drinking water system. They have two
wells. Both of those wells were equal in showing up PFAS.
It would be more economical for them to hook onto another
water system, or to find another water source, rather than go
through a treatment process and require the disposal and
everything else that goes along with the PFAS.
Senator Schiff. If that water that is PFAS contaminated,
let's say they do not use it for drinking water, can that water
be used for anything else? If it is used for irrigation, does
that simply move the PFAS into the food that they eat?
Mr. Goulette. Well, I think it moves it back into the food
chain. We are a farming community, there is a lot of
agriculture around there. I think that would absorb the PFAS
and we would have other issues.
Ms. Dreyfuss-Wells. Senator, I would add two things. From
the Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District's perspective, PFAS
has not emerged as a significant issue in our watersheds. We
are preparing for it as an emerging contaminant, and have been
able to access through the IIJA's Emerging Contaminants funding
some dollars to look at landfill leachate, as a treatment
process for landfill leachate, which can be a potential source
of PFAS.
Then also some additional laboratory equipment to make sure
we can analyze the products coming to us.
I will say from NACWA's perspective, we are very focused on
dealing with PFAS a is source, which are those companies that
are producing PFAS, as opposed to having that burden come to
public wastewater treatment facilities, where we are really the
end of the conversation, not the beginning.
Senator Schiff. Do any of you have a sense of the State of
the technology? Is it capable of removing all the different
forms of PFAS? Or are we still not there yet?
Mr. Oswald. We are there. I think we can remove all the
PFAS. You have reverse osmosis; you have activated carbon. It
is how you deal with that waste stream that you generate as
well, do you send it to a landfill, how do you deal with that
waste stream so you are not reintroducing it into the
environment and creating more problems?
We can treat it, we can get it down. It is expensive and
you have to deal with the waste.
Senator Schiff. Where is the research being done? Is that
something that Congress can further augment to determine what
is the most cost effective way, protective way to handle the
waste that results from that filtration process?
Mr. Oswald. We rely heavily on EPA's Office of Research and
Development for that type of expertise to do that research and
inform us on what the best methodologies are and what the
impacts are.
Senator Schiff. One last question on lead. In terms of
triaging the lead problem, I assume that the severity of the
problem in a particular venue depends on the degradation of the
pipe but also the acidity of the water. What should that tell
us if anything about how we triage that problem? Is it just a
matter of testing the water to see where the combination of
those factors produces the worst result? Or are there other
ways to do an analysis of the sort of the State of different
pipes, so that we can identify which to replace first?
Mr. Oswald. We can study pipes, and we do that through pipe
loop studies. There is a lot of research on that.
The bottom line is we have to get the lead out of the
system. We can treat the water and make it non-corrosive, but
you are just one instance away or one accident away from
creating an issue where the water gets very acidic for a
certain period of time and leaches or takes that protective
coating off the lead pipes.
We can do a lot of treatment on the positive side for
corrosion control treatment. Again, it is a band-aid on the
problem. We have to get the lead out of the system, and we have
to deal, to a certain extent, with premise plumbing, too,
because you have a lot of lead inside houses in the form of
solder or fixtures that can also create a problem. We have had
systems that have absolutely no lead service lines and they
still have lead action level exceedances because of this
premise plumbing.
Senator Schiff. Got you. Thank you very much, Chairman.
Senator Boozman.
Senator Alsobrooks.
Senator Alsobrooks. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair, and thank
you so much to our witnesses for being here today.
The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law has been really
transformative for our water infrastructure across the Country,
most especially in a place like Maryland. The funding Congress
provided supports a range of key programs which finance
critical upgrades to wastewater and drinking water systems,
also enhances stormwater and flood resilience infrastructure
and invests as well in lead pipe replacement and water system
sustainability.
These programs have been absolutely transformative in
Maryland. It has really helped Maryland to modernize its
infrastructure, to reduce pollution and deliver clean, safe
water to communities, especially those who have historically
faced economic barriers.
I look forward to working with this committee to build on
the success of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. The few
questions that I have, the first one will be for Mr. Oswald and
Ms. Dreyfuss-Wells. The Bipartisan Law provided funding to
solve longstanding water infrastructure problems and address
some of the most pressing public health challenges in our
communities. In Maryland, State Revolving Fund supports
projects that improve drinking water, removed lead service
lines in Baltimore and stopped sewer backups in basements to
keep wastewater out of the Chesapeake Bay.
Now, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, as we know, was a
critical down payment on upgrading our Nation's water
infrastructure. What we know is that it was just that; it was a
down payment. The question for you all is, let me just say
first of all that if we do not reauthorize the Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law programs that continue to provide funding,
the gap in Maryland between resources and necessary investments
would be about $125 million per year.
The question is, Mr. Oswald and Ms. Dreyfuss-Wells, would
you both speak to what it would mean for your organizations and
for drinking water and clean water systems across the Country
if the Federal Government ceases to partner in this effort?
Mr. Oswald. I will tell you we have a tremendous backlog of
deferred repair and maintenance and replacement in our drinking
water infrastructure, similar to our highways. The tougher
problem with drinking water is it is out of sight; it is out of
mind.
We tend to let that infrastructure go until the point that
it fails. We have systems that are over 80 to 100 years old in
our distribution systems. Those need to be replaced. The
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law is a mechanism to downgrade or
down pay, get a down payment on that backlog and get that
backlog reduced or eliminated, in most cases.
Personally, as a State and as State drinking water
administrators, we have to do a better job with asset
management. Once we get that backlog taken care of, and it is a
huge backlog, we have to do a better job of making sure that
our systems use proper asset management to make sure that
investment does not go to waste, that we do not ignore it for
the next 50 years, that we continue to maintain and operate it
as needed so we can protect that investment.
Again, it is like your car. You can change the oil like you
need to and it will last a long time. You run that car for
20,000 miles and then change the oil, change the engine, it
gets a lot more costly. It is a combination of things. We need
the Bipartisan Infrastructure funding to get rid of the
backlog, and then we need to do a better job of maintaining
that system.
Ms. Dreyfuss-Wells. Senator, what I would add to that, yes,
obviously there is a huge backlog. You talked about Maryland's
backlog. Communities have this across the Country. We need to
have the funding to address those issues and to address the
issues going forward.
I also want to highlight that the Clean Water SRF is a
financing tool, that communities need that consistency, they
need to know it is there, so that they can do their long-term
financial planning, they can build a package of financing
around a particular project. That is how we deliver projects
efficiently.
I know it is a bit of a snooze, but project management is
the silver bullet. The Clean Water SRF is essential to that
project management, because it is the lowest cost of borrowing
for utilities across the Country. That is essential.
Senator Alsobrooks. Okay. I see the time is gone. I will
just ask quickly about the Chesapeake Bay. This is for Mr.
Oswald.
As the largest estuary in the United States, the Chesapeake
Bay is a critical source of drinking water. However, the Bay
has been under stress for decades due to pollution and climate
change significantly impacting water quality and affordability
in the Bay. For this reason and many others, there are ongoing
efforts to restore and protect the Bay.
Just quickly, would you discuss how protecting the
Chesapeake Bay lowers the cost and increases the availability
of drinking water in communities?
Mr. Oswald. Obviously, source water protection is
foundational in the drinking water business. We try to be very
protective of our water sources, be they surface water or
groundwater. Protecting those surface waters lowers the bill
for everybody, because you do not have to treat as much. You
eliminate things like harmful algal blooms that can sicken a
lot of people very quickly.
Investing in that with our Clean Water partners is huge to
reduce nutrient loads on bodies of water like that, and reduce
the pollution going into that from PFAS, microplastics or
whatever other emerging contaminant you want to talk to.
Yes, source water protection is huge.
Senator Alsobrooks. Thank you.
Senator Capito. [Presiding.] Thank you. I am back, and
ready to ask a couple of questions. Thank you all for your
patience.
I mentioned, Mr. Goulette, this is for you, I mentioned in
my opening statement several times the challenges of rural
communities in facing these infrastructure challenges. Many of
the systems, if there are existing systems, are so old. The one
thing that has always bothered me about our systems in West
Virginia is the leakage. I am sure that is from ancient and
old, or not ancient, but very old technologies.
Anyway, based on your experience, what are the greatest
challenges that rural communities face? What policies should we
prioritize to provide additional support or technical tools to
help people address these issues?
Mr. Goulette. The greatest thing we see in Nebraska
specifically, and pretty much across the Nation, is the
geographic isolation of those small systems. Being able to, for
example, I have Nebraska rural water circuit riders go out and
assist those programs, those systems, especially when there is
that lack of economy of scale and untrained operators. We see
so much turnover in that field also right now.
The other thing we are spending a lot of time with is
educating the local governments in those small communities.
There is such a significant turnover, and that ever changing
regulatory environment also plays a part in that.
Senator Capito. Right. With your circuit riders, do you
feel like they are stretched too thin? Or do they have enough,
I mean, obviously everybody always wants more. Let's just say
in a practical sense, are they able to cover the State of
Nebraska sufficiently?
Mr. Goulette. Yes, I think we do an excellent job. We have
three drinking water circuit riders that run around the State
of Nebraska, they average about 30,000, 35,000 miles a year, 35
contacts a month. They are there, basically on an on-call basis
also to assist those systems when they are in need of some type
of help or environmental issues that impact their systems.
Senator Capito. Okay, good. Thank you.
Ms. Dreyfuss-Wells, I want to talk about the cooperative
federalism principles that I outlined in my opening statement.
From your experience, administering projects funded by State
Revolving Funds, could you discuss that importance for the
States to maintain their flexibility to prioritize what best
meets their needs?
The other issue, and I do not know if you can address this,
is the issue of financing large projects, a State Revolving
Fund in many cases is only one portion of this. You could have
other State sources or Federal sources or county resources, but
also the ratepayer is always gone back to for rate increases.
That is really difficult for communities as they try to face
this.
First of all, talk about the importance of maintaining
flexibility, and then any other kind of creative ideas that you
have run into on the financing aspect.
Ms. Dreyfuss-Wells. Thank you, Senator. I think Ohio is
such a great example of this flexibility. As I said, the Ohio
EPA and the Ohio Water Development Authority run our clean
water SRF. They have for years taken a very innovative approach
to make sure that they understand the needs of communities, and
that they are structuring financing packages to meet those
needs.
As I said, we have worked with them since the 1990's and
they have evolved every year, looking at our capital plan,
looking at the capital plan of other communities like Columbus,
what can they do to be flexible. This idea of structured loans
with deferred principal payments, this is something that they
came up with.
Your point is spot on in terms of States need to have that
flexibility to implement their programs, to meet the needs of
the communities.
Senator Capito. Right. Well, I'm certain that certain
portions of Ohio are a lot like our more rural areas down in
the southern part of Ohio, southeastern Ohio, it is probably
very similar to West Virginia.
Ms. Dreyfuss-Wells. Absolutely. I will just say that is
where the technical assistance is so important because as you
know, we are talking about a township trustee. Maybe they have
a township administrator. They probably have a consulting
engineer if they are lucky.
That consulting engineer is going to have to put that
funding package together and they need to have the technical
support to write a project application that is going to get
funded.
Senator Capito. Thank you.
I am not really sure who this question would be best
addressed by, so I will throw it up to all three of you. In the
water portion of the bill, there was some remediations for lead
and lead pipes. Part of the issue, I believe, that we have run
into is how far does that money go.
Does it go to the edge of the yard and then the homeowner
is in charge of it? Does it go into the house? What have you
found in that, and how can we--I think we acknowledge that we
are not going to get to where we want it to go with the
ambitious program that was put forward.
Does anybody have any experience with that that they would
want to talk about?
Mr. Oswald. Yes, I can address that a little bit. There is
a private side for lead service lines. Obviously usually at the
curb stop, you have a valve you can shut off. In most cases,
from the valve to the home is privately owned. The rest of it,
up to the water main, is publicly owned.
To coordinate those two can be extremely difficult.
Senator Capito. Yes, because the homeowner could own the
lead part of it.
Mr. Oswald. They could. They could refuse permission to the
water system to come in and replace that. Most States have
outlawed partial service line replacements, because it can
create issues. If the homeowner declines, then you are stuck,
you can not replace anything.
It is very, very problematic. That private and public
ownership, that we do not run into, say, in the electricity or
natural gas, it is just an oddity. In Michigan, we require the
systems to replace the whole service line at their expense to
eliminate environmental justice issues where a homeowner that
could pay for their side gets the whole thing replaced, whereas
a homeowner that can not afford that, they do not get any lead
service line replacement. That is a huge challenge.
The States differ on what laws govern that, whether you can
pay ratepayer funds to replace that private side.
Senator Capito. Right. Does anybody have another comment on
that?
Ms. Dreyfuss-Wells. I am sorry, Senator, I am bouncing in
my seat to comment on that. Very much an issue on the lead
service line, not my area of expertise, but it is also an issue
on the sewer side. Much of the infiltration, the inflow and
infiltration that we have of leaking of sanitary and storm
sewers, there is a big component on the private side.
The only thing I will add is that this is where trust comes
in between utilities and their customers, making sure that
folks know who you are before you come to their homes to ask to
be able to do work on the private side. That is something that
we very much focused on in Northeast Ohio.
Senator Capito. All right, thank you.
Senator Ricketts.
Senator Ricketts. Thank you very much. Appreciate it.
Welcome, everybody, to all of our witnesses today. I
appreciate your taking the time. Tom, great to have you here,
to be able to represent Nebraska.
Tom brings just a wealth of information to this committee.
If there is a job involving water in the State of Nebraska over
the last 40 year, Tom has done that job. He has been obviously
currently in West Point, a great community there in Cumming
County. Just the depth of expertise is amazing.
I am actually going to read off some of this stuff because
it is pretty impressive. He served as chairman of the
Governor's Advisory Council for Drinking Water, chairman of the
Municipal Energy Agency of Nebraska, chairman of the League of
Nebraska Utilities Section, and president of the Nebraska Rural
Water, just to name a few. You are currently chairman of the
League of Municipalities Small Cities Legislative Committee.
Say hi to Lynn for me when you get back.
Mr. Goulette. I will do that.
Senator Ricketts. If you are not busy enough, you are
engaged in very civic engagements, where you have served as the
utility superintendent for the city of West Point sine 1993,
and added City Administrator to your business card in 2001. You
still have both those titles today, right?
Mr. Goulette. Yes.
Senator Ricketts. Yes, so it just shows, again, in small
towns, people wear a lot of hats.
Before the committee today, your post is to Nebraska Rural
Water Association. You have been on the board there since 2005
and are currently serving on the executive committee. Thank you
again, Tom, for being here. We really, really appreciate your
experience that you bring to this committee.
Mr. Goulette. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Ricketts. Welcome. What I would like to talk a
little bit about is many small and rural communities face
significant challenges in accessing and managing the Federal
infrastructure dollars due to limited staffing and technical
expertise. We saw this in other areas as well, like the
Department of Transportation and so forth.
When we met in February, the Nebraska Rural Water
Association shared some of these barriers. What types of
resources or policy changes could Congress consider making to
Federal programs to make them more efficient for small and
rural communities?
Mr. Goulette. A lot of it comes down to simplifying the
application requirements for those small communities. Typically
they know best what their needs are going to be when it comes
to upgrading their systems or changing the equipment and that
type of thing, along with the assistance from the Nebraska
Rural Water Association, our circuit riders are there lending
assistance and quantifying that.
Then once they get to that point, once they can get to some
type of formulation of what that community needs, that is when
an application needs to go in. Then that should allow for some
additional engineering, then, at that stage, once that product
is identified and the community can have some buy-in, for lack
of a better term.
The other thing is that reducing those match requirements,
a lot of the small, rural communities, they stretch every
dollar they have. When they are looking at this and they are
looking at the match requirements to comply with that, it
becomes difficult. Then they have to balance out where their
priorities lie within the financial capabilities of that
community.
Some of those projects get put on the shelf, then, at that
point.
Senator Ricketts. [Presiding.] Yes, and that is not
necessarily true for West Point, because West Point is really
doing well, but what we see, is it fair to say in a lot of our
rural communities we see that it as the younger people move
away and you are left with declining population of older folks,
that just adds to the complication of being able to get these
water projects done?
Mr. Goulette. It does, and along with that is our aging
work force. We see a lot of operators aging out, those are one
and two-man operations. Once that legacy leaves that community,
they are difficult to replace. That makes the challenge even
more difficult to help sustain that community.
Senator Ricketts. Again, is there something we can do in
Congress to be able to help with some of those work force
challenges?
Mr. Goulette. One of the things is the apprenticeship
program that Senator Capito put in place a few years ago. We
need to get hat moving in Nebraska. We need to get that funding
moving in Nebraska, we need to get an apprenticeship program
and start that process to engage those communities and show
them options, bring trained operators to the facilities.
Senator Ricketts. Yes. Can you just give us briefly just
how some of these Federal funding programs have made otherwise
cost-prohibitive projects in small towns and rural communities
possible?
Mr. Goulette. Yes, basically when you are looking at the
projects themselves, you are looking at the market base on
interest rates and that type of thing and the longevity, it
makes it more economically feasible for those small
communities. There is the grant basis that they also can
qualify for, which also helps them.
Senator Ricketts. Can you give me an example of a specific
project off the top of your head?
Mr. Goulette. The easiest example right now is the city of
West Point. We did the water project here a few years ago where
we had a $2.7 million water treatment plant. Of that $2.7
million, $553,000 of that was loan forgiveness. Then in
addition to that was the 1.5 percent interest rate plus the
administrative fee for the State.
It makes it very economically feasible to get those
programs in place, rather than going out to the open market.
Senator Ricketts. All right, great. Well, oh, we lost our
Chair. I guess I am in charge on the Republican side now.
[Laughter.]
Senator Ricketts. I am going to take a moment just to talk
a little bit as well about an important project, not
specifically related to drinking water, but access to water in
general in our State is obviously important. We are the largest
irrigating State in the Country.
I was just in Scotts Bluff last week, and the Gering-Fort
Laramie Canal collapsed while I was Governor, and we worked to
get some temporary repairs in place there. It is owned by the
Bureau of Reclamation, but through a program they built the
canal there 100 years ago, and when it collapsed, it cutoff
about 55,000 acres of Nebraska farm land from getting
irrigation water. That obviously is just huge for a State like
Nebraska, where irrigation is big, but also agriculture is our
biggest industry in the State.
We are going to be looking for opportunities to be able to
have the Federal Government partner to be able to get the
permanent repairs on that done, because right now it is
operating at about 80 percent capacity. I was just talking to
folks about it, again, just getting to this idea of like how
expensive it is for these projects and how, with the drinking
water and make it possible in West Point, but the cost it would
be for those farmers to be able to pay the extra fees to be
able to get those total repairs done would be really, really
challenging.
That is another project, another example of how the Federal
Government can help partner with States and local communities
to be able to get these water projects done.
With that, Senator Schiff, you have already asked your
questions, is that accurate or no?
Senator Schiff. I did, yes.
Senator Ricketts. I see we have now Senator Blunt
Rochester. We will turn it over to you.
Senator Blunt Rochester. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you
to the witnesses. Sorry I am in between hearings. I think a lot
of people are running around, so hopefully none of my questions
have been asked.
I really do believe this is such a critical hearing,
particularly building on the successes of IIJA and I am
grateful that we are also focusing specifically on water
infrastructure. Many people might not know that Delaware, even
though we are a small State, we are actually urban, suburban,
rural and coastal. Our water issues are very much a microcosm
of the Country.
In Delaware, we were really pleased, particularly for our
rural communities to have places like Seaford, Delaware, where
they were awarded a $2.1 million loan from IIJA to replace a
70-year old drinking water main line containing lead
components. It has been critical to our communities, because of
the removal of lead, the reduction of PFAS in drinking water,
and also helping make water more affordable for families.
My first question is for Mr. Goulette. I understand that
many water systems in your association serve fewer than 10,000
people. Can you speak to how critical IIJA's infusion of
Federal funding is to small systems?
Mr. Goulette. Yes, thank you for that. Basically it helps
with the geographic isolation of the communities. That is one
of the keys with the small, rural systems. We have people
physically going out and providing help and technical
assistance.
Once we get out there, we can expose them to the IIJA
capabilities and what they can do for the communities. They
have somebody that they can lean on to followup and put those
programs into place for those small systems. That is the key.
Senator Blunt Rochester. I heard you mention work force. I
think that is key as well, and the idea of apprenticeships and
would love to followup with you after the hearing specifically
on that issue.
Now I would like to switch to lead service lines. As some
of my colleagues have noted, the replacement of lead service
lines are major projects that the public may not be aware of. I
think a lot of times people just hear lead in pipes, and they
think of the pipes in their home.
These are pipes that are often deep under the property of a
person's home or a roadway, and it requires excavation of
streets and land to replace. These are expensive projects.
Mr. Oswald, based on your experience with the State of
Michigan, how has IIJA funding helped accelerate the pace of
lead service line replacement projects compared to pre-IIJA
funding levels?
Mr. Oswald. IIJA BIL funding has been instrumental. We
would not have a ghost of a chance at getting lead service
lines out of the inventory without it, if we were just relying
on State funds and ratepayer funds.
Again, the cost of lead service line replacement is not
cheap. You are talking about $10,000 per lead service line. It
is incredibly expensive. Without the Federal funds to get
through this, and it is a one-time cost, that is the nice thing
about it. Once we get rid of those, they are out of the system.
We just have to buckle down and get them out of the system, and
then move to other things.
Yes, the BIL funding, we are not going to get to our goal.
In Michigan, we want to be lead-free by 2037. We are not going
to get there without cooperative federalism and cooperation
between the State, the locals, and the Federal Government. Just
will not happen.
Senator Blunt Rochester. Yes, and I think that cooperation
also makes me think of the ultimate goal of healthy families as
well.
I am going to turn now to Ms. Dreyfuss-Wells. The National
Association of Clean Water Agencies are strong advocates for
water infrastructure dollars that support households struggling
to make ends meet and avoid disconnection. I was able to get a
program to address water affordability authorized in the IIJA.
The study that I pushed for EPA to complete found that nearly
19 million households have trouble affording clean water. For
families experiencing poverty, being able to afford the
nationwide average of $42 a month for water utilities can be a
struggle.
Can you discuss how the inability for customers to pay for
water bills actually hurts the ability of utilities to serve
the communities they are in?
Ms. Dreyfuss-Wells. Thank you, Senator. That is exactly
right. The goal of any utility provider on water, wastewater,
stormwater side is to make sure that you are bringing all of
your customers along with you. Having the Low-Income Households
Water Assistance program there to help folks pay some of those
bills is very important.
Then also making sure that your own utility has a focus on
that customer service, bringing your customers so that they can
apply for and receive that assistance that is available. It is
something that we are very focused on at the National
Association and very focused on at the Sewer District.
Senator Blunt Rochester. Great. Thank you so much.
I have other questions I will submit for the record, but
thank you, and I yield back.
Senator Capito. [Presiding.] Thank you. Senator Ricketts,
did you have another question, or are you good?
Okay. I think we are all good. As I said, if is very busy
here on Capitol Hill. Some folks had intended to come, I am
sure you will hear from them.
With no further questions, I want to thank the witnesses
and all my colleagues for their participation in todays
hearing. I really look forward to writing the Drinking Water
and Wastewater Infrastructure Act (DWWIA), bill coming up. I
think we are starting early.
I think that is the smart way to do it. We could not do it
without you all helping us. I really appreciate this.
Senators who wish to submit written questions for the
record have until 5 p.m. on Wednesday, May 14th to do so. The
witnesses' responses to those questions are due back to the
committee no later than 5 p.m. on Wednesday, May 28th. They
will be submitted for the record.
With that, this hearing is adjourned, and thank you all
very much.
[Whereupon, at 11:17 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]