From Source to Tap: Challenges for Safe, Reliable, Affordable Drinking Water

oh you don't like it yeah it's ok i don't i i don't know i didn't know you guys were into it really don't like it it's fine do we have a problem with the uh with the uh with the uh with the uh with the uh with the um with the uh with the uh with the uh with the uh with the idea that like yeah sure The subcommittee on environment will come to order. The chair recognizes himself for five minutes from opening statement. Good morning. Welcome to ranking members of Pallone and Taco, my colleagues, and to our witnesses for this hearing of the subcommittee on environment. Today's hearing provides a timely and important opportunity to examine the safety, reliability and affordability of our nation's drinking water system. For those uh of you who have a sewer line in suburban Maryland ruptured in January and released more than two hundred million gallons of untreated sewage into the Potomac River, which separates Maryland and and the District of Columbia from Virginia, and is the main source of drinking water for millions of Americans and visitors to our national uh national capital region. The DC government just last week declared a state of emergency, and as a result of the sewage spill and uh President Trump has directed the US Environment Mental Protection Agency and the Federal Emergency Management Agency to take a lead role in coordinating the cleanup in response to this unfortunate incident. Given the significance of the spill and its potential impact on public health, Interstate Commerce and Drinking Water and the Environment in the nation's capital region, this committee has begun an investigation of what was known about the risk of this rupture and if it could have been avoided. Local authorities say the drinking water supply has not been affected, And that the intakes at Great Falls are located up the river from the sewage spill, and that the intakes at Little Falls have been closed. DC Water was contacted but declined to testify at today's hearing. Congress first enacted the Safe Drinking Water Act more than fifty years ago and amended it several times since. One of the goals of this hearing is to hear how the law is working and what, if anything, needs to be modernized to address current challenges. Many Americans receive their drinking water from publicly owned water utilities who have to navigate the law's complicated regulatory requirements, manage both aging infrastructure and an aging workforce, and provide safe and affordable affordable water to their customers. We will hear from two of these utilities today, Eric Hill, General Manager of the Russellville, Alabama Water and Sewer Board, and Lindsay, uh, Recnan President and CEO of Northern Kentucky Water District. In recent years, Congress has appropriated EPA more than a billion dollars annually for the drinking water state revolving loan fund, an important source of infrastructure funding for states and local utilities. However, as part of the Infrastructure Investment Jobs Act, EPA received a supplemental appropriation of more than fifty billion for water infrastructure. I look forward to hearing from EPA's Deputy Inspector General about how EPA has been using that money and whether taxpayers have gotten what they paid for. or if these precious tax uh pair of dollars are at risk. We will hear from a witness from the National Resources Defense Council with a background on water issues. Uh, I appreciate the focus on modernization. Uh, I think that's a a very important part of this hearing. I thank the witnesses for their input and look forward to working with my colleagues on the committee to identify common sense solutions to protecting and modernizing our drinking water system. The chair now recognizes the ranking member of the subcommittee, the gentleman from New York, for five minutes for an opening statement.

Oh, thank you, Mister Chair. Working on drinking water issues is one of my favorite things this subcommittee does. I know many members on both sides of the aisle have backgrounds in local government and are incredibly familiar with the responsibilities and challenges that water systems are facing. At the end of the day, the buck stops with local governments to make certain that the infrastructure and people are in place to deliver safe, reliable and affordable drinking water. It is a public health and economic necessity. And we at the federal level have a responsibility to be good partners to our local and state counterparts in their efforts. In December, twenty twenty four, we celebrated the fiftieth anniversary of the enactment of the Safe Drinking Water Act. Without a doubt, SIDWA has been an incredible public health success story. But we must recognize just how much more work is left to do, as well as the changing nature of our drinking water challenges. Fifty years ago, no one was worried about cyber threats. Lead pipes, fittings and solder were still used. And our ability to detect and treat emerging contaminants like PFAS at health protective levels was virtually impossible. These challenges, on top of a major backlog of infrastructure maintenance projects put financial stress on local governments and water authorities, which translates to rate increases for water users. According to EPA's most recent needs assessment, Drinking water systems are expected to require some six hundred and twenty-five billion dollars in investment over the next twenty years to maintain operations, an estimate which has grown considerably over the years. That is why in twenty twenty-one Congress made a serious effort to begin to tackle these issues with the enactment of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. I'm so proud of this subcommittee's role in developing and passing the drinking water provisions of the IIJA. It provided more than fifty billion dollars for water systems, including eleven point seven billion to implement the drinking water state revolving fund's annual appropriations, fifteen billion dollars for the replacement of lead service lines, and four billion dollars to address emerging contaminants, such as PFAS. It is hard to believe, but the programs authorized in the IIJA, including the supplemental funding, will expire at the end of this fiscal year. Now is a perfect opportunity for us to consider how we should reform SIDWA, for the next fifty years. First, we need to continue a strong federal financial commitment to our water systems. Those additional IIJA resources enabled many projects that simply would not have occurred otherwise. We should be continuing these higher funding levels and reject proposals, like that of uh one included in President Trump's last budget request to Congress. that would decimate the SRF. If the federal government pulls back from its commitments, that means more projects will need to be paid for entirely by local governments, resulting in an impossible choice of increasing water bills or more deferred maintenance which ultimately results in higher cost anyway due to emergency repairs. So I understand that the SRF isn't perfect and that there could be accusations of a relatively small number of issues with EPA's ability to conduct proper oversight of these dollars. Let's keep in mind that reduced staffing levels at EPA are not helping the situation. Fewer people are now responsible for overseeing more financial awards. So we should be coming together to reverse the downsizing of EPA, which has heightened the risk that waste, fraud, and abuse will go undetected. Because ultimately, with so much investment needed, we should all want every available federal dollar to find its way to projects that will improve systems and enable better compliance with the law. Second, we should establish a clear set of criteria for EPA to use when determining whether or not to set a national drinking water standard. Specifically, does a contaminant pose a public health threat, and is it is it affecting a significant number of people? Our current regulatory system just isn't working. I believe everyone here wants to protect people from unsafe water, but without giving EPA the ability to set timely health protective standards, we know some Americans will simply not have access to safe drinking water. Finally, we all recognize that many households are struggling with affordability issues. Nearly twenty million Americans lack access to affordable water. I have long supported utility assistance for low-income households for energy bills through LIHEAP. It is past time for us to authorize a similar permanent program for water bills. Mister Chair, I want to thank you again for holding this hearing. I hope we're able to work together to build upon the IIJA and support safe, reliable and affordable drinking water for all Americans, and with that, I yield back.

Chair now recognizes the Chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Kentucky, Mister Guthrie, for five minutes for an opening statement.

Thank you very much. Thanks for everybody being here. Thanks for our witnesses for being here. And thank you, Chairman Palmer, for this important hearing. And uh, Mister Hill, thanks for being here. My uh Wife's grandmother's maiden name was Hill and she's from Phil Campbell, so you're probably related.

Phil Campbell.

Phil Campbell's just right outside of Russellville in Ro- in Franklin County. So I was actually born in Florence. So thanks for, we'll chat after this and we can see how we're we're connected.

Oh really?

So uh the Safe Drinking Water Act was first created in nineteen seventy four, and Congress has amended it multiple times uh to modernize the federal framework for ensuring the tap water that reaches our homes is safe. Under this framework, the U S Environmental Protection Agency has several roles, including helping finance improvements to local water infrastructure, establishing standards to limit contaminants in drinking water, and protecting sources of drinking water from threats. But EPA is not on the only one involved in this process. States, local governments, drinking water utilities and communities also play very important roles. Uh, there's no question that much of our water infrastructure is old. It needs to be updated. As as as we just saw up close with the blowout of the Potomac Interceptor sewage tunnel, which leaked millions of gallons of untreated wastewater into the Potomac River, the primary source of drinking water for the communities in around our nation's capital. However, the best way to respond to these challenges is up for debate. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act provided EPA fifty billion dollars for water infrastructure programs, an unprecedented level of funding, and more than five times what Congress appropriates to the entire entire EPA in an average year. These infrastructure and jobs acts authorities expire at the end of the fiscal year, which provides Congress this opportunity to consider what drinking water policies have been working and what may need to be changed. Federal taxpayer money is not and cannot be the only solution to the infrastructure challenges our country faces. We need better policies and practices the federal uh state and local levels so new infrastructure can be built and maintained, which also creates jobs and helps our community strive. We have an excellent panel of witnesses today, including a fellow Kentuckian, Lindsay Reckten, glad to have you here, who is President and CEO of Northern Kentucky Water District, uh the third lar largest water district in our commonwealth, which those who don't know n- we say Northern Kentucky, it's suburban Cincinnati, and a very major, if you hit a ball out of the Great America ballpark it lands in Kentucky, doesn't. People don't realize that. And so we have Nicole Murley, the EPA Inspector General, who has been conducting a lot of important oversight of how billions in taxpayer dollars are actually being used. I look forward to hearing from all of our witnesses and engaging in a productive dialogue on these issues impacting the safety reliability and affordability of our nation's drinking water systems. I know you uh mentioned Field Count, I guess you're from Russellville. So Golden Tiger? You were a Golden Tiger? I was a Bradshaw, I was a Bruin. So Uh, thanks for uh, we all had had many, many contests. Believe it or not, I was a football player, so. Had many contests. So thanks for being here and I know Phil Campbell, where my wife's family was generationally from way back, not my wife, uh had the tornadoes a few years ago, so I know you guys all responded and and um done well. So thanks for everybody. Thanks for Kentucky and for Alabama, it's all of you being here today. Thanks. I yield back.

Gentleman yields. The chair now recognizes the ranking member of the full committee, uh the gentleman from New Jersey, Mister Taco,

Oh, thank you. So, today we'll examine the state of our nation's drinking water infrastructure and the federal role in ensuring communities have safe, reliable and affordable drinking water. For far too long, our aging water infrastructure has been underfunded. In twenty twenty five, the American Society of Civil Engineers report card gave the US water infrastructure system a C grade. And, well, actually it was a C minus. While the bipartisan infrastructure law provided historic investments to address our infrastructure challenges, that funding was just a down payment on the six hundred and twenty-five billion dollars needed over the next twenty years. And this number will continue to rise if investments fail to keep pace with our infrastructure needs. Communities across the nation live with the consequences of this underinvestment, from legacy-led service lines in my home state of New Jersey, to the sewage pipe break right here in Washington DC. Every sector depends on the delivery of safe and reliable water. But unfortunately the pipes underground are often forgotten until something bad happens it's you know essentially out of sight out of mind but without water, life comes to a halt. We can't afford to continue this piecemeal approach to addressing problems with our water infrastructure. And that's why reauthorizing and increasing funding levels for the drinking water state revolving fund, or SRF is critical. The SRF is our main federal funding source for drinking water, uh projects and helps water systems pay for capital improvements, it's an investment in public health and the economy. Much of our infrastructure is from a bygone era. If we're serious about ensuring safe and reliable water for Americans, we must rebuild it to meet the twenty-first century challenges. We need water systems that are prepared for and can adapt to our changing climate and increasing cyber-threats, we need to consider ways to promote energy efficiency and conserve water, a significant amount of which we're losing to broken pipes and water mains. We must remove all lead service lines once and for all. And without adequate resources, the water sector will be unable to reliably deliver safe, affordable drinking water, leaving communities vulnerable to contaminants and disruptions in water service altogether. While the SRF is a cornerstone of the Safe Drinking Water Act, the committee should also examine ways to modernize the law to meet the challenges of today. The EPA has struggled to set and update drinking water standards that reflect the best available science we saw some progress under the Biden administration with the historic PFAS standards and the improved lead and copper rule, but regrettably the chemical industry and water utilities have filed lawsuits challenging these health protective standards citing the cost of compliance and this puts these important protections in jeopardy. i agree that the affordability of water is a real pressing issue that affects millions of americans however i do not believe we need to choose between affordable water and safe water we can have and must have both and that's why i have advocated for a permanent water assistance program in epa in addition to funding technical assistance in strong health protective drinking water standards a permanent program will insure that all americans have access to safe reliable water and help utilities maintain access to water services. And water should be a basic right, it is a basic right and essential to the health and prosperity of our country. Unfortunately, this is not a reality for too many communities. So I hope that we can find ways on a bipartisan basis to support the water sector and invest in the future of Americans. You have to seize the opportunity to deliver for the American people and their health and safety depend on it. So I just wanted to mention in the minute I have left uh Mister uh mister chairman you know um you know we have the community projects and the appropriations bills every year and every year my towns because so many of them have these lead pipes that they can't afford to fix or remove uh we you know we use a lot of our those community funding projects and the appropriations bill uh to provide money to towns for you know lead pipe removal and water projects uh and i'm glad we still have that as a as an option But we really need to have a more permanent way to provide money to the towns cuz they really need help uh you know, providing safe drinking water. So with that, Mr. Chairman, I'll yield back.

That now uh we now conclude with the member opening statements, including that of the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey, Mister Pilon. Um uh uh the chair would like to remind members that pursuant to the committee rules all members' opening statements will be made part of the record. We want to thank our witnesses for being here today and taking the time to testify before the subcommittee. Witnesses will have the opportunity to give an opening statement, followed by a round of questions from the members. Our witness for witnesses for today are Nicole Murley, Acting Inspector General, Environmental Protection Agency. Eric uh D. Oldson, Senior Strategic Director for Health and Food, Natural Resources Defense Council. Eric Hill, General Manager, Russellville, Alabama, Water and And Lindsay Recton, President and CEO, Northern Kentucky Water District. We appreciate you being here today. I now recognize Miss Murley for five minutes to give an opening statement.

Good morning, Chairman Guthrie, Chairman Palmer, ranking members Pallone and Clark, and members of the subcommittee. I'm Nicole Murley, the Deputy Inspector General performing the duties of the Inspector General of the Environmental Protection Agency and the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My testimony will draw from our extensive body of oversight work that collectively examines how the EPA is ensuring safe drinking water and managing an unprecedented influx of water infrastructure funding in recent years as well as what our oversight has shown about progress made and the work still to be done. America's drinking water infrastructure delivers one of our most basic necessities and when those trusted systems falter the consequences can be

Miss Marley, is your microphone on?

Yes.

Can you uh pull it a little closer?

Yes, thank you.

Thank you.

Um, system failures in Jackson, Mississippi, and lead contamination in Flint and Benton Harbor, Michigan are a few examples that serve as stark reminders that federal oversight is essential. Under the Safe Drinking Water Act, the EPA is ultimately responsible for ensuring that public drinking water systems provide safe water. The agency sets national drinking standards, oversees state programs, and takes enforcement if systems fall out of compliance. The EPA also administers and oversees federal drinking water funding, primarily through the state revolving fund programs. States use SRFs to provide loans and additional assistance, such as principal forgiveness and grants for disadvantaged communities for eligible projects, with repayment were repayments replenishing the funds in perpetuity and states retaining flexibility under EPA oversight. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act included over thirty billion dollars for the drinking water SRF program. As we have previously testified before this committee, the IIJA's historic investment in water infrastructure created both opportunity and risk, providing critical resources to address long-standing challenges while simultaneously heightening risks and the need for vigilant oversight from both the OIG and the EPA, to ensure proper program implementation, mitigate risks, and safeguard taxpayer dollars. The EPA has implemented OIG recommendations for improvements and taken additional to enhance its implementation of synch drinking water programs. For example, using IIJA funds, the EPA expanded technical assistance programs to help communities, especially those with limited capacity, to identify drinking water challenges, develop well-scoped projects, and apply for SRF or other infrastructure funding. The EPA has also strengthened guidance for compliance with Build America Buy America, domestic preference requirements, after we alerted the agency key cyber security vulnerabilities at large drinking water facilities. The a- the agency has published new and updating planning tools that water systems can use to help prevent and respond to cyber security incidents, and announced grant funding for water systems to make improvements. Additionally, after we highlighted a concern that grantees and sub-recipients may not be fully aware of key fraud, prevention, and enforcement measures, the agency strengthened its grants terms and conditions for grants. The stronger grant terms have already led to actionable referrals of serious allegations to our Office of Investigations. But even with these steps forward, continued attention remains necessary to sustain and build on these improvements. The OIG has long provided targeted oversight of the EPA's SRFs, not only because they are the agency's largest funding vehicle, but also because they carry elevated risks. Throughout the years of oversight, the Office of Inspector General work has highlighted conditions that increase the risk for fraud and mismanagement. Weak internal controls, incomplete documentation, inadequate financial reporting, and the absence of clear whistleblower and fraud reporting requirements, instructions, and training at state and local levels reduce transparency and make the EPA and the make it harder for the EPA and the OIG to identify red flags early. The OIG warned that such gaps are missing. Audit financial statements, insufficient tracking of improper or unknown payments and poor data quality and program reporting can obscure accurate assessments of the health of drinking water programs or even potential fraud schemes. Ultimately, the OIG has found that EPA's ability to deliver drinking water infrastructure outcomes hinges on consistent oversight reliable data, and clear guidance. My written testimony expands on the challenges we have identified in each of these three key important areas. In closing, the OIG strives to pr- provide targeted effective oversight that helps the agency safeguard both the nation's drinking water and the taxpayer investments in improving water infrastructure. By identifying risks, driving corrective actions and strengthening agency performance, we aim to help ensure that historic investments through the SRFs and the IIJA deliver real results results for the American public. Thank you very much, and I look forward to answering your questions today.

The chair now recognizes Mister Olsen. uh for five minutes for his testimony

thank you very much chairman palmer thank you ranking member tonko um we appreciate the opportunity to testify i'm eric wilson i'm senior strategic director for health at the natural resources defense council and i i wanted to highlight that the bipartisan infrastructure law which has been mentioned a few times already was drafted as it is called as a bipartisan measure members of this committee on both sides of the aisle were active participants in the investment of over thirty billion dollars in water infrastructure for drinking water. And that was a badly needed investment, but I will say that we have just an enormous build-up of um needs right now. It's been mentioned EPA estimates six hundred and twenty-five billion dollars in drinking water needs. The industry is estimating between one trillion dollars and one point six trillion dollars for drinking water infrastructure is needed. So we clearly need major investments in this area. We know that the uh since President Ford signed the Save Drinking Water Act back in nineteen seventy-four, we've made s- significant progress, but we still have major challenges. Lead remains a significant issue. The forever toxic chemicals called Pfas remain a significant issue. Perchlorate and many other contaminants are widespread and need to be addressed. So what we need to move towards, we believe, is not these one-by-one chemical controls, but a broad spectrum approach, moving towards technologies that will remove a wider array of chemicals rather than what I sometimes call the contaminant of the month club where we have a different contaminant every year or few years why not approach this as a broad spectrum solution that's the direction we think we should go in. And I will say there have been some progress also the administration, this administration announced that they are supporting the lead in copper rule, um that was adopted by the Biden administration. That's progress. We are however concerned that the administration has asked to repeal four of the forever toxic chemical standards that were adopted by the previous administration and also to d- delay to others. We think that's an unscientific and unlawful action by the administration. But I will say that these bipartisan investments are important, however they represent less than five percent of the total investments that are being made nationally. Federal investments, less than five percent of the total investments that are being made, and less than one percent of the needs. So we're talking about a need for very significant increases in investments in this area. And the public is really concerned about this. It's consistently, according to Gallup tracking polls every year, the number one public concern. Um, in fact, eighty percent of the public is concerned about their drinking water. And we're starting to see that illustrated by a switch to this, to bottled water. In fact, over fifty billion dollars are spent by the public every year on bottled water. That money could be better spent, we believe, on fixing our water infrastructure. rather than on purchasing bottled water. We also think that there's um a real risk here of moving towards a two-tiered drinking water system, where large systems have higher quality water and small systems that are struggling um have lower quality water. One of the issues that several members have already spoken to is the affordability issue. It's important that we move towards a water affordability or a low income household assistance program. and also move towards better rate structures that help low income people, we don't need to be trading off bad quality water and uh providing substandard water um in order to make water more affordable. Let's assist systems and assist low income households. In our testimony we have many recommendations for legislation um including reauthorizing of course the state revolving fund, we're recommending an increase to about one percent of the total needs, ten billion dollars a year. Um, lead service line replacement funding is important, the PFAS funding is important, money for lead in schools and day care centers, um, addressing the low income household affordability program is crucial, as is the polluter pays program, where the polluters would pay to clean up water supplies rather than customers. We have more recommendations in our uh, written testimony and I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you very much.

Chair now recognizes gentleman, mister Hill from uh uh for five minutes for his testimony.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, Chairman Guthrie, Chairman Palmer, ranking member of Tunko, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Eric Hill. I am the General Manager of the Russellville Water and Sewer Board in Russellville, Alabama. I'm here on behalf of the National Real Water Association and the Alabama Real Water Association. I want to start by telling you who I am, because it is the best way to explain why I'm here. In nineteen ninety-three, I started as a water and wastewater operator for a small rural system serving just over two thousand customers. I learned on the job, earned my certifications, and worked my way to the position that I hold today. I'm not a policy analyst. I test the water, I manage the treatment, and I sign the compliance reports. Today, I manage a drinking water plant, a well source, a wastewater treatment facility, and everything that connects them with twenty-six employees. These employees handle treatment, distribution, collection, maintenance, compliance, billing, customer service, and emergency response. There's no in-house engineer, no compliance officer, and no attorney on staff. When a water main breaks at two AM, the same people who read your meter that morning, they are the ones responding. Chairman Palmer, I am honored to testify before a fellow Alabamian who understands the communities I serve I want to tell this community what federal infrastructure investments look like when it reaches a small town cuz this is a story that I am living right now. Ninety-one percent of the nation's roughly fifty thousand community water systems serve populations of ten thousand or fewer. These systems face the same federal mandates as the largest utilities in the country, with a fraction of the staff, budget, and technical capacity. Let me tell you what federal investments look like on the ground. The state revolving fund is one of the most effective tools Congress has created for public water infrastructure. Right now, I'm managing approximately two million dollars in SRIO projects through Alabama's Department of Environmental Management, one million in drinking water SRIO and one million in clean water SRIO. With those funds, we replaced a twenty-five year old telemetry system with a modern SCADA system, including firewalls, VPN access, and multi-factor authentication. We repaired a water main that is separate in a creek bed. We cleaned two filter waste ponds essential to our treatment capacity. And next month, we will open beds on a booster station pump upgrade that currently pumps fifty percent of the water we sell, an upgrade that will al- also allow us to meet a new state regulation requiring a five-year tank washout. This is what one million dollars in SRL funding buys for a small community, a comprehensive program of repairs and upgrades that improves public health, reliability, cyber security, and compliance all at once. Without those favorable long terms, most of those projects would still be sitting on a wish list. But I have to be honest with this committee, the process of accessing those funds is harder than it should be. Application complexity, Davis Bacon, and BABA compliance costs, and scoring systems favoring scale create real barriers for a system like ours. I urge the committee to adopt flexible principle forgiveness and STEM project time frames simplify reporting, and provide targeted waivers for small projects. My own career path illustrates another challenge. Up to half the water workforce will leave the industry within the next ten years. I was fortunate to learn on the job, earn my certifications, and build a career without leaving home. NRWA's registered apprenticeship program is now replicating that pathway in thirty-five states with over twelve hundred apprentices enrolled or graduated so far. That program needs continued federal support. And the on-site technical assistance that NRWA and ARWA provided is the most cost-effective investment for small system operation and compliance. Last year, the town of Hodges, Alabama, population roughly twenty-four hundred, suddenly lost its certified operator when he was seriously injured in a car accident. Overnight, no one knew how to run the water system. Within one hour being contacted, an ARWA specialist was on-site. We coordinated with the state and connected the system with a temporary operating record, and assisted the system until permanent coverage was arranged. The community never lost service and never violated its permit. That only happened because a trusted local provider was already in place. Two more things briefly on PFAS. Water systems are passive receivers. Passive receivers of contamination, not polluters. The entire water sector supports HR twelve sixty seven. and I urge this committee to pass it. On the regulatory landscape, I support the Safe Drinking Water Act and every public health protection it requires. I simply ask that when new rules are implemented, the one size fits all approach is neither affordable nor feasible. The tools this committee has created are working in rural American communities just like mine. I am here to tell you where they can work better, and as for your continued partnership, thank you and I look forward to answering any questions that you may have.

The chair now recognizes Miss Rechten for five minutes for her testimony.

Chairman Palmer, ranking member Tonko, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Lindsay Rechten and I am the President and Chief Executive Officer of the Northern Kentucky Water District. NKWD serves nearly three hundred thousand people across five Northern Kentucky counties. We operate three water treatment plants, drawing from the Ohio and Licking Rivers, and maintain over thirteen hundred miles of water main. I am here today on behalf of the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies, or AMWA, where I serve on the board of directors. AMWA is an organization that represents large publicly owned drinking water utilities across the country. The importance and vulnerability of our nation's water infrastructure is on full display just a few miles from this hearing room at the site of the Potomac Interceptor collapse along the Potomac River. It demonstrates the real-world impact on the environment, public health, and the economy when a critical piece of water infrastructure unexpectedly fails. This infrastructure failure illustrates the ongoing criticality of strong and sustained investments in our water and wastewater infrastructure which are often combined systems. At NKWD, our distribution system requires continuous investment to replace aging mains and extend service to communities lacking public water access. Federal assistance programs like the drinking water SRF have been essential tools for financing these projects while keeping water rates affordable. As this subcommittee examines the state of the nation's drinking water systems, I want to highlight three key points that I hope you will take away from my testimony. First, federal investments in water infrastructure generate meaningful returns throughout the economy. Second, Congress must act this year to reauthorize several critical financing programs that help communities update and replace infrastructure before it fails while keeping water rates affordable for their customers. And third, Congress has opportunities to strengthen the nation's water systems by taking action to hold polluters accountable for the damage they cause, by helping communities become more cyber-secure, and by ensuring EPA remains committed to sound, science-based regulatory development. On my first point, my testimony highlights well-documented data showing that more than six hundred and twenty-five billion dollars of investment is needed over the coming decades, just to maintain drinking water systems at their current levels of service. While this is a massive expense, we must also recognize that federal investments in water infrastructure generate positive ripple effects that are felt throughout the economy. According to a landmark report produced last year by the Value of Water campaign, every one million dollars invested in water infrastructure generates two and a half million dollars in economic output and one point four million dollars' worth of GDP growth. Alternatively, failing water infrastructure not only threatens public health, but it also interrupts economic activity and leads to severe losses for America's businesses. Nationwide, a single day without water service across the country would cost the U S. economy nearly a hundred and twenty billion dollars, five hundred and twenty-seven thousand jobs, and sixty-nine billion dollars in GDP. And these economic interruptions happen at a smaller scale across the country on a daily basis, whether through routine water main breaks or more dramatic incidents like the Potomac Interceptor collapse. To stay ahead of these challenges, Congress must reauthorize EPA's core water and wastewater infrastructure financing assistance programs before they expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The benefits of these programs are real. Over the past two decades, NKWD has utilized seventeen drinking water SRF loans, totaling over a hundred and ten million dollars to finance infrastructure improvements across our system. Federal funding has allowed us to moderate our necessary rate increases, so we can avoid rate shock for our community, while ensuring we continue to invest in our system. Finally, my testimony includes several other policy recommendations to pursue, in the interest of helping our nation's water systems confront the challenges they face. These include, first, holding PFAS polluters accountable for cleaning up the damage they cause to the environment and protecting passive receivers like water and wastewater systems from footing the bill for remediating waste sites. Second, expanding water affordability assistance. When federal mandates impose new compliance costs, rate payers bear them. A permanent low-income water assistance program would help ensure vulnerable households maintain access to essential service. And third, supporting existing sector resources like the Water ISAC, the Water Information Sharing and Analysis Center, to help local water systems identify and close physical and cyber security gaps implement best practices to withstand hostile threats and generally maintain strong situational awareness of the threat landscape. These and other policy recommendations are described in more detail in my written statement. Thank you for the opportunity and the honor to testify today,

Thank you all for your testimony. We will now move into the question and answer portion of the hearing. I will begin the questioning and recognize myself for five minutes. Um. Mister Hill, I appreciate you coming here from Russellville, as you know I grew up in Hackleburg, my father's and his uh my family grew up in Hodges. So I'm well aware of of the challenges. Uh, you pointed out that the small rural systems make up roughly ninety-one percent of the community drinking water systems in Alabama. From your experience, and and please be as brief as you can, what specific a- aspects of the state revolving fund uh application reporting process create the greatest challenges? And uh and how important is it to have technical assistance to to help uh in terms of supporting rural water systems?

Thank you, Mister Chairman. Uh. The biggest problem is when systems like us, we applied in two thousand twenty-two and we're just now getting some of those funds. Uh, our privacy agency did the best job they could do, but they were they were overwhelmed with amount of applications. Uh, it was a a rating scale. It depended on how many people you represented and if you're a disadvantaged community, you could be raised to a higher priority on the list. And by the time those funds got out, there were engineering shortages, there were contractor shortages. And now we have a a bid opening. We used to have eight or ten contractors there. You're lucky to get one or two contractors. So the prices have been driven up substantially due to that delay in getting those funds out, uh, but we were blessed to get those funds. The biggest drawback is the timely manner that, hey, they have got them delivered to the communities in need.

That would be particularly important if you h- uh, discovered some some issues with um, your wastewater treatment system if uh you needed funding to immediately address those issues um um there's um one of the other things that concerns me about rural water is is vulnerability to cyber attacks and um uh i'm concerned about um this in terms of of how we're going to address that because again most of the the attentions given to the larger water systems um On the issue of cyber security risk, do you think the Build America Buy America requirements are an appropriate mechanism uh to insure the critical comp- components are sourced from American companies and not from adversaries like China that that's part of my concern, is uh them embedding uh the ability to to imp- to uh interfere with our water systems. Is that a concern for the rural systems?

It was a big concern for us. We had a uh telemetry system uh which could be and it was a proprietary system, so we reached out with our TA providers from Alabama Rail Water Association, and we we got on the same page with them. And we bid the project out with SRL funds, and we switched over with those SRL funds and installed a uh a skater with a redundant sailor. It has the VPN. It is encrypted. Uh, it is Biba compliant, and that was our biggest concerns with something like that, but there are material concerns uh for projects with fittings and those things that that don't concern us as much as the I guess the uh cyber security side was the most concerning part.

There's also data uh uh issues related to oversight, Ms. Murley, and uh does the EPA data systems interface with state data systems? In reading your testimony uh and you commented on it in your testimony about um, the problems with um, antiquated data system, but I guess that's the best way to put it for oversight of of the funds.

Yes, uh, thank you for the question, Chairman. Um, my testimony uh in our work highlights problems with data across um, it's it's not a isolated data, I think there's um, issues with the a the way the agency stores and maintains data and also getting data from the states, um, the cities and the subrecipients.

But if you're requiring the states to conduct the oversight and maintain the records, there has to be some ability between uh the federal government and the states in order to to exercise adequate oversight, otherwise we're gonna have another Minnesota situation.

Yes, that's correct. And we can get the data, it's just not as um a lot of the data is held um in not easily readable formats. Um if you look to our management implication report that talked about the different ways the states soar, store the electronic data. Um, it varies across states. There's no, um, systematic way that they carry it. We found that six states get construction bids in paper format. Um, I'm not sure if that's been fixed in the two years since we've done that report, but that makes it harder for us to conduct oversight and to obtain those records.

Well, there's a couple of things that that I I think we need to address. One, uh, the EPA memorandum contradicting federal law and unclear guidance from the EPA. I think that's something we need to address, but also the workforce issues related to uh um the water systems, that half of them are gonna leave in ten years. So that's an issue I think we need to um take a look at. Chair now recognizes uh ranking member, Mister Tango, for five minutes for his question.

Thank you, Mister Chair, and thank you to our witnesses for being here. Uh, again I truly believe we all have similar goals, and that is to support the delivery. of safe affordable water. But I'm very worried about this impending funding cliff at the end of this year, with the expiration of the IIJA supplemental funding. We're at serious risk of going back to a time when fewer water systems are able to access funding, to carry out long overdue projects. So, Mister Hill, can you talk about the importance of these higher funding levels and what it has meant for your system and rural communities like yours?

It has made a substantial impact for us. Uh, as you're aware, the IIGA, those funds have to be expended by December twenty twenty six, and that is a burden, especially when those funds are just now getting rolled out and you have some situation where the contractors have not been paid for jobs. They're completed up. It's been great funds. We just need to to work on it and maybe if we get some more funding in the future, we'll learn a lot from from the way those funds were applied and distributed throughout each state.

Right, it's why I think the human infrastructure is incredibly important to get those dollars out the door. Ms. Ruckin, similarly, from your community and AMWA's perspective, what have those higher funding levels allowed you to do that may not happened, uh, have happened otherwise?

Thank you for your question. Uh, yes, they've been extremely, uh, critical for our utility. As I mentioned in my testimony, um the northern Kentucky water district has been able to benefit from seventeen um different loans over the past twenty years totaling a hundred and ten million dollars uh in investment and otherwise we would have either deferred those projects or um had to have built those um into our rate base uh so they're they're very important to provide stability and predictability especially when we're coordinating with our cities about projects that we may need to coordinate understanding that those funds are available are very important.

Thank you. And, Mister Olsen, at the end of the day, the Safe Drinking Water Act is a public health law. Can you tell us why those extra infrastructure dollars are so important for protecting people from unsafe water, including exposure to PFAS, lead, and many other dangerous contaminants?

Yes, thank you for the question. It's certainly true that what we've seen repeatedly is that the federal funding is absolutely critical funneled through the states to the state revolving fund generally to addressing problems. Mister Pilon recently spoke about the lead service line money. Um there's also just an ongoing need to really address forever chemicals. Um not far from your district in Hoosick Falls for example, there are there are many locations across the country, we've actually published a map and it's cited in our testimony, showing basically virtually every congressional district has both serious lead contamination issues, and most of them also have PFAS contamination issues. This is a problem of public health that affects virtually the entire country, and there's an urgent need to continue these major investments.

Thank you. And, Mister Olsen, again, if we're going to consider reauthorizing the uh drinking water SRF and other water infrastructure programs, what are the risks would we be taking in terms of subjecting Americans to potentially unsafe or unaffordable water, if Congress does not renew its commitment to these previously enacted historic investment levels.

Well, it's very important, and I will say the funding cliff that you mentioned is a very real risk. What we are worried about is, for example, between the PFAS and the lead rules alone, there are literally thousands of lives at stake, according to EPA's analyses. That if you don't have those rules in place, if you don't have the funding to actually make those rules alive and working, you could lose thousands of lives, some of them very young children, some of them adults from cardiovascular disease, from lead for example. So these are very real risks that we need to address. And as we saw in Flint, as we've seen in many other locations, if you don't address these problems now, they get worse and worse.

Thank you. And Inspector General Murky, I mentioned in my opening statement that no one uh with SFF dollars uh that that the dollars uh for SRF uh uh no one wants them to be wasted. But do you agree that EPA's uh staffing um uh reductions uh could make it more difficult to properly manage and conduct the oversight of these awards?

So we don't have um we haven't done work um on the staffing levels um currently. I will say that staffing levels, grants management and workforce planning have continually been an area that we address in our work. We just recently issued a grants workforce planning audit, um, and we can share that with you, that, um, recommends that the agency plan, um, for workforce and the grants oversight. And in that report we talk about that they need to address the changes and the staffing changes and the organization changes at the agency. Um, human capital and workforce planning is something that we look at in every project that we do. Um, it's p- it's part of an ongoing, uh, oversight oversight area for us and I'll note that um in this year's top management challenges we know that a challenge for the agency is to be um managing the change at the agency with the workforce and the the changes in the organization. So that is something that we will be looking at.