“From Source to Tap: A Hearing to Examine Challenges and Opportunities for Safe

[Gavel sounds.] The Subcommittee on Environment, Manufacturing, and Critical Materials will now come to order. The Chair recognizes himself for five minutes for an opening statement. Good morning. Today we are here to discuss the state of our nation's drinking water infrastructure and the challenges facing the utilities that provide this essential service. Access to safe, reliable, and affordable drinking water is fundamental to the health and prosperity of every American community. However, many of our water systems are aging and facing increasing regulatory burdens, rising costs, and emerging contaminants like PFAS. We must ensure that the federal government is a partner, not a hindrance, to local water providers as they work to meet these challenges. In recent years, Congress has provided significant funding through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law to help communities upgrade their water systems. But money alone is not the answer. We also need to look at how regulations are being implemented and whether they are based on sound science and a realistic assessment of costs and benefits. We will hear today from a panel of experts who can speak to these issues from the perspective of water utilities, environmental advocates, and the EPA's own Inspector General. I look forward to a productive discussion. I now recognize the Ranking Member, the gentleman from New York, Mr. Tonko, for five minutes for his opening statement.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to our witnesses for being here today. Ensuring that every American has access to clean, safe drinking water should be a non-partisan priority. For too long, we have underinvested in our water infrastructure, leading to crumbling pipes, lead contamination, and a failure to address new threats to public health. While the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law was a historic step forward, providing $50 billion for water and wastewater improvements, the scale of the need remains immense. We must continue to support our local communities, particularly those that are disadvantaged or underserved, to ensure they have the resources to provide safe water to their residents. I am also concerned about the impact of emerging contaminants like PFAS, which have been linked to serious health problems. The EPA's recent actions to set national drinking water standards for these 'forever chemicals' are a critical step in protecting public health. We must ensure that utilities have the technical and financial assistance they need to comply with these new standards without placing an undue burden on ratepayers. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses about how we can best support these efforts. I yield back.

The gentleman yields back. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Latta, for five minutes for an opening statement.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In my district in Northwest Ohio, we know how important clean water is, not just for drinking, but for our economy and our way of life. Our water utilities work hard every day to provide safe water, but they are facing a growing list of challenges. From the need to replace aging lead service lines to the costs of complying with new EPA regulations, the financial pressure on these systems is significant. We need to make sure that federal policies are flexible enough to allow local communities to prioritize their most pressing needs. I'm particularly interested in hearing today about the challenges of workforce development in the water sector and how we can help recruit the next generation of water professionals. Thank you, and I yield back.

The gentleman yields back. The Chair now recognizes the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Barragán, for five minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Access to clean water is a human right, yet in many parts of my district and across the country, communities of color and low-income communities continue to face disproportionate challenges in accessing safe and affordable water. Whether it's the presence of lead in school drinking fountains or the high cost of water bills for struggling families, we must do more to ensure water equity. I am pleased that the EPA is taking steps to address PFAS and lead, but we must also ensure that the funding from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law actually reaches the communities that need it most. I look forward to hearing from the witnesses about how we can improve the delivery of these resources. I yield back.

The gentlewoman yields back. All other opening statements will be made part of the record. We will now introduce our witnesses for today's hearing. First, we have Mr. Eric Hill, General Manager of the Russellville Water and Sewer Board. Next, we have Ms. Lindsey Rechtin, President and CEO of the Northern Kentucky Water District. Third, we have Mr. Erik Olson, Senior Strategic Director for Health and Food at the Natural Resources Defense Council. And finally, we have Ms. Nicole Murley, Acting Inspector General for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. We appreciate you all being here today. You are each recognized for five minutes for your opening testimony. We will start with Mr. Hill.

Thank you, Chairman Palmer, Ranking Member Tonko, and members of the subcommittee. My name is Eric Hill, and I am the General Manager of the Russellville Water and Sewer Board in Alabama. We serve a community of about 10,000 people. Like many small systems, we face unique challenges in maintaining our infrastructure and complying with increasingly complex regulations. Our primary concern is affordability. When new federal mandates are handed down, the cost of compliance often falls directly on our ratepayers, many of whom are on fixed incomes. For example, the new PFAS standards will require significant investments in new treatment technologies. While we support the goal of protecting public health, we need more direct assistance and longer timelines to implement these changes without causing water rates to skyrocket. We also face a critical shortage of certified operators. It is becoming harder and harder to find and retain qualified staff. I urge the committee to consider policies that support small system sustainability and workforce development. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you, Mr. Hill. Ms. Rechtin, you are recognized for five minutes.

Good morning, Chairman Palmer, Ranking Member Tonko, and members of the subcommittee. I am Lindsey Rechtin, President and CEO of the Northern Kentucky Water District. We serve approximately 300,000 people across three counties. Our district has been proactive in addressing water quality issues, including being an early adopter of granular activated carbon treatment to address contaminants. However, the scale of the challenges we face today is unprecedented. The combination of the Lead and Copper Rule Improvements and the new PFAS regulations represents a massive financial commitment. We estimate that complying with these rules will cost our district hundreds of millions of dollars over the next decade. While the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law provides some funding, it is largely in the form of loans, which still must be paid back by our customers. We need more grant funding and a more streamlined process for accessing federal resources. Additionally, we need the EPA to provide clearer guidance and more reliable analytical methods for monitoring these contaminants. We are committed to providing safe water, but we need a partnership with the federal government that recognizes the financial realities facing our utilities. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Rechtin. Mr. Olson, you are recognized for five minutes.

Thank you, Chairman Palmer, Ranking Member Tonko, and members of the subcommittee. My name is Erik Olson, and I am with the Natural Resources Defense Council. For decades, NRDC has worked to ensure that all Americans have access to safe drinking water. Today, that goal is under threat from a variety of sources. We are facing a national crisis of lead in our drinking water, with millions of lead service lines still in the ground. We are also seeing widespread contamination from PFAS, which are linked to cancer and other serious health issues. The EPA's recent actions to strengthen the Lead and Copper Rule and set standards for PFAS are historic and necessary steps to protect public health. However, these rules are only as good as their enforcement. We are concerned that many water systems are not being held accountable for violations of the Safe Drinking Water Act. We also need to ensure that the funding from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law is prioritized for the communities that have been most impacted by contamination and underinvestment. This includes small, rural systems and low-income urban areas. We must also address the 'polluter pays' principle, ensuring that the companies responsible for PFAS contamination are held liable for the cleanup costs, rather than shifting that burden onto water utilities and their customers. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Olson. Ms. Murley, you are recognized for five minutes.

Chairman Palmer, Ranking Member Tonko, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to discuss the EPA Office of Inspector General's work related to the nation's drinking water. The OIG's mission is to provide independent oversight of the EPA to promote economy, efficiency, and effectiveness. In recent years, we have conducted several audits and evaluations of the EPA's drinking water programs. Our work has identified significant challenges, including the EPA's oversight of state drinking water programs and the management of the Drinking Water State Revolving Funds. We have found that the EPA needs to improve its data collection and reporting to ensure that it has an accurate picture of water quality and compliance across the country. We have also raised concerns about the EPA's ability to effectively manage the massive influx of funding from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. With $50 billion in new funding, the risk of fraud, waste, and abuse is heightened. The OIG is committed to providing rigorous oversight of these funds to ensure they are used as intended to improve our nation's water infrastructure. We have also looked at the EPA's efforts to address emerging contaminants like PFAS and have recommended that the agency develop a more comprehensive strategy for monitoring and regulating these chemicals. I look forward to discussing our findings and recommendations with you today.

...and the EPA's own data shows that the cost of compliance with the new PFAS rule will be significantly higher than the agency's estimates. Mr. Hill, in your testimony, you mentioned the impact on small systems. Could you elaborate on that?

Yes, thank you, Congressman. For a system like Russellville, we are looking at millions of dollars in capital investment just to address these new standards. When you spread that cost over a relatively small customer base, the rate increases are substantial. We are talking about families who are already struggling with inflation having to pay 20 or 30 percent more for their water bill. It is not just the initial construction; it is the ongoing operation and maintenance, the specialized testing, and the disposal of the filtered contaminants. Small systems simply do not have the economies of scale that larger utilities do, and without significant federal assistance, these mandates are going to be an incredible burden on our community.

Thank you. My time has expired. I now recognize the gentleman from New York, Mr. Tonko, for five minutes for his opening statement or questions.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to our witnesses for being here today. Ensuring that every American has access to safe, clean drinking water should be a non-partisan priority. For too long, we have underinvested in our nation's water infrastructure. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law was a historic step forward, providing billions of dollars to replace lead service lines and address emerging contaminants like PFAS. However, we know that the need remains great. Mr. Olson, in your testimony, you highlighted the health risks associated with lead and PFAS. Can you discuss why it is so critical that we maintain strong federal standards and continue to provide robust funding for these programs, rather than rolling back protections?

Thank you, Congressman Tonko. It is vital because there is no safe level of lead exposure, especially for children. Lead causes irreversible brain damage and developmental issues. Similarly, PFAS chemicals are linked to cancer, immune system suppression, and other serious health problems. These are not just 'nuisance' contaminants; they are public health threats. If we weaken the standards or cut the funding, we are essentially saying that the health of people in certain zip codes is less important than others. The federal government has a responsibility to ensure a baseline of safety across the country. The costs of inaction—in terms of healthcare expenses and lost productivity—far outweigh the costs of upgrading our water systems now.

I appreciate that. And Ms. Murley, your office recently released a report regarding the EPA's oversight of state revolving funds. Could you briefly summarize your findings regarding the challenges states face in distributing this funding efficiently to the communities that need it most?

Certainly. Our work has identified several challenges. Many states struggle with limited administrative capacity to manage the influx of new funding from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. Additionally, disadvantaged communities often lack the technical expertise to navigate the complex application process for these loans and grants. We found that while the EPA has issued guidance, more direct technical assistance is needed to ensure that the funds are reaching the small and rural systems that are often the most vulnerable. We also noted a need for better data tracking to ensure that the 'Justice40' goals are being met effectively.

Thank you. I yield back the balance of my time.

The gentleman yields back. I now recognize the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Latta, for five minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Rechtin, thank you for being here. In your testimony, you discussed the challenges of balancing regulatory compliance with affordability. We often hear about the 'unfunded mandates' coming out of Washington. Could you talk about how the cumulative effect of multiple new regulations—the Lead and Copper Rule improvements, the PFAS standards, and others—impacts your long-term capital planning and your ability to keep rates affordable for your customers in Northern Kentucky?

Thank you, Congressman Latta. It is a significant challenge. We operate on a multi-year, even multi-decade, planning horizon. When new regulations are introduced in rapid succession, it forces us to constantly reprioritize our capital projects. We might have to delay a necessary water main replacement project to fund a new treatment technology required by a new rule. This 'regulatory pile-on' makes it very difficult to manage our budget predictably. Every time a new mandate comes down without dedicated funding, that cost goes directly to our ratepayers. We are committed to providing safe water, but we have to be mindful that for many of our customers, even a $5 or $10 monthly increase is a major burden. We need regulatory certainty and a realistic timeline for implementation.

I appreciate that perspective. It's something we hear often from our local utilities. Mr. Hill, following up on that, has your board had to delay other infrastructure improvements because of the need to prepare for these new EPA rules?

Absolutely. We have aging infrastructure, some of it dating back 50 or 60 years, that needs replacement. But when we look at the projected costs for PFAS compliance, we've had to put those line replacement projects on the back burner. It's a catch-22. If we don't fix the aging pipes, we have leaks and water loss, which costs money. But if we don't meet the new federal standards, we face fines and legal issues. We are being forced to choose between two essential needs because the resources just aren't there to do both at once.

Thank you. My time is about to expire, I yield back.

The gentleman yields back. I now recognize the gentlelady from California, Ms. Barragán, for five minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In my district, we have many communities that have dealt with contaminated groundwater for decades. For them, 'affordability' isn't just about the monthly bill; it's about the cost of buying bottled water because they can't trust what comes out of their tap. Mr. Olson, can you speak to the environmental justice implications of failing to aggressively address contaminants like PFAS and lead? Who bears the brunt of these delays?

Thank you for the question. It is undeniably low-income communities and communities of color that bear the heaviest burden. These communities are more likely to have older housing with lead service lines and are more likely to be located near industrial sites or military bases where PFAS contamination is prevalent. When we talk about the 'cost' of regulation, we must also talk about the 'cost' of environmental injustice. Families in your district are paying a 'double tax'—they pay their water bill for water they can't drink, and then they pay out of pocket for bottled water. That is an unacceptable reality in the United States. Strong federal standards are the only way to ensure that these communities aren't left behind while wealthier areas can afford to fix their own systems.

Exactly. And Ms. Murley, regarding the EPA's enforcement, does the OIG have concerns about whether the EPA has sufficient resources to actually enforce these new standards once they are in place, particularly in disadvantaged areas?

Our office has consistently highlighted resource constraints across the EPA. Enforcement is a key area of concern. As more complex regulations are finalized, the technical expertise required to oversee compliance increases. If the agency's budget and staffing do not keep pace with its regulatory responsibilities, there is a risk that oversight will be inconsistent. We have recommended that the EPA conduct more robust workload analyses to ensure they are deploying their inspectors and enforcement officers where the risks to public health are greatest.

Thank you. I yield back.

The gentlelady yields back. I now recognize the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Joyce, for five minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hill, I want to go back to the issue of the 'polluter pays' principle. In many cases, the water utilities didn't create the PFAS contamination; it came from upstream industrial users or firefighting foam. Yet, the current regulatory framework seems to put the entire financial burden of cleanup on the utility and its customers. Do you believe there should be more emphasis on holding the actual manufacturers of these chemicals accountable?

Yes, sir, absolutely. We are essentially the 'passive receivers' of these chemicals. We didn't ask for them to be in our source water, and we didn't put them there. But under the current rules, we are the ones responsible for removing them. It seems only fair that the companies that profited from the production and sale of these substances should contribute to the cost of cleaning them up. Right now, my customers in Russellville are paying for the mistakes or the actions of large corporations. A more robust 'polluter pays' mechanism would take that burden off the backs of local families.

Thank you. Ms. Rechtin, would you agree? And have you seen any success in your region with litigation or other efforts to recover costs from polluters?

I agree completely. We are involved in the multi-district litigation regarding PFAS. While there have been some settlements, they often represent only a fraction of the total long-term costs we anticipate. Litigation is also a very slow process. We need to build treatment facilities now to comply with the law, but it may be years or even a decade before we see any money from a settlement. In the meantime, we have to fund those projects through rates or debt. A more direct federal approach to holding polluters accountable would be much more effective for utilities.

Thank you. I yield back the remainder of my time.

The gentleman yields back. I now recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. Peters, for five minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to talk about innovation. We've heard a lot about the high costs of current treatment technologies like granular activated carbon or reverse osmosis. Mr. Olson, what is the role of federal R&D in bringing down the costs of water treatment? Are we doing enough to incentivize the development of new, more efficient ways to remove these 'forever chemicals'?

That is a great point, Congressman. We definitely need more investment in innovation. While the current technologies are effective, they are energy-intensive and expensive. There is promising research into destructive technologies that actually break down the PFAS molecules rather than just filtering them out. The EPA's Office of Research and Development needs more support to partner with universities and the private sector to scale these solutions. If we can find cheaper, more effective ways to treat water, it solves both the public health problem and the affordability problem simultaneously.

...and the EPA's own data shows that the cost of compliance for these new regulations will be significantly higher than initially estimated. Mr. Hill, in your testimony, you mentioned the impact on small rural systems. Could you elaborate on that?

Yes, Congressman. For a system like Russellville, we are looking at millions of dollars in capital improvements just to meet the new PFAS standards. When you spread that cost over a small customer base, you're looking at doubling or even tripling monthly water bills. Many of our residents are on fixed incomes and simply cannot afford that kind of increase. We want safe water, but we need a realistic timeline and significant federal support to make it happen without bankrupting our community.

Thank you. My time has expired. I now recognize the gentleman from New York, Mr. Tonko, for five minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to all our witnesses for being here today. This is a critical conversation. We know that for decades, we have underinvested in our nation's water infrastructure. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law was a historic step forward, providing $50 billion for water projects, including dedicated funding to address PFAS and lead service line replacement. Mr. Olson, can you speak to the public health risks of delaying these necessary upgrades? Some of my colleagues are concerned about the costs, but what is the cost of inaction in terms of healthcare and lost productivity?

Thank you, Congressman Tonko. The cost of inaction is staggering. We are talking about developmental issues in children, increased cancer risks, and various other chronic health problems associated with contaminated drinking water. When we look at the economic impact, the medical bills and the loss of life far outweigh the costs of upgrading our treatment facilities. Furthermore, the longer we wait, the more expensive these projects become due to inflation and further deterioration of the infrastructure. We have the technology to fix this; what we need is the political will to prioritize public health.

I appreciate that. Ms. Murley, your office recently released a report regarding the EPA's oversight of state revolving funds. Can you summarize your findings regarding how effectively these funds are being utilized to reach disadvantaged communities?

Certainly. Our audit found that while the EPA has made efforts to prioritize disadvantaged communities, there are still significant barriers. Many of these communities lack the technical capacity to even apply for the grants and loans. We recommended that the EPA provide more direct technical assistance and streamline the application process to ensure that the funding actually reaches the areas with the greatest need. Without that support, the communities that need the help the most are often the ones left behind.

Thank you. I yield back the balance of my time.

The gentleman yields back. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Latta, for five minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Rechtin, in your testimony, you discussed the challenges of workforce development in the water sector. We're seeing a silver tsunami of retirements. How is the Northern Kentucky Water District addressing this, and what can the federal government do to help build a pipeline of qualified operators?

Thank you for the question, Congressman. It is a major concern. We are seeing about 30 percent of our workforce eligible for retirement in the next five years. We've started apprenticeship programs and are partnering with local community colleges, but it's a struggle to compete with the private sector on wages. Federal support for vocational training specifically targeted at water and wastewater operations would be a huge help. We also need to modernize our facilities to make the jobs more attractive to a younger, tech-savvy generation.

I agree. It's not just about the pipes; it's about the people running the systems. Mr. Hill, back to you. Regarding the Lead and Copper Rule Improvements, what is the biggest hurdle for your system in identifying and replacing lead service lines?

The biggest hurdle is the unknown. Many of our records are decades old or non-existent. We have to physically dig to verify the material in many cases, which is incredibly labor-intensive and expensive. Then there's the issue of the private side of the service line. Even if we replace the public portion, if the homeowner can't afford to replace their side, the risk remains. We need a clear policy that allows us to use federal funds for the entire line, from the main to the house.

Thank you. I yield back. The gentleman yields back. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Barragán, for five minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In my district, we have many communities that have dealt with contaminated water for years. Mr. Olson, we often hear about the 'polluter pays' principle. How can we better hold the companies responsible for PFAS contamination accountable so that the burden doesn't fall entirely on the taxpayers and ratepayers?

That is a critical point, Congresswoman. Currently, the water utilities and their customers are essentially cleaning up someone else's mess. We need stronger enforcement of the Clean Water Act and potentially new legislative authority to ensure that the manufacturers of these 'forever chemicals' are the ones paying for the remediation. We should also look at expanding the Superfund program to include certain PFAS compounds, which would provide more tools for the EPA to recover costs from responsible parties.

Thank you. Ms. Murley, does the EPA currently have the resources it needs to effectively monitor and enforce these new standards, or are they spread too thin?

Our office has noted that the EPA's workload has increased significantly with the new mandates from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the Inflation Reduction Act. While they have received additional funding, the challenge is hiring and training enough staff to keep up with the oversight requirements. There is a risk that without adequate personnel, the implementation of these programs could be delayed or lack the necessary rigor to ensure compliance.

Thank you. I yield back.

The gentlewoman yields back. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Joyce, for five minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hill, I want to go back to the issue of affordability. In Pennsylvania, we have many small, aging systems. If these systems are forced to consolidate because they can't meet the new standards, what does that mean for the local control and the specific needs of those communities?

Consolidation is often presented as a silver bullet, but it's very complex. When a small system is absorbed by a larger one, the local residents often lose their voice in how the system is managed. Rates usually go up anyway to cover the cost of the acquisition and the necessary upgrades. While regionalization can provide some economies of scale, it's not a one-size-fits-all solution and can sometimes leave the most vulnerable communities with even less influence over their essential services.

Ms. Rechtin, do you have thoughts on the regionalization model? Has it been successful in your area?

We have seen some success with voluntary partnerships where we share resources or technical expertise without full consolidation. This allows smaller systems to maintain their identity while benefiting from the scale of a larger utility. However, forced consolidation can be very contentious and doesn't always lead to the promised cost savings. It requires a lot of local buy-in and careful planning to work effectively.

Thank you. I yield back.

The gentleman yields back. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. Peters, for five minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In San Diego, we're looking at innovative ways to secure our water future, including water recycling and desalination. Mr. Olson, how do these alternative water sources fit into the conversation about safe and reliable drinking water, and are there specific regulatory hurdles we need to address?

Water recycling, or potable reuse, is a vital tool, especially in water-stressed regions. The technology is very advanced and can produce water that is often cleaner than traditional sources. The main hurdle is often public perception and the lack of uniform federal standards for reuse. Having a clear regulatory framework would provide more certainty for utilities looking to invest in these projects. Desalination is also an option, but it's more energy-intensive and has environmental considerations regarding brine disposal that need to be managed carefully.

Ms. Murley, is the EPA looking at how to streamline the permitting for these types of innovative projects?

The EPA is working on a Water Reuse Action Plan to coordinate efforts across different agencies and provide better guidance. However, our audits have shown that the permitting process can still be slow and fragmented. We've recommended better internal coordination to help these projects move forward more efficiently while still maintaining high safety standards.

Thank you. I yield back.

The gentleman yields back. Seeing no other members present, this concludes our first round of questioning. I want to thank our witnesses for their time and their expertise today. Your testimony has been very helpful as we consider these important issues. The subcommittee will stand in recess for approximately 10 minutes before we begin our second panel. [Gavel sounds.]

...and the EPA's own data shows that the cost of compliance for these new regulations will be in the billions of dollars. Mr. Hill, how does a small utility like yours manage these types of unfunded mandates without significantly raising rates on your customers?

Thank you, Congressman. It is a significant challenge. For a system of our size, we simply do not have the economies of scale that larger metropolitan areas enjoy. When a new federal mandate comes down, whether it is for PFAS or lead service line replacement, the cost per customer is much higher for us. We often have to choose between delaying necessary infrastructure maintenance or implementing double-digit rate increases, which our community cannot afford.

I appreciate that perspective. It is a story we hear far too often from rural America. Ms. Rechtin, you mentioned in your testimony the importance of regionalization. Can you expand on how that might help smaller systems?

Yes, Congressman. Regionalization doesn't always mean a full merger. It can mean shared services, joint purchasing power, or shared technical expertise. By working together, smaller utilities can lower their operational costs and better navigate the complex regulatory environment. However, there are often legal and political barriers to these types of arrangements that we need to address at both the state and federal levels.

Thank you. My time has expired. I yield back to the Chairman. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now recognizes the Ranking Member, Mr. Tonko, for five minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Olson, I want to turn to the issue of lead in our drinking water. We know there is no safe level of lead exposure, especially for children. The EPA's Lead and Copper Rule Improvements are a major step forward, but some critics argue the 10-year timeline for replacement is too aggressive. Based on your research, what are the risks of delaying these replacements further?

Thank you, Ranking Member Tonko. The risks are profound. Every year that a lead service line remains in the ground is another year that children are at risk of irreversible neurological damage, lower IQs, and behavioral problems. While 10 years may seem fast to some, many cities like Newark and others have shown it can be done even faster when there is political will and adequate funding. Delaying this only kicks the can down the road and increases the ultimate public health cost.

And regarding the funding, we provided significant resources in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. Is that funding reaching the communities that need it most, particularly disadvantaged communities?

It is starting to, but there are hurdles. Many of the most burdened communities lack the technical capacity to apply for these complex grants and loans. We need to ensure that the EPA and the states are providing the necessary technical assistance so that the money doesn't just go to the systems with the best grant writers, but to the systems with the greatest need. We also need to ensure that the 'disadvantaged community' definitions used by states are actually capturing the people who need help.

Thank you. Ms. Murley, from the OIG's perspective, what are the primary risks for fraud or mismanagement with this influx of funding?

Thank you for the question. With any large infusion of federal cash, the risk of 'pay-to-play' schemes, procurement fraud, and simple mismanagement increases. Our office is focused on oversight of the State Revolving Funds. We are looking at whether states have the internal controls necessary to monitor these sub-recipients. We are also concerned about the 'Buy America' requirements and ensuring that waivers are being used appropriately and not as a loophole to bypass domestic preference.

I appreciate that. My time is up, I yield back.

The gentleman yields back. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Latta, for five minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to our witnesses for being here today. Mr. Hill, I want to go back to the PFAS issue. In Ohio, we have many manufacturing communities that are very concerned about the cost of these new standards. If your utility has to install advanced filtration like granular activated carbon or reverse osmosis, do you have the physical space and the technical staff to operate that kind of equipment?

That is a great question, Congressman. In many cases, no. Our current treatment plants were built decades ago and are landlocked. Adding a whole new treatment train for PFAS would require significant capital construction and potentially land acquisition. Furthermore, the specialized training required for our operators to run high-tech membrane systems is a major hurdle. We are already struggling to recruit and retain licensed operators as the current workforce retires.

And what about the disposal of the waste? Once you filter the PFAS out, you're left with a concentrated waste stream. Does the EPA provide clear guidance on how to dispose of that safely without creating a new liability?

Currently, the guidance is very limited. We are very concerned that by concentrating these chemicals, we might be designated as a 'contributor' under CERCLA if we send that waste to a landfill that later leaks. We need a clear exemption for water and wastewater utilities so that we aren't held liable for chemicals we didn't create, but are simply trying to remove from the environment.

I couldn't agree more. We need to protect the 'passive receivers' in this process. I yield back the balance of my time.

The gentleman yields back. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Barragán, for five minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In my district, we have seen the impacts of contaminated water firsthand. Mr. Olson, can you speak to the cumulative impact of multiple contaminants? Often we talk about PFAS or lead in isolation, but many communities are dealing with both, plus nitrates or arsenic. How does the current regulatory framework account for these combined health risks?

Unfortunately, the current framework largely ignores cumulative impacts. The Safe Drinking Water Act generally requires EPA to look at one chemical at a time. This is a major flaw because we know that exposure to multiple toxins can have synergistic effects, meaning the total harm is greater than the sum of its parts. We have been advocating for the EPA to move toward a 'group' or 'class' based approach for chemicals like PFAS, and to consider the total burden on vulnerable populations when setting standards.

Thank you. And Ms. Murley, regarding the EPA's enforcement, we've seen a decline in the number of inspections and enforcement actions over the last decade. How is the OIG evaluating the effectiveness of the EPA's enforcement office?

We have several ongoing audits looking at enforcement. One area of concern is the reliance on state-led enforcement. While the SDWA gives states primary responsibility, the EPA is supposed to provide oversight and step in when states fail to act. We are finding that the data the EPA uses to track compliance is often incomplete or inaccurate, which makes it very difficult to know if the law is actually being followed on the ground. We are recommending significant upgrades to the data systems.

Thank you. I yield back.

The gentlewoman yields back. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Joyce.

Thank you, Chairman Palmer. Ms. Rechtin, I want to talk about cybersecurity. We've seen recent reports of foreign actors targeting water systems. For a mid-sized utility like yours, what are the biggest challenges in defending against these cyber threats, and is the federal government providing enough actionable intelligence?

Cybersecurity is a top priority for us. The biggest challenge is that our systems are increasingly connected to the internet for remote monitoring and efficiency, which creates new vulnerabilities. We have invested heavily in firewalls and employee training, but the threats are evolving rapidly. Regarding federal intelligence, while we receive alerts from CISA and the EPA, they are often too general. We need more specific, real-time information about threats targeting the water sector specifically.

Do you believe the EPA is the right agency to lead on water cybersecurity, or should that role be shifted to a more security-focused agency like CISA or the Department of Energy?

That is a subject of much debate in our industry. While the EPA understands the operational side of water, they lack the deep cybersecurity expertise of CISA. We believe a collaborative approach is best, but there needs to be a clear lead agency so that utilities aren't getting conflicting advice or redundant reporting requirements. Right now, the landscape is a bit fragmented.

Thank you. I yield back.

The gentleman yields back. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. Peters.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Olson, I want to talk about the 'polluter pays' principle. We're seeing massive settlements from companies like 3M and DuPont regarding PFAS contamination. However, these settlements often don't cover the full cost of remediation for every affected community. How can we ensure that the manufacturers of these 'forever chemicals' are held fully accountable so the burden doesn't fall on the ratepayers?

You're absolutely right, Congressman. The settlements, while large, are a drop in the bucket compared to the national cost of cleanup. We need stronger federal authorities to compel these companies to pay. This includes using CERCLA to designate certain PFAS as hazardous substances, which gives the EPA more leverage. We also need to look at the tax code and other mechanisms to ensure that the profits made from these chemicals are used to fix the damage they've caused. It is fundamentally unfair for a family in a contaminated area to pay higher water bills to clean up a mess they didn't make.

Ms. Rechtin, in California, we are very focused on water recycling and reuse due to drought. Are federal regulations keeping pace with the technology for direct potable reuse?

The technology is definitely ahead of the regulations. While some states like California and Texas are leading the way in developing their own standards, we lack a national framework for potable reuse. This creates uncertainty for utilities that want to invest in these projects. A clear federal standard would provide the regulatory certainty needed to move these projects forward and help address water scarcity issues across the country.

Thank you. I yield back.

The gentleman yields back. Seeing no other members present, this concludes our first round of questioning. We will now take a brief five-minute recess before beginning the second round.

...and I yield back.

The gentleman yields back. I now recognize the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Latta, for five minutes.

Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to thank our witnesses for being here today. It's been a very informative hearing. And I think that as we look at the challenges that we face across the country, especially in our smaller communities, it's important that we continue to work together to find solutions that are both effective and affordable. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I see that we are at the end of our time, and I will yield back the balance of my time.

The gentleman yields back. I want to thank all of our witnesses for being here today and for your testimony. I also want to thank the members for their participation in this very important hearing. I remind members that they have 10 business days to submit additional questions for the record, and I ask that the witnesses respond to those questions as promptly as possible. With that, and without objection, the subcommittee stands adjourned. [Gavel sounds.]