Strengthening Drinking Water Systems and Protecting Ratepayers in Digital Age

Subcommittee on Environment will c- now come to order. I now recognize myself for five minutes for an opening statement. Good morning. I want to welcome subcommittee ranking member Taco, my colleagues, and our witnesses today to today's hearing before the subcommittee on environment.

Oh wait, oh wait.

Today's hearing provides a timely and important opportunity to examine legislation Yes. I'm sure. that would reauthorize critical drinking water programs and address the growing water infrastructure demands associated with data centers. Congress enacted the Safe Drinking Water Act in nineteen seventy-four to protect the quality of our nation's drinking water. Since then, Congress has periodically amended the act and reauthorized its programs to address emerging needs and challenges. Most notably, the nineteen ninety-six amendments established the drinking water State Revolving Fund, or DWSRF, which has become the primary source of federal investment in drinking water infrastructure. One of the discussion drafts we will consider today, the Safe Drinking Water Infrastructure Improvement Act of twenty twenty six would reauthorize the DWSRF and includes a number of bipartisan priorities, including support for rural and smaller water systems, a program to provide point of use filters, drinking water systems at schools and new authority to address cybersecurity risk. We will continue to discuss these policy reforms and appropriate funding authorizations with our friends across the aisle as we also work with other colleagues in the House and in the Senate on a final water infrastructure bill. In addition to reauthorizing these programs, we will examine legislation intended to protect ratepayers from costs associated with local water systems serving data centers and weather centers can have positive impacts on local communities. They're major drivers of investment, economic growth, job creation and the development of our nation's digital infrastructure. However, those benefits should not come at the expense of families and small businesses through higher water rates. In my district, they uh QTS has announced a fifteen billion dollar investment in data center development. creating significant opportunities for economic growth, job creation and digital infrastructure development across Alabama. At the same time, local families and businesses should not be forced to shoulder infrastructure costs that are directly attributable to these facilities. Many major tech companies have also committed to reducing or replenishing their water use. Companies are investing in closed-loop systems, liquid cooling and other technologies intended to reduce their reliance on evaporative cooling. We should recognize and encourage these innovations while continuing to ensure that communities and rate payers are protected. The two pieces of draft legislation on today's agenda, the Safe Drinking Water Infrastructure Investment Act of twenty twenty six and the Water Cost Accountability Act would together support continued economic growth by strengthening our nation's drinking water infrastructure. To assist us in these efforts, we welcome three witnesses today. First, we have Mister Neal Bradley, Executive Vice President Chief Policy Officer and Head of Strategic Advocacy at the US Chamber of Commerce. We're also joined by Miss Wade uh May Wu, Founder and Principal of Health and Environmental Advising. Finally, we will hear from Miss Julie Moore, Secretary of Vermont Agency of Natural Resources and Vice Chair of the Water Committee for the Environmental Council of the States, or ECOS. I thank each of our witnesses for appearing before the subcommittee today and I look forward to our discussion. I now recognize the ranking member of the subcommittee, the distinguished gentleman from New York, Mister Taco, for five minutes for an opening statement.

Thank you, Mister Chair. And today we will consider two discussion drafts proposed by the majority. The Safe Drinking Water Infrastructure Improvement Act would reauthorize several important existing programs. For the most part, these programs were last reauthorized as part of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of twenty twenty one. The IIJA provided historic levels of funding to tackle our most pressing drinking water needs, including aging infrastructure, lead pipe replacement, and PFAS. But even with these historic investments, our water systems uh needs are staggering. They um, without a serious maintained federal financial commitment, our constituents will feel the consequences of deteriorating infrastructure and rising water costs. The EPA's most recent needs survey assessed that water systems will require some six hundred and twenty-five billion dollars in infrastructure investments over the next twenty years to maintain safe operations. So as we approach the uh end of the IIJA authorizations and supplemental funding, we should recognize the great work that has been accomplished due to these investments and strive to continue these efforts. The majority's proposal could potentially be the start of that discussion. For many of SIDWA's smaller programs, we could quibble over modest changes to the authorization levels, but generally these extensions are good. The majority als- has also proposed adding heightened emphasis on cyber security to some of these programs. This is a sensible change. We know water systems are facing increasing cyber attacks and many systems, especially smaller ones, lack the capacity to be able to prepare and respond to any threats. So, while we may be able to reach agreement on these provisions, Unfortunately, the discussion draft falls far short in some critical areas. First, it would devastate the drinking water state revolving fund, reducing the authorization level by over two billion dollars annually, compared to this year's level. This is completely unacceptable. We have heard so much testimony about the importance of this program, as well as the significant needs in the years ahead. I personally believe we should provide more funding to the SRF, but I would hope we could at least compromise by maintaining current levels. Second, the proposal fails to reauthorize the public water system supervision grant program, which provides funding to state governments to help enable their administration of SIDWA. The success of cooperative federalism depends on states having the capacity and the resources to carry out the requirements of the law, and this program is essential to that. Without addressing these two issues, I unfortunately will not be able to support this proposal. Today we will also consider the majority's water cost. accountability act. I want to be clear that I strongly support data centers paying the full cost of any water system upgrades or operations that they are responsible for. I do appreciate that we have identified some bipartisan consenses to ensure data centers do the same for their electricity use through the rate payer protection act but state utility commissions do not typically regulate the rates of not-for-profit public water systems in the same way as investor owned electric utilities. So while I hope almost all of us can support the intent of the bill, I have questions about the approach taken in this draft. If we are serious about making data centers pay their fair share, I would like us to work together to make certain this legislation can withstand legal scrutiny and be implemented effectively. I appreciate the majority's interest in addressing water affordability by protecting Americans from data center related water costs but data centers are not the only reason that millions of Americans are struggling to pay their water bills. According to EPA, between twelve and twenty million US households lack affordable access to water services. And I can guarantee that if Congress reduces federal funding to support water infrastructure, these affordability challenges will get even worse. Maintaining or even increasing funding levels for the SRF should not be ignored as foundational to protecting Americans from increases to their water bills. I would also suggest that we should go a step further by enacting a permanent water affordability program, similar to LIHEAP. Ranking member Pallone and I proposed a version of such a program in twenty twenty four, and I would urge the committee to consider it. Again, I would like to thank the majority for holding this hearing. I hope we can work together to build upon the success of the IIJA and advance bipartisan legislation to ensure safe, reliable and affordable drinking water for all Americans. With that, Mister Chair, I yield back.

Thanks, gentlemen. I now recognize the Chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Kentucky, Mister Guthrie, for five minutes for an opening statement.

Thank you, Chairman Palmer. Thank you for holding this hearing and to our witnesses for being here, we appreciate you being here. Uh, this committee h has led the way in advancing policies that support uh, economic growth and protect our environment while ensuring the United States wins the race against AI dominance over China. Today we will be considering two pieces of draft legislation, The first is a bill to reauthorize the Safe Drinking Water Act programs and provide continued investment in our nation's drinking water infrastructure, as well as expand cyber security protections. The second bill, the Water Cost Accountability Act, will ensure that data centers, which are necessary to support our modern economy and win the AI race, are the ones responsible for paying the costs associated with connecting to public water systems. The rapid growth of data centers has sparked an important conversation across the country. This subcommittee has worked on legislation to support locating data centers at brownfield sites where there is already power and water infrastructure, but ultimately these decisions are up to local communities and the companies that wanna make these investments. In my district in Hancock County, one company is making a four billion dollar investment to repurpose a former, just kind of sitting empty, smelter uh into a data center campus. So this uh brownfield site is not generating any economic revenue. for the county is expected to bring ex- uh significant resources to the local schools and the growing regional economy when this takes place. Every community should be able to choose where their data center development is right for them. Those decisions and the negotiations that come with them should remain where they belong at the local level. This bill does not dictate those decisions to move forward. It simply provides an important protection for consumers. Today's discussion draft simply ensures a level of accountability that will lead to even further growth and development. I look forward to our hearing from our witnesses and I yield back.

Gentlemen yields, I now recognize the ranking member of the full committee, the gentleman from New Jersey, Mister Taco, for five minutes for an opening statement.

Just all of us.

Me? Oh, okay, I'm sorry.

Say what I have.

Um, thank you, Mister Chairman. Uh, Americans are concerned about what data centers and big techs push for more AI means for their communities' jobs. property values and future. Electricity prices are skyrocketing, the electric grid is strained, our clean air and water are being polluted, and noise is wearing on communities' health and patience. And people are just sick and tired of corporate special interests, and big tech billionaires taking over their neighborhoods, and threatening their utility bills, their air, their water, and their property. And unfortunately, these very real concerns are repeatedly swept to the sidelines, minimized or ridiculed, by President Trump and even Republican congressional leaders. Earlier this week, Trump posted on social media that communities that oppose data centers must want to end up being backwards and poor. Well, again, I I think I'm kind of repeating what uh Alex Ocasio-Cortez said, but if Trump supports data centers so much, he should support building one in Mar- a lago, in my opinion. Meantime, here on Capitol Hill, Speaker Johnson and Republican Majority Leader Scalise have refused to bring up the rate payer protection act that passed unanimously out of this committee in july they cite concerns from republican members imagine that the house republican leadership not wanting to support a bill that helps to ensure big tech pays for the energy these data centers consume we'll see whether they'll support the bill that we're considering today uh once it gets out of committee but that's the reality we're living in right now where trump and house republican leaders want to continue to give big tech free reign to build data centers with no federal guardrails. And that's a reality as we discuss the Water Cost Accountability Act. While I support the intent of this bill to ensure rate payers are not shouldering the cost of data centers it is woefully inadequate to address the environmental concerns of data centers this is the environment's subcommittee and we should be considering the real detrimental impacts that data centers are having on communities around the nation we're seeing data centers running on dirty diesel generators that drive up pollution. all while the trump administration runs roughshod over the clean air act and and then we see trump's friends like elon musk they don't they don't care at all they're not accountable at all the reports of data centers being approved without any analysis of their water use even in water stress communities and now epa is even trying to fast track the approval of chemicals like new for use at data centers putting our drinking water and the health of americans at risk so we need real substantial federal guardrails in place to restrict their on air or water or power grid and in our monthly utility bills. If Congress fails to adopt strong federal guidelines, then a federal moratorium on data summons should be put in place. We're also considering the Safe Drinking Water Infrastructure Improvement Act, a discussion draft that would reauthorize several drinking water programs at the EPA. Unfortunately, this draft proposes drastic funding cuts for several grant programs that help communities access safe and affordable drinking water including a two billion dollar proposed cut to the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund, or SRF. The SRF is our main federal funding source for drinking water projects, and helps water systems pay for capital improvements. For far too long our aging water infrastructure has been underfunded, and 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 the Republican draft fails to address this need. So communities around the nation live with the consequences of this underinvestment, from legacy lead service lines in my home state of New Jersey, to this sewage pipe break right here in Washington DC. It's time we must bring our water infrastructure into the twenty-first century. That means helping water systems prepare for and adopt to our changing climate, and increasing cyber-threats, considering ways to promote energy efficiency and conserve water, removing all lead service lines once and for all, and protecting communities from dangerous contaminants like PFAS that are plaguing our water systems. We also need a permanent water assistance program at EPA to ensure that all Americans can afford their water bills. While this draft does include provisions I support, such as reauthorizing resources for cyber resiliency, grant programs that help remove lead from drinking water, and programs that help small and disadvantaged communities comply with safe drinking water requirements it falls far short of the current need. i did wanna say when i saw the uh secretary from the vermont agency of natural resources um i started my uh political career when i was at middlebury college and we started an environmental organization and one of the things we did i won't say what year it was um was we were deputized uh to go out and test the streams to see if they were contaminated cause it was raw sewage at the time and we went to ferrisburg and schelbern and that area And it kind of, you know, piqued my interest in the environment, so I wanted to mention that. I yield back, uh, Mr. Chairman.

We now conclude with member opening statements. I 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. The witnesses will have the opportunity to give an opening statement, followed by a round of questions from members. Our witnesses today are Neal Bradley, Executive Vice President, Chief Policy Officer and Head of Strategic Advocacy, US Chamber of Commerce. Mei Wu, Founder and Principal, uh Health and Environmental Advising, LLC and Julie Moore, Secretary, Vermont Agency of Natural Resources and Vice Chair, Water Co- Committee, Environmental Counsel of the States. We appreciate uh all of you being here today. I now recognize Mister Bradley for five minutes to give an opening statement.

Chairman Guthrie and Palmer, Ranking Members Pilon and Tonka, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify on behalf of the U. S. Chamber of Commerce. Uh, the U. S. Chamber has called on policymakers to prioritize uh policies that can help our nation achieve sustained three percent plus annual real economic growth. This reflects a simple truth. Growth is not an abstract idea. At three percent growth, an economy doubles in size in roughly twenty-three years. That means more jobs, higher wages, stronger communities, and more opportunities for families and business in every region of the country. Reliable water is essential to economic growth. It supports public health, powers communities, enables manufacturing, sustains energy production, underpins agriculture and health care, and increasingly supports the digital infrastructure that modern businesses and consumers depend on every day. Today's hearing is timely because the nation is at an important inflection point. Demand for digital services, cloud computing, artificial intelligence, and other data-intensive technologies is growing rapidly. Data centers are the backbone of that economy. They enable the tools that help small businesses reach customers, hospitals manage patients, manufacturers optimize production, energy companies operate more efficiently, and consumers access the services that are now a part of all of our daily lives. The question before policymakers is not whether America will need more digital infrastructure. We will. The question is whether that infrastructure will be sited, permitted, built, and operated here in the United States in a way that strengthens communities, protects rate payers, addresses local concerns, and advances America's economic and technological leadership. The chamber believes that the answer to that question can and must be yes. We understand and appreciate the concerns that are being raised across the country around data center development, including with respect to water use. It is imperative that communities have confidence that their concerns will be heard and addressed. For data centers, that begins with early engagement among project developers, local governments, utility providers, and residents. Responsible siting should include careful assessment of lot of water availability, system capacity, alternative resources, and affordability concerns. Protecting rate payers must be a core principle of water infrastructure policy. Household and small business customers should not bear an unfair burden, or cost, from economic development projects. This is true whether the project happens to be a data center, a manufacturing facility, a golf course, or an agricultural enterprise. At the same time, policymakers should recognize that large economic development projects can bring investments at such scale that they improve the f- operations and financial viability of local utilities. Blocking or delaying needed infrastructure can raise costs by discouraging investment and leaving communities dependent on outdated systems. It's also important to understand that the stories one may hear about the data centers of even a few years ago do not describe the data centers of today. Thanks to technological innovation, data centers and other large-scale water users have been able to greatly improve their water efficiency. Continued innovation and deployment of new technologies can extend this trend. Industrial water reuse is one of those most promising tools available. Federal policies should support wider deployment of reuse technologies including through investment incentives. Finally, it's important to consider what will occur if, as a nation, we fail to build the infrastructure necessary for the digital economy of the future. A lack of data centers will not reduce the demand for artificial intelligence, cloud storage, or streaming services. It will only mean that demand will exceed supply. Economics one O one teaches us that when that occurs, prices rise. Small businesses and working families could, in the very near future, find that the tools that they need to become more efficient and grow their businesses, or to prepare for the jobs of the future, are simply unaffordable. A new digital divide, if you will, that I uh am certain none of us want to see. Further, America's competitors are not standing still. The countries that lead in artificial intelligence, cloud computing, and quantum technologies will shape the rules and economic opportunities of the future. People have honest questions and concerns about the impact of data centers on their own community, including on their water bill. The good news is that the answer to these questions should give everyone confidence that we can build the infrastructure we need in a way that helps. not hurt local communities. I look forward to taking your questions.

Thank you. And I recognize Miss Wu uh for your testimony.

Mm, good morning. Thank you. Um, and members of the subcommittee. Uh, my name is Mei Wu. I am a former Deputy Assistant Administrator at EPA's Office of Water, and I've worked on drinking water issues. twenty years and I appreciate the opportunity to testify today. Safe drinking water is fundamental to public health, to strong communities, to everyday life. Americans have enough to worry about, putting food on the table, paying their bills, keeping their families healthy and safe. They should be able to turn on the tap in their homes and trust that the water will come out, and that what comes out is safe. Water systems cannot meet this promise alone. They need a strong and sustainable federal partner, and Congress has the opportunity right now to provide that support. You know, my good friend just visited San Juan, and where he stayed, the water was only turned on for forty-five minutes, three days, uh, three times a day. So if you missed the window and turned the tap on at eight O five AM, nothing comes out. So due to the convergence of the extreme drought conditions in San Juan, and their aging water infrastructure, every day, Hundreds of thousands of people have to calculate how much water to use and when to use it, for drinking, for making baby formula, for cooking, for cleaning, for flushing the toilet. It's twenty twenty six and we are rationing water in the US. And what's happening in San Juan is something that Americans should never have to go through. But right now, almost half of the US is experiencing drought, affecting almost a hundred million people, and many of these same communities also have drinking water infrastructure that is at or nearing the end of its useful life. You know, just here in DC, we only have a one to two day buffer in available drinking water in storage, so a sewage spill like with a Potomac interceptor, upstream of our drinking water intake, or a bad drought means that we could be rationing water like they are in San Juan too. So over the next twenty years, we will need somewhere between six hundred and twenty billion dollars up to potentially one point six trillion dollars to modernize and make water infrastructure secure and even with the significant infusion from the bipartisan infrastructure law federal funding for drinking water infrastructure has not kept up with the need as a result more local funds are being used and the cost falls to rate payers and translates into higher monthly water bills people served by small water systems often end up with higher monthly water bills because the rate payer base is so small. And bear in mind, ninety-seven percent of all our water systems are considered small systems in the US. So, more federal and state funding would relieve the pressure on many local governments and their residents. The drinking water SRF is considered one of the most effective tools that Congress has ever created to fund public investment in water infrastructure. And investing in water pays dividends, both in protecting public health and in building community wealth. In fact, for every one dollar invested, you generate about two dollars and sixty-three cents in economic output. That's more than double. So cutting the SRF authorization in half will only hamstring states and utilities who are trying to provide sta- safe drinking water. And it sends a message that Congress is backing away from helping Americans, especially those living in small, rural, and disadvantaged communities. Instead, Congress should reauthorize the SRF. to at a minimum three point two five billion per year but even better would be raising those levels to ten billion dollars a year which really only flex about ten percent of the total need but would help make a dent in that need. In addition, Congress should be creating a permanent federal low-income water assistance program. The temporary program created in twenty twenty one provided relief to one and a half million people across almost every state in the nation. And nearly seventeen thousand utilities participated in that program, with almost half of those from small systems serving mostly rural communities. This program provides a good model for how Americans um how you can help Americans who need assistance to maintain drinking water access. To protect families from lead, Congress should reauthorize the lead service line replacement funding at three billion dollars per year so cities can continue to remove and replace lead pipes. Congress should also reauthorize the funding for emerging contaminants, including Pfast, to at least four billion over five years, because removing Pfast and those types of chemicals from our drinking water will save thousands of lives, um, and prevent tens of thousands of serious illnesses. Water systems face a lot of challenges, providing safe water in the face of severe weather, cyber attacks, increasing demand, and they have to do it all while keeping bills affordable. The challenges are complicated, but the answer is very simple and old-fashioned. It's funding. Thank you and I look forward to your questions.

I recognize Secretary Moore for opening statement.

Good morning, Chairman Palmer, Ranking Member Tonko, Chairman Guthrie, and Ranking Member Pilon, as well as members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I'm Julie Moore, Secretary of the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources and Vice-Chair of the Water Committee at ECOS, the Environmental Council of the States. which represents environmental agencies in every state, DC, and the territories. So I bring the perspective not only of a small rural state, but also as a member of ECOS. States are the primary implementers of the Safe Drinking Water Act's regulatory and funding programs, a partnership with EPA often called cooperative federalism. And we're eager to work on a bipartisan basis with the committee on both current challenges and those that lie ahead. Timely reauthorization and strengthening of the Safe Drinking Water Act's programs, especially the hugely successful Drinking Water State Revolving Fund, is a priority for ECOS and the states. The pipes, treatment plants, people and programs under the Safe Drinking Water Act protect not only public health but the environmental and economic vitality of our communities, and funding levels should be as robust as possible. Aging infrastructure, lead, PFAS, and cyber attacks are putting enormous pressure on systems and states. Funding needs to be sufficient and flexible enough to help address these challenges without forcing communities and ratepayers into debt they cannot afford. We encourage you to treat this bill's one point one two billion dollar DWSRF reauthorization as a floor, not a ceiling. This is fundamental for water affordability. Water infrastructure funding demand continues to far outstrip supply, even after the largest federal investment in a generation. In Vermont, project demand this year is a hundred and eighty-five percent of what it was in just twenty-twenty-one in part because ARPA and IIJA signaled that substantial affordable capital was available for these projects. Here's why continued robust SRF funding matters right now. States sit between two obligations that are getting harder to reconcile. Communities are struggling to make infrastructure investments, and they need grants and loan forgiveness as part of this. But forgiven loans don't come back to the SRF to lend again, and so states have a fiduciary duty to protect the fund's long-term solvency. Many states won't issue a b loan if it pushes a systems rate above one and a half percent of median household income, because that point default risk to the state's loan fund is real, which means often communities with the greatest need for infrastructure investment are being pushed towards a tool they really can't use. Two forces are cutting into that grant capacity for states right now, the sunsetting of the IIJA supplemental funding and community project funding, or earmarks, which come off the top of SRF appropriations before states see the money. Earmarks have the practical effect of shrinking both the subsidy pool available for loan forgiveness and the set-asides that fund the state staff, who provide direct technical assistance to the systems. Every state is impacted, regardless of whether it receives earmarks. Nationally, that's cost roughly seven hundred and forty million dollars in set-aside authority over the three most recent years. For Vermont, it's about two and a half million dollars a year, which would have funded work like asset management plans for municipal water systems leak detection work and the evaluation of unknown service lines for lead. It feels a little bit like a death spiral. The neediest systems get offered a tool they can't use in the form of a loan, or get passed over to protect the SRF. while their infrastructure deteriorates and the eventual costs, financial, environmental, and public health grow. I urge this body to direct EPA to calculate set-asides on the pre-earmark allotment, a solution already extended to the tribal set-aside. More fundamentally, CPF should be layered on top of the SRF appropriations, not deducted from them, so states can anticipate what they have to deploy each year, as we work with communities to move their projects to implementation. I'll close on cyber security. We welcome this bill's attention to it, and yet the resilience funding is too small to harden the fifty-two thousand community water systems nationwide. And frankly, capital is only half of the picture. Training, assessments, and emergency response planning really matter in this space too. We'd urge a plus up in dedicated state funding, as well as to EPA for technical assistance, either provided directly or through the many outstanding groups that provide this support to small systems across the nation. We also encourage the committee to ensure EPA coordinates closely with states and other federal agencies such as CISA in this priority area. Thank you for the opportunity to testify this morning on behalf of Vermont, ANR and ECOS, and I'm happy to answer questions or follow-up if needed.

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 Bradley, has the chamber done any analysis of how investments in local uh infrastructure projects support creation of domestic manufacturing jobs across the country?

W- we have studied recent investments in what they've done to local communities in terms of tax base job creation et cetera but not in any longitudinal sense.

Could you Could you provide that information for the record, uh, if you have that report?

Of course. Absolutely.

Appreciate that. In regard to uh the water uh uh there's a lot of discussion about the data centers and uh I understand that you're here to talk about that. Uh how does the closed-loop systems, cooling systems that data centers employing impact water resources demand and cost uh for local systems? Do you uh have an idea about how that is?

Yeah, uh uh uh, Mister Chairman, as I referenced in my opening statement, uh the data centers of uh last year or five years ago are not the data centers that are are being deployed today.

Right.

And uh in your question you reference one of the reasons that's the case.

But have you done any kind of comparative analysis uh to compare other developments, uh water usage and o- and other infrastructure like golf courses

Yes.

use an average to a hundred, a hundred and ten million gallons per year? It's all evaporative. Uh

Yes, you'll you'll see new data centers like the one Microsoft just announced, uh that uses less uh water, uh from the system uh than the average golf course.

Well it take for a medium sized data center it takes somewhere in a range of four hundred thousand to a million gallons uh one time. Uh for a hyper scale uh data center it could take up to twenty five million gallons, which would be a a quarter of what a golf course uses in one year. But you fill it one time, you you never have to refill it unless something catastrophic happens. But shouldn't the data centers be required to pay for that?

Absolutely, data centers should be required for what they use out of the system. By the way, that provides them a very strong incentive uh to innovate to reduce their use. That's why they're moving to closed systems. That's why they're even in many instances moving away from water, the ability to cool in uh non-water liquids uh that get recycled through a system.

And reading your and reading your testimony last night, I I I circled some things that I think um your referencing a value proposition, could you define that a little bit better?

Absolutely, that uh when we think about these are economic development projects, right? A data center is a large scale economic development project that brings both benefits to the community and costs. Good economic development, whether it's a data center, a manufacturing facility, an office building, uh, generates more in economic activity for the community than what it costs. When you look at data centers,

I would lo-

that's what they are routinely doing, Loudoun County not far from here, twenty-six dollars in return to the county for every dollar of cost to the county.

Well, uh, I think there's more to it than that. Um, and if, uh, if you've done any analysis of what a data center actually provides in terms of the value proposition to the average citizen, Uh, if you could provide that to to the committee in writing, we would appreciate it. Uh, Secretary Moore, uh, we've spent a good bit of money on, uh, specific water infrastructure projects rather than just providing the funds to capitalize state revolving long funds. Could you, uh, speak to how that, uh, such directed spending impacts the states as well as the long-term solvency of the of the, uh, revolving funds?

Sure. Um, so, uh, there are critical investments being funded in water infrastructure through uh earmarks and congressionally directed spending uh those but because those dollars come off the top of the allocation that would otherwise come to the state revolving fund they aren't returned to be revolved again and so we've seen uh uh or estimating a long-term diminishment in vermont alone of about a hundred and fifty million dollars of revolving loan capacity over the next twenty years as a result of um dollars going out to communities grants instead of loans. I'm happy to follow up with some additional detail on that if helpful.

That would be very helpful. I'm I grew up in an rural area and a lot of my district's rural. Can you talk about some of the unique challenges rural areas face in developing maintaining drinking water infrastructure and how this draft reauthorization bill can help?

Sure. Uh, we also are replete with rural systems in Vermont. Um, and one of the biggest challenges they face is a limited rate base. our rate payer base in order to be able to um finance that work. So the low-cost financing tools as well as the ability to provide subsidies through the State Revolving Fund program are incredibly important. We often see communities building complex funding stacks in order to be able to uh implement a project at a price their rate payers can afford seeking grants. Uh working with the Northern Borders Regional Commission in addition to monies that are available through the the State Revolving Fund.

Thank you. I now recognize the ranking member of the committee, Mister Tango, for five minutes for his questions.

Thank you, Mister Chair. At past hearings I have raised my concerns about the impending funding cliff at the end of this year with the expiration of the IIJA's supplemental funding. There is a serious risk of going back to a time when fewer water systems can access funding to carry out long overdue infrastructure improvement projects. So, Miss Wu, do you share these concerns about what looks to be a drastic reduction an SRF money for the next fiscal year

yes absolutely we have a growing need we don't need to cut back on funding at this point

in in more specific terms what would the loss of that money mean for water systems and their customers

I mean it just means a lot of the systems that need funding to be able to upgrade their infrastructure to fix those leaking pipes to fix those broken water mains won't be able to or have to put them off for longer which means that their residents are at more risk for having contaminated water or um you know break in their service.

And so given this impact, Miss Wu, do you think it is appropriate that the Safe Drinking Water Infrastructure Improvement Act would reduce the SRF's authorization level by over two billion dollars annually?

No, I don't think it's appropriate.

Um and Miss Moore, and thank you by the way for informing me of your roots in Altamont, deep in the twentieth congressional district and the Gilderland school system. Um what about the needs in a state like Vermont?

Uh, our our systems are are small. There are over four hundred public water systems in the state of Vermont, many of which are run by volunteers and volunteer boards, and they are incredibly challenged to access the level of funding required to meet some of the modern Safe Drinking Water Act requirements. In addition, the technical assistance provided by the state is critical to their successful implementation, because they often lack the administrative capacity to support the complex uh projects that that really are integral to high quality drinking water.

So we focused on these recent higher funding levels. What have those higher levels allowed you to support in terms of projects that may not have happened otherwise?

W- enor- they have been enormously impactful on the ground in Vermont. Uh we've been able to use ARPA dollars to great effect in terms of supporting manufactured communities and low income Vermonters with

Thank you. Thank you. And I also mentioned that the majority is

Sure. As as I indicated, um, oftentimes our communities are relying on the state to provide that technical assistance and support to them in evaluating needed projects, and helping understand what work needs to be completed by what time frame. uh p w s s grants coupled with the set asides in the state revolving fund program fund our staff who are really the technical experts that communities rely on in developing these projects and so any reduction in that capacity means either communities will have to contract for that kind of support or uh may let that need go unfulfilled

again with a uh very small base of uh uh of funding from the local level miss wu i'm guessing that during your time at epa you worked with many state government partners. If we want to continue this model of cooperative federalism to implement our nation's environmental laws, do you agree that federal resources such as the Public Water System Supervision Grant program, are necessary to support state administrative capacity?

Yes, absolutely, the can the partnership between the states and the federal government is so important to implementing the Safe Drinking Water Act appropriately and so uh you know providing more funding for that, is really important.

Right, and our drinking water challenges are getting more complicated. new standards for emerging contaminants, cyber security, resilience planning, and aging workforce, states need to have sufficient and qualified staff to carry out this work and provide the best technical assistance possible to water systems. I know Miss Moore isn't alone in her views. The Association of State Drinking Water Administrators sent a letter to the subcommittee for the hearing record stating public water system supervision funding is the backbone of state implementation of the State Drinking Water Act. while infrastructure investments through the drinking water safe revolving fund are essential, those investments cannot succeed without adequately staffed and resourced state programs. And that's direct from their letter. I hope we can work together to make certain both the SRF and the state grants are reauthorized at levels that reflect the tremendous needs out there and challenges. Mister Chair, before I yield back, um, I ask that, uh, the letter I just cited from, um, uh, from, uh, Isdawa uh, along with four other letters from systems, NGOs and others supporting a sustained federal infrastructure funding, uh, be entered into the record.

Well, that object is so ordered.

Thank you, and I yield back.

Gentleman yields, the chair now recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky, the chairman of the full committee, Mister Guthrie, for five minutes for his questions.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, thanks for being here, and and Secretary Moore, I I we have the same situation in Kentucky, and some of my communities were probably fifty, sixty years ago we must have had a big bond issue or something, cuz we have a lot of water plants, a lot of uh water lines that are at their breaking point.

Yeah.

And now it's extremely expensive, about usually about forty million dollars for a water plant. You have low rate, so we have low cost loans, we're talking about what you just said, subsidies, and then most of our congressional director projects, just not a enough money to do them as quickly as we need to do them. And so the problem is the shrinking load of the people requiring in in rural part of Kentucky and And it just seems like maybe the data centers in a way could be a benefit. So they come in and and they don't use as much water as they used to, but it brings a new load that can one, pay their costs to hook up, so they should pay for everything they do, but also share in this the general maintenance and the rates should help. If you have a small community and then a data center uses as much water as the rest of the community combined, that seems like that would share the cost. Have you, do you think that's possible in Vermont as well?

I I think the scale of our small communities is such that a a data center would simply dwarf the water usage um by that existing community. Generally our systems have I believe an average of four hundred or fewer connections,

Mm-hmm.

so we're we're talking very small systems.

But if you gotta build a forty mill that's my point. So if you gotta build a forty million dollar water plant for four hundred people, that's all that their rates would be astronomical.

Correct.

But if you got four hundred people and a user that's also gonna help pay for that, it actually can make it cheaper for them, right?

Uh, it it could be, I mean I th I think there's a lot of it depends in that that setting um and just the the my familiarity with the water supplies often which are ground water based it may not have the capacity to actually

Mm-hmm.

support that but the the the bigger the load in a water system in general Well every community has to make decision but if you the the the bigger the load in a water system in general whether that is or not usually it's cheaper per whether that is or not usually it's cheaper per person in the system right person in the system right there there is some amount of fixed costs and so having a a larger user base in a water system has value in bringing down the average cost to individual users so

I think that's what the problem is so Mister Bradley you wanna comment on that as as well?

I think that's exactly right, Mr. Chairman. Um, whether it's a data center or a manufacturing plan or a large agri- uh, enterprise, uh, having a large user provides scale, which happens to be particularly important force on the

And it has to be environmentally sound, has to make sure other people aren't sharing the their direct costs. But it does give scale.

I- i- i- it provides scale, and you're already seeing this in even in electric utilities, for example. Um, uh, in Indiana last week, uh, it was announced that the utility is reducing by five percent the average electric utility charge directly attributable to the fact that they're covering more of their fixed cost with data centers and so whether it's a data center or another

Mm-hmm.

large scale user it can help solve our problem.

So it's a, so secretary Moore also, in my area we have uh everybody's worried about uh cyber attacks. You got these sm I have a lot of small water systems so you have cyber attacks, and the other thing is just the aging workforce,

Yeah, so uh certainly the attention the bill pays to cyber security is is welcome. Um we often joke in Vermont that our our biggest line of defense is the fact that many of our smallest water systems aren't actually hooked up to the internet and that is their their primary defense mechanism mmm um and that's not a sustainable solution clearly um so continuing to make strategic investments in cyber security not just in the physical infrastructure but in the training uh for those water operators is critical and i agree we're we're facing a grey tsunami when it comes to the folks operating our water and wastewater systems statewide as well as across the country Uh, Vermont has partnered with the US Department of Agriculture, Rural Development to uh create a an apprentice program that's being administered by Vermont Rural Water. It's something that's seen great success. We understand that co- that funding may ultimately be reduced, which would be unfortunate. Um, but we've been able to place uh uh upwards of a dozen at this point new uh staff into key systems around the state where they had actually had gaps in coverage, in terms of certified operators.

Thank you. And I'll just close with just like rural

Someone yields, the chair now recognizes the ranking member of the full committee, Mister Taco, for five minutes for his question. I mean, Mister Pilon.

Thank you, thank you, Mister Chairman.

Thank you, Mister Boss.

I figured it was cuz we had the same blue suit.

I I I don't have the authority to promote anybody. But I do promote you, sir.

Right, thanks a lot. So I wanted to say that the Safe Drinking Water Act, TSEPA states, and water systems to work together to provide safe drinking water. And often these projects, like replacing lead service lines or fixing leaking pipes and cleaning up PFAS contamination of water, can be costly. However, investments in our drinking water are critical to public health and the functioning of our economy. So in witness testimony we see broad agreement on the importance of reliable water and the need for sustained and strengthened investments. in our infrastructure and i agree because water is critical to every aspects of our lives unfortunately federal investments have not kept pace with the need so i have three questions of miss woo i would like to get to all three uh first is we is if we continue to underfund the state revolving fund and drinking water infrastructure infrastructure projects what does that mean for american families

i mean uh it means that their monthly bills could be going up to pay for water if they can afford them it means that they risk that the water coming out of their tap may not be as safe as they want it to be it means sometimes they may turn on the water and they may turn on the tap and water doesn't come out there's a lot of risk there

alright and i i agree obviously that's why i've uh i fought hard and i think we all did for the bipartisan infrastructure law uh you know for the srf in targeting funding to address lead and pfass contamination But instead of sustaining these investments from the bipartisan infrastructure law, uh this this republican discussion draft would dramatically cut the SRF. And Americans are already struggling with the cost of basic necessities and they're seeing their water bills increase significantly. And I think they're gonna suffer the consequences of these cuts that are in the draft. But my second question, Miss Wu, some suggest that rolling back drinking water protections would make water more affordable. Do we need to compromise on drinking water standards to provide safe, affordable water to communities?

No, absolutely not. It shouldn't be a two-tier system. If you can afford the water, you get cleaner water. Everybody should have safe, affordable water and, you know, it's a it's an important part of just protecting public health is making sure that the water that comes out doesn't have PFAS in it or your pipes aren't delivering lead so that your kids can have a better shot at uh, you know, a good, healthy future. um in that you aren't dealing with more medical bills because somebody in your family has gotten cancer or somebody there has a you know heart disease or lung disease caused by these contaminants

alright thank you and then my third question is um when thinking through ways to address the affordability challenges facing americans could a permanent water assistance program play a role as we have for some other utilities

yes absolutely i think the temporary program that was in place helped um more than a million families already um but it was temporary and so it you know a permanent one will go a long way to helping all the families who are struggling with their monthly water bills.

uh i appreciate that you know i i what i see happening uh with a lot of people is they're afraid to drink the water right so i mean look at here today we've got the the bottles right i still drink the tap water maybe i'm crazy for doing it but i still do and uh i do think it's you know that we owe it to the american people to insure they have access to affordable and safe drinking water and i hope we can work together towards a bipartisan bill uh obviously uh mr. chairman i've been critical of this draft but it's only a draft so hopefully we can improve uh the levels of funding and and address some of the concerns uh that the panel has uh brought up today in terms of drinking water issues facing our country I mean, I know that even in in my district we've we've used the money from the bipartisan bill and state sources of funding,

Oh, drink.

uh, you know, to r- remove lead pipes. A lot of the older a lot of the towns in my district have had, you know, had pipes that went back, you know, a hundred years or so, right? And so it costs a lot to, uh, to replace them. And that's why we need a more robust, uh, uh, safe drinking water, uh. program and ev- and this draft is inadequate, but we still have time uh to improve it and hopefully we'll do that uh on a bipartisan basis. Thank you and I yield back to Mr. Chairman.

Uh, they've called votes and rather than recess, I want to be sensitive to people being able to make their flights. So we're gonna continue the hearing and and I would encourage members who are a little bit down the line for uh asking questions to go vote and come back. Uh And uh we'll just keep the hearing going so that we can finish this in a timely manner, and people can make their flights. Uh, the chair now recognizes this gentleman from Georgia, Mister Carver, for five minutes for his questions.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, and thank all of you for being here, extremely important subject. You know, I have the honor and privilege of representing the entire coast of Georgia, and we've been very successful in economic development and attracting new investment in Georgia. Thirteen years in row, number one state in which to do business, so we're very proud of that and we've worked hard at that. Look, data centers are a concern, and and I believe that data centers can be very good for our communities. They can bring major private investment, they can create jobs, they can strengthen the tax base, and they can create new opportunities for local workers and businesses. But, but the projects are going that are going to be successful over the long term are the ones that operate as partners with the communities that host them. I know this firsthand. In another life I was a mayor. I recognize how important local jurisdiction is, and I recognize that and I I encourage the data centers, not after the fact but before the fact, to please work with the local communities. This will help us all. George has already been working through a lot of this. We've on the electrical side anyway, the basic principle is pretty straightforward. When a new large user creates the need for new infrastructure, customer should bear the cost associated with serving that new demand, rather than shifting those costs onto families and small businesses. The PSC in Georgia has already addressed this, and we've done that. The same can be true for um water cost and accountability. Mister Bradley, let me ask you from an economic development perspective, how important is that principle of cost responsibility to maintaining public support for large projects like data centers?

Congressman, I think it's essential. Um, I I think that that I I've spoken to the data center developers uh myself and said, you know, the the approach that you've taken in the past um of treating it like a normal economic development project where maybe you wouldn't have had as much public engagement just won't work anymore and so people have questions the good news is, is you have answers you should be transparent and open about what you're doing and provide those answers. I think one of those answers has to be to your point that they're gonna bear the cost

And do you

for the incremental things that they're adding. And then we also ought to look for them to provide the large scale benefits that inure to the whole system that can actually help rate payers.

Right, and you agree it should be before the fact, not after.

Absolutely, before the fact.

Absolutely. How can we make sure that data centers pay for the infrastructure that they um, that they need without making it harder for communities to n- attract new investment?

This is a pr- principally a local level decision, right? Uh, Each data center is different, how it's structured, its size, what it's gonna use, each community is different in terms of its capacity.

That's exactly right.

And so I think i- these really have to be local discussions that are transparent to - to the public but the principle that should guide those discussions is one that every large user should bear the cost of their thing and I think what we see around the country is that's what local governments are insisting on and that is what data center developers are committing to provide.

And let me emphasize that word you used, transparency, extremely important. You know, um, let's let's shift now to water. Many communities in Georgia, particularly smaller and rural communities, are trying to maintain aging drinking water infrastructure with limited staff and resources. You you mentioned yourself, Secretary Moore, and and what y'all are doing. And cyber security is certainly important. Course, if you're not on the internet, it ain't that important, but nevertheless, Drinking Water Infrastructure Improvement Act would continue assistance for small and disadvantaged systems while expanding cyber security eligibility and workforce training. Secretary Moore, for smaller water systems, what would make these federal programs genuinely useful on the ground? What and what's the practicality here?

Sure. I I think each one of our systems is unique, not dissimilar to the conversation you were just having around data centers. And so having um trained staff on the ground able to provide direct technical assistance to those smallest systems is really critical in helping them um put up the necessary defense to withstand a cyber security attack.

Absolutely. Let me let me be clear again. Georgia is growing and and we are investing and and we have companies investing in Georgia. Growth works best when the company, the utility, and the local community are at the table together. not after the fact but before the fact. When infrastructure needs are planned out up front, the costs are allocated fairly, and the people who already live in that community, already there, they see the real benefits from the investment. This is what we need to remember. Thank you all for being here on this very important subject. Thank you, Mister Chairman, for convening this, and I yield back.

Gentleman yields. Chair now recognizes the distinguished gentleman from California, Doctor Ruiz, for five minutes for his questions.

thank you very much mr. chairman you know i represent california's twenty fifth district it's the southeast corner of california very dry desert

yep

there's extreme heat hundred and fifteen degrees um you know california has been struggling with drought every once in a while we're in the colorado river basin and we're facing mandatory cuts our uh livelihoods depend on water and the agricultural uh uh industries and we want and there are data centers who wanna come in and they wanna come into rural areas because land perhaps is more abundant and cheaper and and uh uh they may uh a lot of utilities are are cheaper in that area for them as well um but of course there is a lot of reservation um not only in terms of the cost of water uh to the local residents which by the way are amongst the most impoverished in the state of california um with one of the lowest median household incomes one of the highest unemployment rates up to fourteen percent still in that entire county where the national average is four percent um but also in terms of the scarcity of water and what that may look like not just in the current snapshot but in the future and so uh there's a lot of concern uh with costs with scarcity in consumption specially during droughts in case the colorado river has more mandated cuts but also in terms of the quality and the cleanliness of the water and potential contamination from data centers and so we have to um figure out how do we first and foremost protect the people that live in those communities cause i can almost guarantee you that the owners of these data centers are gonna live in these communities and uh and so one of the uh things that we're working on at my office is how do we create more transparency in the reporting to anticipate what these data centers will do in these local communities we looked at um some uh reporting uh parameters like uh hold on let me get it here anticipated water consumption including maximum daily maximum monthly and average annual water use estimates um what else should we be requiring reporting beforehand so that we can have better accounting should we include uh peak water usage during the hottest parts of the days

uh yeah you took the words right out of my mouth i was gonna say especially because you live in such a hot area when you see that peak demand it is during those hottest days so i think that's more important than just the average use or even like what they think they'll use on an annual basis is what's that peak because your water utility is gonna need to build its infrastructure to meet that peak need not to meet whatever the average need is so that's a really important um area but also like you know, the chemicals that they're gonna be using, what's gonna get into the water as uh the data center is using the water because, you know, there may be contamination from some of the things that they'll have to use as they're cooling the water. So there may be corrosion inhibitors, there might be biocides, things like that I think are also really important.

Um, I'd like to explore more what are the dry cooling methods that uh you would think are the safest for communities uh for data centers to use

it's a big question i'm not a data center expert i think that there are a lot of

ok

technologies that are probably in use now but are being you know there's research and development on that um and hopefully they're thinking about both you know lower water use but also what the potential human health impacts of whatever those technologies are

uh so bradley you mentioned some of those earlier Uh, you're with the US Chamber, representing these businesses, so I'd like to know what are the safest uh dry cooling methods that don't rely on water, but that pose the the least or no risk to the environment or to the water itself.

Congressman, you have a a number of innovations that are occurring, including not all are appropriate for every place, though, for example. In some areas you can use air cool that is more difficult in a hot, humid uh environment. Uh, you have now submersion systems where essentially uh the data center elements are submerged in a non-conductive uh liquid that liquid is part of a closed system um it's not your normal drinking water so it's a closed non-conductive system and they use that liquid uh to get higher efficiencies in the cooling and so those are innovations that are kind of growing and occurring but it's really gonna depend on the type of data center and you know the type of environment that you're operating in what would make the most sense

Thank you. I think the first and foremost, we need to protect people. Uh, we need to protect their drinking water, the air they breathe. Uh, let's figure that out, so that we then we can figure out how we can dominate uh in the AI space. OK. Thank you. I yield back.

Thank you very much. Gentlemen, I yield back and the chair recognizes himself for five minutes for questions. Uh, Mister Bradley, welcome back, good seeing you again. And you know, just to uh follow up on your last comments, I was out at one of our uh. corporations in the state of ohio they're working on that being able to submerge everything into that liquid so it's almost like thinking about your uh cooling system in your car so it's uh would be no water so it's it's quite a system but if i could uh start with my questions with you because i think one of the things that really stood out uh in your testimony was when you talk about wanting to make sure that we're protecting the rate payers out there and you know you say that's a core

Congressman, it's great to see you uh again as well. Um, yes, the the the the principle's pretty simple, right? So if you have a large scale user, um, and from our perspective, that would include a data center or a large manufacturing facility,

Mm.

or e- even a large uh office campus, you have a large user, either of electricity or water, they ought to pay the costs that they are imposing on the system for those connections. Now that principle is simple, the implementation of it can be a a bit more complicated, because as we've discussed earlier, for example, the scale that a large user can bring to the system uh can actually help offset fixed costs for the other rate payer base. And so, if we're truly uh squaring up both sides of the ledger we're looking at both the the the cost that they're imposing on the system uh both one time cost for the hookup then operating cost but we're also looking to what they contribute to the system. Um you know local utilities uh local municipalities have a lot of expertise in working with project developers to figure that out but I think those are the questions that will have to be worked out on a project by project basis to implement the principle uh that you have correctly identified.

Okay. Well, thank you. Um. Let me let me ask uh uh Secretary Moore um. You talked about the vulnerability of our our our systems out there, and one of the great things about being in positions that we in are I get to I actually go out and I'm looking at our our water and our sewer systems out there, but also the vulnerability out there. Cuz you go in a little bit on because on the cyber security side, but also on the physical facility. at the physical side that the threats are out there and what we need to be doing out there with our water systems.

Yeah, the the challenges really abound for our our smallest water systems in particular. Um, they often lack the technical, financial and managerial capacity to to meet many of the sort of modern challenges that are are befalling them alone. And that is why having robust state technical assistance as well as through our our partner organizations like Rcap and the Royal Water Associations is incredibly critical to making sure that we have the resources and are providing them um to these systems so that they can uh maintain that safe, high quality and affordable drinking water that their customers expect.

Well, thank you. Uh, Ms. Wu, you know, uh, as we talk about upgrading our systems and the dollars that are out there, the other thing when I'm out at our s- uh water plants across uh the state of Ohio you know we talk about you know needing the money for just the physical plant but the other issue that we're gonna be facing in the future maybe you did when you saw it when you were at the epa is finding the technicians out there and the people that run the facilities and that's something they're they're uh you know a lot of the folks there i guess you might say are aging out they're getting ready to retire and we just don't have those people coming up behind what could you talk address that issue because again you know we can have all the great plants out there in the world but if we don't have the people we got a problem

Yeah, absolutely right, workforce development is a big huge issue, especially in these smaller communities where, you know, folks are leaving and and you don't have somebody who's uh certified to operate. Um and I think there are a lot of great programs out there in community colleges. We need more and fund more of those to have, you know, sort of um trainer certifications, operator training. Um there's also um a lot of, you know, things thinking about like reciprocity between states so that people can move to continue and keep that certification work um there uh and then it's you know there's actually a real need on data because we don't um it's hard to see a shortage need in a specific place when your data shows you like nationally we're okay with how many engineering engineers we have or things like that but if we had more water specific data with like the bureau of labor statistics then we would have a better sense of like what the real need is in the water arena but there's um you know there are lot of programs and there was an inter-agency work group that had looked at water force uh water workforce needs so there are lot of programs within a lot of agencies i think that could be also better funded to help uh build out that workforce so we really do need it

well well thank you very much to our witnesses my time has expired and the chair recognizes the gentleman from new jersey five minutes for questions

thank you chairman lead poisoning from drinking water is a preventable public health crisis And we know the solution, getting lead pipes out of the ground. That is why the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act provided fifteen billion dollars through the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund specifically for lead service line replacement New Jersey has put those funds to work to protect children and families from health harms like developmental delays, learning difficulties and seizures. But our state needs billions in additional investment to remove all lead pipes. We should meet this moment and get the lead out. Yet Republicans have instead proposed cutting the state

It would mean that if they replaced the lead service lines they would slow it down a lot, and that means just more kids, another generation of children who'd be exposed to this neurotoxin, and dealing with developmental delays, you know, learning disabilities, things like that, that they just don't need to be you know burdened with.

yeah and the communities i represent know the consequences of aging lead pipes firsthand newark overcame a serious lead contamination crisis that threatened the health and well-being of more than two hundred thousand residents i'm proud the city responded with an ambitious program and replaced all of its lead service lines a republican's proposal would deny other communities the resources they need to act before a crisis occurs and to protect families from serious harm so what are the public health consequences when lead pipe replacement is delayed because communities lack

i think the problem is that we're just gonna leave a generation of children behind um and they you know they they will have to deal with the burdens of uh you know having delays in schools and and you know other issues so we really need to work quickly on this.

and i agree and democrats are aligned there because we have to protect our families from permanent harm to brain development and other lifelong health effects caused by drinking lead contaminated water it's by the way twenty twenty six Like we should be able to assure that every American, every American child is drinking clean water. The IAJ's fifteen billion dollars in supplemental funding dedicated to lead service line replacement, help prevent those consequences and keep children from getting sick. We have a proven federal model and we should build on it now. So again, using the example provided by the IAJ, do you support authorizing a dedicated lead service line replacement funding stream as a supplement to the drinking water state revolving fund?

Absolutely.

Um, I wanna turn now to another topic that is so important to New Jersey families, data centers. Republicans have proposed a bill that would require the EPA to report to Congress on the sources of water that data centers use. But as this infrastructure expands, communities need to understand not just where data centers get their water, but how much they use, how that demand affects local water supplies, and what it means for their water bills. That is why my data center transparency act would require the EPA to publicly report on those key metrics. Ms. Wu, would you agree that collecting a fuller range of metrics would help communities make more informed decisions about the environmental impacts of data center infrastructure?

Yes, absolutely.

At the core of uh my bill uh at its core, my bill is about making sure that data center growth does not come at the expense of our community's well-being, yet discussion draft the discussion draft before us solely directs the EPA to submit a single report to Congress on data center's water sources without requiring any updates or public disclosures. so in your view should the information the epa collects on data center water use also be made publicly available so communities can understand the impacts for themselves

it definitely needs to be made publicly available

i agree and that's why it's critical that communities have public up-to-date access to this information that is because affordable access to clean safe water is a fundamental right and a basic service that we should help deliver for every american family across the country i'm disappointed but not surprised that republicans have used this hearing to advance

thank you very much gentlemen yields back the chair now recognizes the gentleman from colorado's eighth district for five minutes for questions thank you

Thank you so much, uh, Chairman, and to the ranking member for this hearing, and thank you so much to our witnesses for taking the time to come and talk about water. Uh, this is an incredibly important topic to me, being from Colorado where we are in a historic drought right now and we're traditionally just a very dry state anyway. Uh, some of my district, uh, the North Denver area, uh, and then northern Colorado, some of the fastest growing areas in the country right now. Uh, and so water projects, being able to have the funding for water projects, critically important and of course it's also critically important that once we get the funding we can actually go and execute that money to create um, as miss Wu said, you know, we need more infrastructure in this space. One of the challenges that we're facing in Colorado, Denver water, which serves um about twenty five percent of the population of the state of Colorado, is trying to expand a reservoir and it's been under litigation for two decades. Um, I'm just gonna read a quick excerpt here from a a news article, six environmental groups challenged Denver water's plan to store more water for the one point five million people it serves. Um, and again, this is the gross dam. So, uh, understand the importance for getting more funds. I'm proud to have gotten tens of millions of dollars in water funding for my district, but I think we also know we, uh, we need to have pathways forward to execute it so that these prog- um, projects don't get bogged down in litigation for, in this case, two decades. Um, and, uh, when we're talking about water and infrastructure, one of the other big concerns that my constituents have, specifically is around uh water and data centers. Uh and I typically hear this along uh along two different uh avenues. They talk about data centers in terms of power usage, uh we have my rate payer protection act which is addresses the power side of the equation, uh and then also the water usage side. And so we know two things uh can be true at the same time. First, we have to have the digital infrastructure to beat communist China, make sure that our sensitive data is not being stored in China in Chinese data centers, that were created with a much larger carbon footprint and a larger negative environmental impacts. Um, so we have to have that digital infrastructure here, but we also have to make sure that our communities know that these things are being done uh responsibly especially in dry places like Colorado with a responsible eye toward uh water usage um and so uh Mister Bradley first series of questions to you. In your view, uh what responsibilities do data center Congressman, I think first they have to be transparent, um, and they have to provide uh wonderful data about what their expected uses are, the impact. They have to work through that with the local community and the local utility providers. Second, as we've seen with over two hundred companies making commitments on the uh electric utility side, uh, they have to commit that they're paying their incremental costs uh to the system and contributing back to that. I think third, they need to have a commitment to innovation. One of the things that we know is that technology isn't just moving fast in AI and data centers, it's moving quickly in the physical world about how you power a data center, how much it uses, how much water it uses, and continued innovation will actually help us reduce stress on the system and demands on the system going forward. So I think accomplishing those three things is the type of responsible development that we're seeing occurring uh around the country. Let's talk specifically about water. Um, can you share some more information about how responsible data centers are being built to reduce their water usage by either recycling the resources they need uh using cl- uh closed loop systems and if you happen to know I'm in the heart of oil and gas country can you comment specifically on using produced water uh to cool data centers if you happen to know that specifically? Uh, Congressman, you referenced several of the ways that they're doing that, right? A closed loop system, which is the traditional water that we understand, but in a closed loop. so that you're not uh uh losing excess water through the system. Uh second, you combine that with potentially air-cooled, depending on uh the climate and the environment, you can supplement using kind of two systems. Um third, we have increasingly uh using um grey water, if you will, so not water out of the drinking system, but water that they can pull into the system that we can use and that we can put back in uh to to the the the water local water system. uh after clean up and refinement and then finally uh to your point about uh oil and gas, they're all alternatives to water for liquid cooling and that's some of the the newest innovations that we're seeing in its ability to actually submerge um uh these uh components into a liquid that heat can transfer but electricity will not transfer, which actually gives you an alternative uh to to drawing down from the local water supply. So in my final fifteen seconds here, relative to something like a golf course, how much water does a responsible data center actually use? Um, we're increasingly reaching the point, for example, Microsoft just announced a a a data center, uh, that will use four uh uh Olympic size pools over the course of a year, substantially less than your typical eighteen hole golf course. And so it depends on the size, it depends on the cooling structure, but the trend that we are going is to less water utilization. Thank you and I yield back.

Gentleman yields, chair now recognizes gentlelady from California, Miss Berrigan, for five minutes for her questions.

Thank you so much uh, Mr. Chairman. Uh, Miss Wu, I'd like to start with you. Um, do you know how much Republicans are proposing to cut? Um, in the bill, the safe water drinking infrastructure bill?

Oh, uh, looks like they're uh cutting uh like uh one in one point two. five billion dollars from that.

So at least over a billion dollars.

Yeah.

Does that sound like an investment in infrastructure for for clean water, or we're the opposite direction?

It is not an investment in keeping up with the need, it is taking a step backwards.

Yeah, so it's really perplexing to sit here and listen to my Republican colleagues talk about clean water infrastructure and clean water, and clean water, yet they're cutting money that's gonna go into the investment of having clean water. You know, there are communities across the country that are facing growing challenges to keep drinking water safe and affordable. And aging infrastructure, PFAS and other contaminants and rising costs are putting more pressure on local water systems. I know, I've heard about it firsthand. And here we have a Republican bill that proposes much lower funding level for the drinking water state revolving fund, which helps communities pay for critical drinking water projects. Uh, Miss, well, you've previously testified before this committee on PFAS. And Southgate, which is in my district in California, Four wells affected by PFAS supply more than half of the city's total water demand. What would less drinking water, state revolving fund support mean for communities like South Gate, California, that are trying to keep harmful contaminants like PFAS out of their drinking water?

I think it means they're gonna have a much harder time protecting their residents from chemicals like PFAS and that people will you know have to um deal with the consequences of being exposed to those chemicals.

Uh, thank you. And when the federal support falls short, uh that means that local water systems will uh are left with a choice between raising rates on families and delaying treatment of contamination. Would that be accurate?

Yes, that would be right.

So at a time when Americans are facing a high cost of living because of Republican policies this is just gonna further increase the chances that people's water bills are gonna go up more cuz local local water uh agencies will have to figure out either how to fund it or raise rates.

That's right. If the federal government can't uh provide um more of the funding then yes, the local governments who will have to pay for those costs will pass them on to their customers and you'll see higher monthly bills.

Thank you. Mister Bradley, um I was uh very pleased to hear your opening testimony uh talk about it doesn't matter whether it's a golf course or a data center or or other things that these costs uh should not be be passed on to consumers. Um, you've spoken a little bit alr- you've spoken uh quite a bit already about these uh new systems, like closed-loop systems to reuse the same water repeatedly. Um, is there anything else you wanna add about those? Because I I have to tell you, I hear from people all the time um just how bad data centers are and how the the water is is gonna be either contaminated or use at high levels. Is there anything else you wanna add about um these new and improved systems that maybe we need to uh tell more people about?

Well, Congresswoman, as I said in my opening statement, I think what we've learned about data centers from ten years ago or twenty years ago isn't necessarily applicable to the data centers that are, were built two years ago or that are being built today. And so, I think people have legitimate questions, um uh uh and concerns, and I think there are good answers. And those answers have evolved as technology has evolved. And that's a good thing, and we should expect to continue to see that. So, um, I I think the most important thing, um, as I alluded to to earlier is that we have transparent conversations in the local communities where these developments are being proposed um and we appropriately assess the capacity of the the local utility to provide that and what the developer is gonna return uh to that local system and to that community. I think if we have that honest transparent conversation, people are going to find uh and make decisions that are best for their communities, which will often mean approving these types of developments.

Mr. Barile, do you think Congress should be the one that does more to push the data centers to reduce their water usage?

I think this committee in Congress is doing an important role of laying out objectives and principles. You wanna follow, as I uh mentioned earlier, the practical implementation of this, will have to occur at a local level because every data center is different, every local utility is different.

Thank you.

So I think we have to be mindful of them.

Thank you. Mitch, would you have an opinion whether Congress should be the one to push large data centers to reduce their water usage?

I think it's important that data centers do reduce their water usage, and Congress can be a great voice for that need.

Secretary Moore.

Uh, thank you. Congress um obviously plays an important role in all of the conversations about

Gentlelady yields. Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Virginia, Mister Griffith, for five minutes for his questions.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, uh one of the draft bills that we're talking about today has to do with water rates for data centers. I know Mister uh Bradley you've already discussed uh some of this, but I'm gonna ask again um th but for those w- mainly for those watch watching back home, could you speak a little bit on how all industrial water users normally enter into water use agreements?

Certainly, Congressman, when you have a a large-scale water user who's coming in and proposing to to access a system, uh you will likely have a local agreement with that system that governs the expected uses costs implementation of that. And that type of agreement can set the f- the framework for uh both the financial commitment of the large-scale water user, in this case a a data center uh but also uh the infrastructure that the the local utility will need to deploy to be able to meet that increased demand. And so you you often have these type of local agreements just so that you can properly allocate costs and properly allocate the investments in infrastructure.

And that's why it's so important that the the final decision, while we can influence the policies and so forth, the final decision needs to be a local decision, depends on how much water they have available and whether or not they can reach an agreement that they think works. Is that right?

That's exactly right, and, you know, you could have uh the same data center in two different places and you would reach two different conclusions because circumstances are different.

Right. And um do you think we should include provisions in in in our draft of Water Cost Accountability Act uh on water recycling for large users?

I do think water recycling uh holds a lot of promise. There are other proposals pending in Congress, for example, for investment incentives for water reuse and so in addition to covering uh the rate questions, figuring out how we can reduce overall demand from large scale users, uh would be an appropriate consideration uh for the immediate cost.

So, uh and and just again so folks back home can understand what we're talking about, I noticed in a recent article in the Cardinal News by Duane Yancey that he talks about, uh a plant not coming in my district but coming nearby, and Google is touting that they're currently uh doing roughly seventy-eight percent of their fresh water consumption is being uh, replenished. Now part of that is creating wetlands. Uh, so it's not just your straight recycling. It could be creating a new wetland uh opportunity which could increase the value of the aquifer. Is that right?

Absolutely. Again, uh, each each location is a little different, and so a wetland might make sense in some places, uh, it might not make sense in others.

And it's interesting, their goal apparently is a hundred and twenty percent, so that they can really help our our water supply long term.

They they would be net negative with respect to their contribution,

That's correct.

which in order to everyone's benefit in the local community.

Yeah, but it is a local, it is a local issue. Now, if we have one of these agreements and under the draft proposal, the infrastructure costs for data centers will be recovered from these larger customers but how do you see uh this requirement for recovering this infrastructure cost impacting water system bond underwriting?

Um, well, s- well, certainly if you have a water system who has an agreement with a guaranteed revenue source, uh, bond issuers are gonna look favorably upon the fact that you have this commitment that is bound for that revenue, that could actually improve the potential for for financing.

All right, so can you address concerns about what happens if the data center fails and ends up going under? Or any large water consumer, but particularly we're talking about data centers.

Yeah, yeah, um, I I'm not sure we have seen an example of a data center going over given demand, but yes, um, I think there are a couple of options here. One is does the underlying agreement address that issue? Uh, it could potentially, and that could be something a local u- community or utility uh would insist upon. Um, you might have rights that are transferred if someone else picks up that asset. Um, if you have invested the resources as a local community, uh, to provide access to that water, that's becoming a valuable commodity these days. I suspect there are other people who would love to pick up that opportunity and replace whatever the failed data center or other um uh large scale uh user

Thank you. Secretary Moore, I might have to give you some written questions uh later, but one of the things that I always have to be concerned about is I represent a number of rural water utilities. Can you speak on uh how Congress can improve technical assistance training for rural water system employees as a part of this uh draft safe drinking water act?

Sure. Uh, one of the ways is to ensure that the state programs are are fully funded by moving to take community uh funded projects off after a state set asides come those are the dollars that flow directly to the team at my agency um who are providing direct technical assistance to uh local water utilities in addition uh organizations like and the rural water association are incredible in terms of the technical assistance they are able to provide to our rural communities

and i appreciate that my time is up mr. chairman i yield back

gentleman yields chair now recognizes the gentleman from Ohio, Mister Lansman, for five minutes for his questions.

Uh, thank you, Mister Chair, and thank you all for for being here. Um, I wanna start on the data centers uh question. The the narrative sometimes gets to be about, you know, do we do data centers or do we not do da data centers? Do we wanna win the AI race with uh China uh or not? Uh, to me, the question here is who pays? And are our towns. Protected. The. Issue around water. Uh, is. Pretty significant in the sense that. You know, they these data centers use a ton of water now. And. I think it's something like. Forty or fifty million gallons a day. Based on the projections of. uh the construction of new data centers it's gonna be something like two hundred million so four times as much and and that's just in the next year or two um almost all that water comes from public water systems and for me it's you know what are the disclosure requirements i mean at the moment we don't really know and and there are examples of of of good actors examples of bad actors examples of of folks who are using great technology uh you know and and and and their examples of folks who h have not done the right thing but we don't currently have federal disclosure requirements in terms of how much water uh a data center is using at their peak or just in general or both uh where they're getting the water how much they're taking from the groundwater, uh what their wastewater discharge uh you know uh uh work looks like, what kind of cooling technology, none of that's currently required. Uh and so communities lack information. And then there's no requirement that they pay for all of their water uses usages usage, sorry. Um, or they don't there's no requirement that they pay for the infrastructure. Now, some may be doing that and those agreements get worked out on a local level, but there's no requirement. So again, local communities don't have much leverage here. So they lack information, they lack leverage. I'm curious, and I'll start with you, Miss Wu, what what do you think Congress's role should be as relates to the water piece?

I mean all the things that you you just talked about right, I think transparency is very important, but not just transparency, like we really need to know specific pieces of data about this water system, and the community needs to know, it can't be a a check the box exercise where they're like, oh we had we you know we had a meeting and we talked about it. Um and so things like you know peak demand, peak um especially during the hottest days, that's what the community needs to know, like you know and when if they have a drought like what is gonna happen

But by the way, this would be pre-construction disclosure too, I mean, cuz that would help people understand what do we need to ask for, Absolutely, yeah. as communities try to work this out. Secretary Moore, I wanna ask you, Mister Bradley, too, what are your thoughts on the role Congress should play here?

Sure. Uh, one point I I would like to raise, and this is coming from the perspective of a state where only about half of our residents are on public water systems is if a data center is not into a public water system. Um, it I'm not sure that there are currently frameworks in place to require the kinds of reporting whether it's a ground water withdrawal or a surface water withdrawal. Vermont has put in place some regulations um to deal with some other industrial uses within the state, but I don't think those that those are wide spread and so just would would put that out there as a placeholder. Um, the other thing I would just know

Wait, uh, I just don't wanna make sure I'm understanding what you're saying. Right now there just there are there are n- uh there are no requirements to to tell folks how much water they're gonna use. Are you suggesting that they do or you just saying they don't?

I'm saying that if you're not connected to a public water supply, if you were to drill your own well or um construct your own surface water intake,

Yeah.

those requirements are not consistent nationwide for reporting.

Got it. G- got it, yeah. Mister Bradley, r- Congress, hear him in

Well,

the role.

in general transparency is a very good thing,

Yeah.

and I think this hearing and the work that you all are doing highlights these issues. I I think Congress has to be careful about being prescriptive about what you want to see in each particular development because the the the data center or the other large scale user can look very different, the local community and the water system can look different, and what would make sense in one place may not make sense in another, and you really have to empower, and these local communities are empowered, they're the ones who control the permits, uh to really decide if it's works for their community.

Thank you. My time's expired, I yield back.

General Nils, chair now recognized gentleman from Pennsylvania, Doctor Joyce, for five minutes for his questions.

Thank you, Chairman Palmer and Ranking Member Tonka for holding this important hearing, and to our panel for being here this morning to testify. Earlier this year, I chaired an oversight and investigation subcommittee investigation w- uh regarding the cause of the Potomac Interceptor collapse here in DC and the resulting impacts. Through that investigation, which palmer had originated when he was the uh chairman of the oversight and investigation subcommittee it became clear how serious a failure in this critical infrastructure can be and how important it is to maintain support for both regular maintenance

Mr.

and future investment all over our country aging sewer and drinking water systems need repairs and they need upgrades some of these projects have been put off for years due to lack of local resources, risking future public health and clean water disasters all across America. This risk is especially urgent in rural communities with smaller water systems like many of the municipalities that I represent. In meetings, I have heard regularly from small water and sewer authorities who are struggling to maintain infrastructure nearing its end of life as they wait for funding and resources needed for replacements and upgrades. A disruption in either service can put a strain on both systems and place serious burdens on the community and on the operators who maintain the infrastructure. In the draft legislation that we are considering today, I am glad to see a commitment to maintaining and modernizing the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund. This is a necessary federal funding source the communities of my district rely. In preparation for this hearing, I heard from the manager of the Altoona Water Authority in my district on how these funds have allowed them to complete necessary projects, from water line replacements to treatment facilities improvements, all the while maintaining low customer rates and providing the cleanest water to the highest standards. Ms. Moore, in your testimony you discussed the increasing financial strain faced by communities. How can the funding from SRS be leveraged to provide the most benefit to the most in need communities?

Sure. So the small and disadvantaged community set-asides are a really important tool, um but we know that our communities are facing increasing challenges from emerging contaminants including Pfast, that they simply hadn't anticipated and that the treatment costs associated with those technolog- or with the technologies needed to address Pfast contamination

Ms. Moore, ca- can you elaborate on the role that set-asides play in helping smaller water systems both stretch their very thin resources, as well as assisting the state in effectively directing those resources.

Absolutely. Those set-asides are critical to maintaining the staffing I have within my drinking water and groundwater protection division at the Agency of Natural Resources. About forty percent of the staff in that team are funded through those drinking water set-asides and those are folks that are on the ground working hand-in-hand with our municipalities to ensure that they're able to meet modern standards and provide their residents with safe reliable water.

Thank you. Mister Bradley, how can smaller communities leverage the funds available through the SRF to attract additional capital investments and the necessary economic growth?

Uh, Congressman, I think part uh uh it comes down to technical assistance and the ability to figure out how to access these. I think the government has a role to play, but so does the private sector. Um, at the US Chamber we've partnered with the the Penn Water Center and the the company Viola to actually provide private resources on some of that technical assistance. I think that can work, I think uh we could consider um particularly since we have so many small providers, um how we can achieve scale uh amongst them.

So how does attracting the economic, this additional economic growth, how can that bolster the small systems in communities that I represent to for further maintenance and upgrades for their infrastructure?

Well I think first is the ability to potentially attract that additional funding and leverage private.

And next steps?

Uh, I think the next steps for them are you have to figure out uh the the viability of the system and whether or not there are efficiencies of scales sometimes by combining systems sometimes by sharing larger resources so this is a problem, not unique to water utilities.

The drafts that we are considering today are a positive step forward, supporting drinking water infrastructure, especially in smaller and rural communities. And I look forward to working with my colleagues on this committee to ensure that every American has reliable, safe, and clean access to water. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.

Gentleman yields. Chair now recognized gentleman from Florida, Mister Soto, for five minutes for his questions.

Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. The bipartisan infrastructure law was a game changer for fast growing Florida. When we saw it passed, it helped with expanding I-four, a three point four billion dollar project we've seen over a half a billion dollars we're able to secure for our Orlando International Airport, uh for our tourism uh industry, for our workers, for uh Central Floridians to be able to fly all across the world, um Sunrail, Kissimmee Airport, a lot of people know these contributions that we worked on. But another major part of this was water. It's something that a lot of folks may not see as much, but they expect clean water, they expect clean lakes, and so when we're talking about the state revolving fund or the water research development act or WIFIA loans um our region uh was able to through our help and others get over a billion dollars in projects over the last couple of years we saw toho uh reservoir being built a poe county water initiative uh orange county water supply projects a taylor creek reservoir and of course the restorations that are ongoing at east north and big lake toho uh and so Secretary Moore, uh how important is it for strong federal funding for state and local projects? Uh, Vermont, a a a s a smaller state, I'm sure you don't you're not swimming in money there. I I I give a paint a picture for folks at home, how much of this is federal dollars flowing down to help state and local uh water projects.

Sure, the the federal funding made available through the drinking water SRF is incredibly important to our ability to support communities in making necessary investments in their systems. Uh, we have some very old infrastructure in Vermont. A lot of it is coming due as in terms of being at the end of its useful life. Uh, we have, you know, stable but but not large user bases in most of our drinking water systems. So the ability to provide access to low-cost capital is critical to systems' ability to make those investments.

Absolutely. And when we got our allocation in Florida, a lot of people were surprised. It was one of the biggest ones because although a lot of areas are new, we have some really old areas like saint augustine fifteen hundreds right uh and so and then we had a lot of rural communities that were falling behind how important is it for some of these small cities and and towns and counties that um are physically constrained rural counties

it is in in terms of user affordability it it's critical if if uh communities had to go to the private market to access the kind of capital that they are able to through the state revolving fund it would see a dramatic increase in in user rates and

Absolutely. So members, we gotta dig deep on this. This is important for all of our states, especially fast-growing states, as well as states that uh have uh fiscally constrained counties and cities uh and uh We also hear a lot about the data center issue. It's absolutely essential that we empower uh local communities decide whether or not they want a data center in their area this has been a uh something that has been uh debated throughout florida uh we just passed out of this committee a rate payer protection act uh and but we know data centers use a lot of water and so um miss woo you worked with the epa how important is it for bills like the water cost accountability act to make sure uh we're prohibiting water systems from recovering costs from customers

yeah it's really important um and these are the ways to protect your you know your customers the rate payers and and residents in these small communities especially um from having to shoulder the the cost of these you know these big projects

if we didn't have these laws that we're pushing in place what would be a rate payer's recourse uh if they got a their water jacked up because of a data center or other other use

uh i'm not sure that they would have a lot bringing it to their you know public utility board and just trying to to raise it there, but there's not a lot.

Mister Bradley, what kind of water resources do you think we need on to as we keep pace with technology, uh from a water perspective? I apologize, Congressman, what kind of water resources or resources? Yeah, water infrastructure. Well, uh we need to continue as you all have discussed here today, investments in the underlying uh infrastructure, if nothing else, just to replace what is aging. And so um the good news is is that we can become more efficient, we don't have to replace with the same type of capacity and technology that we built with forty or fifty years ago, but it doesn't change the need that we need to make investments, uh, both in the drinking water, Yeah. waste water, and other utility sites. And there are many things the private sector does well, but water is something that you rely on government to help make sure it is there for a lot of businesses. Isn't that right? Uh, we certainly rely on government, but the private sector is a water provider or the implementer, uh, a lot of communities. And so So important partnership here. i- i- it is an important partnership. Thanks, and I yield back.

Gentleman yields, Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mister Flueger, for five minutes for his questions.

Thank you, Mister Chairman. Um, appreciate the witnesses being here. Um, I think it's important that we deal in facts and your testimony is very important. I think multiple things can be true at once. Uh, and the acknowledgement that water is an issue, I represent West Texas, obviously that is true there, the acknowledgement the data centers are important or or really any other industry that uses water, any other commerce that we have. Um, and the transparency and the things that we're talking about in this hearing uh are are incredibly important. Um, Mister Bradley, in your testimony you discussed the importance of assessing local water availability, alternative sources, drought risk, and expected water needs of individual projects. Is it fair to say that the water impact of a data center is highly project and location specific?

Absolutely. It it would vary very much from whether you're in West Texas, um, or you're in the Loudoun County in Virginia, or you're up in the Great Lakes here. Very different environments. And by the way, the data centers can often be very different as well.

Just b broad philosophy uh on a regulatory approach. I mean, what what what do businesses across the country, knowing what you just answered, that they vary significantly? I mean, what what do they prefer? on the regulatory approach, strict regulatory approach, light touch, I mean what what allows commerce to succeed most?

Very much a light touch and local, a a national solution here, we can set some national principles, that that's important, but because the circumstances are so fact dependent in local communities, uh w- you could write a rule uh that might work in uh Northern Virginia, but wouldn't work at all in West Texas or vice versa. The other problem with kind of static regulatory is it doesn't take into account uh innovation and technological change. If uh Congress had written rules around data center, water and electricity use five years ago, maybe even two years ago, uh they wouldn't match with where technology is today, and it certainly won't match with where technology is going to be two years from now.

So it's fair to say that they're adapting to uh a resource constrained environment. Um, is the transparency also Um, have you seen a shift toward transparency in local communities getting the information they need?

We have, and you know, I listen, I think a lot of data center developers in particular, but this is true for a lot of developers, happens to be particularly true at this moment for data center developers, maybe weren't as transparent, were not as transparent as they should have been in some of the initial construction. I think they've learned an important lesson. Um, I think the good news is is that they should be proud to tell their story, because of the innovations that are occurring and because of the public services the tax revenue base, and the economic opportunities they are creating, um I think they can let people judge for themselves and I think a lot of communities will come down on the side of this is pretty good for us.

Again, very, very location specific, project specific. Uh Secretary Morey represents state environmental agencies across the uh the country and from your perspective how important is it that wa- the water impact of a major new user be evaluated based on the specific uh water resources, the infrastructure capacity, and other factors?

Yeah, obviously that varies widely from from state to state and jurisdiction to jurisdiction and just highlights the importance of transparency and information sharing around water usage.

Thank you. Um, Mr. Chairman, uh, thank you. I yield back.

Gentleman yields. Chair now recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey, Mister Menendez, for five minutes for his questions. Didn't come back. Sorry, Jake. The chair now recognizes gentleman from Massachusetts, Mister Austin Klaus for five minutes.

That actually happens pretty frequently. Um, thank you, chair. Uh, appreciate the witnesses. One of my uh priorities in office over the last six years has been clean water infrastructure for Massachusetts. We are a state with a long industrial legacy, dense land use patterns, and so the soil and the water has uh a h high rate of carcinogens and other toxins, and so getting that cleaned up has been a priority, been able to direct uh, tens of millions of dollars back to the Massachusetts forth for water treatment facilities. Um, but I have heard over the last few years real concerns about supply chain concentration and regulations that are raising the cost of these water treatment facilities pretty dramatically miss Wu uh I wanna direct my question to you and focus on the impact of Build America Buy America provisions. Um, and I was Proud to vote for and pass the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, but part of our job as legislators is to examine the impact of the policy we pass and see what needs to be uh amended based on reality and reality has changed a lot in five years um and as I said I've been hearing from municipalities about increased costs uh based on some of these requirements and based on supply chain concentration should should there be actions that congress uh that congress considers to improve or better tailor these requirements?

Um, yeah, I mean, I think, you know, i if it was Congress's policy, um, that that we do wanna, you know, have more domestic products, uh, you know, support these infrastructures, then there are some things that could be done to preserve the goals of Buy America, um, Build America. Um, and so some of the implementation, uh, things that could be done is m- a more targeted and evidence-based medium-term product waivers, um, and also more coordinated strategy with specific industries to help uh reassure and build domestic capacity here, and that could help keep the policy in place but deal with some of the cost challenges.

Do you have an example or do you have in mind elements of that value chain that you think need a more coordinated industrial strategy to create bottlenecks?

Um I don't have specific ones in mind, but I know that we could you know get some some thoughts to you.

Do either of these other witnesses have thoughts about are are there are there bottlenecks within the water treatment facility value chain that

Uh nothing comes immediately to mind, but I am happy to go back to my team and ask if they have specific examples they would offer.

Um got it. Uh I will ask uh one other question and it's open-ended here which is we're trying to remediate and address PFAS contamination and uh proud of the work that the Biden administration did on this and that congress did on this. in our water supplies. The challenge is addressing it in our municipal water supplies is the point at which it is the most diffuse and the most expensive to try to capture and interrupt that bio-accumulation cycle of PFAS, right? It's we're talking about parts per trillion. Meanwhile, at the point of production, when PFAS is being added to the bottom of skis or to cookware or to rain jackets, it's like parts per million, and it's a lot easier to try to remediate and address. Um, do you think that it would help water treatment facilities, reduce cost, just improve the whole process of water portability if we address PFAS contamination at the point of production for non-essential uses.

Uh, to me the answer is and both. Uh, there are many, many materials that have been produced over decades that are out in circulation at this point and so we know that those are going to contribute continue to contribute. um to downstream and passive receptors um but at the same time uh reducing the amount of new prefaces introduced into the environment is important vermont has passed several pieces of legislation with different product bands and stewardship requirements trying to get at that source control while also uh working

yeah

with municipalities to implement treatment on the back-end

yeah no clearly we can't unring the bell i mean you look at firefighter foam and you look at i mean and and the leeching out of uh landfills we we got it remediated at the point of uh consumption as well but it seems like it would make sense to as we are dealing with the cleanup to also try to prevent our grandkids from having to deal with this by getting it at the point of production as well Miss Wu did you have thoughts on that

um yeah I do and I think that there are some things that could be done we were looking at things like effluent limitation guidelines so that the production companies like the ones making the PFAS actually have to put some kind of treatment on their outfall so it doesn't even go into the waste water

exactly yes

in the first place so then our you know our treatment plants and our utilities don't have to pay for cleaning that up.

Right.

And we've done this with other toxins. This is not a new concept, right? We just got to apply this to PFAS. We've done this for example with um ozone depleting chemicals in the nineteen eighties with the Montreal protocol. This is a template that Congress has, we just we need to act on it for PFAS now.

Absolutely.

I yield back, chair.

Gentleman yields, the chair now recognizes gentleman from New York, Mister Langworthy, for five minutes for his questions.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I I represent Western New York and the Southern Tier, including many, many small rural communities where local governments and water systems are responsible for maintaining critical infrastructure across very large geographic areas with very limited resources. You know, for a small town, replacing a water main, upgrading a treatment facility, or complying with a new requirement is a very significant expense. And they don't necessarily have the large staffs or dedicated grant writers or engineers in. there's fewer and fewer rate payers to absorb that cost. And that's why programs like the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund and Federal Technical Assistance can be particularly important for the communities that I represent. Secretary Moore, what are the biggest infrastructure and financial challenges that you're hearing from small and rural water systems? And do these bills go far enough to ensure that those systems can actually access the assistance available to them?

Uh, that's a great question. I think it it's several fold. Um, the us shrinking user base, as you alluded to, is is probably at the top of the list. So having fewer, um, connections over which to spread those costs of the necessary investments is an an incredible challenge. I think being able to have the administrative capacity to support the administration of many of these projects is also a real challenge in our smallest communities um once the construction's underway you have a an engineer contractor on site that are supporting you but getting that project from conception to construction uh takes a a lot of work at the local level and often that work in our smaller communities is being done by volunteers and that is why those set asides in the drinking water SRF program are so important. They fund technical capacity through the state to be able to provide that support to communities in moving those projects from conception to construction.

I mean I I think accessibility is an important part of this conversation and it doesn't Do much good to create a federal program intended to help small communities if navigating the program itself requires resources that the communities don't have. Uh the legislation before us recognizes the challenges facing our drinking systems are changing. And today a community isn't only responsible for maintaining the pipes and the pumps and the treatment facilities, but water systems increasingly have to protect their technology that controls the infrastructure from cyber attacks and a large utility They may have a dedicated cyber security team, but a small rural system has a handful of employees responsible from every element of uh the execution of of the mission. Secretary Moore, how significant is that resource gap when it comes to cyber security and how can technical assistance and workforce provisions uh in these bills help smaller systems to protect themselves?

Yeah, that that gap is real um and daunting for many of our smallest systems. As I noted before, uh one of the the strategies we sometimes joke about that those small systems use is simply not being connected to the internet which presents its own sets of challenges. Um but really the the technical assistance along with infrastructure hardening, uh need to go hand in hand in the services being provided to small communities to help them face those growing threats.

Now we also need to make sure our federal dollars are being used effectively. In the legislation it strengthens oversight of state revolving fund projects, while continuing investments in infrastructure, lead reduction, resilience, and assistance to disadvantaged communities. For taxpayers and for the communities relying on these programs, we should know that those dollars are actually producing better and more reliable infrastructure. Mister Bradley, uh, as we reauthorize these programs for another five years, what can Congress do to ensure that federal drinking water dollars are spent efficiently and result in the greatest possible infrastructure benefit for our communities?

Well, Congressman, I think you're doing some of that in this legislation, particularly as you think about how to address cyber security challenges. I think you can also think about some of the other technological innovations access that might be harder for a smaller or rural community. We also ought to begin thinking creatively about how smaller uh utility providers might be able to share some of the expenses for some of these things that uh aren't necessarily unique to an individual community. a cyber threat or innovations in some of the technology. You know, th this is not a problem unique uh to to to water systems. Um, when you have small scale providers and declining demographics, you have to start getting really creative about how you continue to provide services to that declining population base.

Small communities, they don't need lower standards. They need practical tools and resources that allow them to meet high standards without placing an unsustainable burden. on their residents and I look forward to that goal and I yield back, Mister Chairman. Thank you all for being here.

The gentleman yields. Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas, the Vice Chairman of the Subcommittee, Mister Crenshaw, for five minutes for his questions.

Thank you Mister Chairman, thank you all for for being here, it's an important topic today about water infrastructure, uh rate paying, all of these things, affordability, uh there's been some good conversation about what those um levels of funding should be, um and how rate payers need to be protected and I think there's a good bill today that seeks to protect rate payers and water quality and supply. Um, especially in the in the modern age where there's an increasing number of data centers being built. And, you know, there's of course trade-offs that are worth raising. Um, there's concerns about water supply and grid strain and electricity prices and problems, but, you know, these are solvable problems. And today's bills are aimed at solving these problems. I've introduced also the the data act. The data act would allow data centers to build their own energy supplies on-site. It would federalize what many states, and like Texas, have done. This is all common sense stuff. I really hope the the committee uh takes up that piece of legislation. And I'll say this about this committee. You know, and I mean it, this is one of the committees I truly enjoy serving on, because we work on things that matter to people's lives. Nobody's clipping this hearing uh for some viral clickbait moments. Uh, then again, what I'm about to say might get clipped. No, we're no, we like, we're talking about stuff that's boring but really important. Uh, it's about, you know, water safety um and at prices that people can afford. That's actually the job we were sent here to do and it really drives me crazy. Honestly, how much of the work that comes out of this committee, bipartisan, substantive, negotiated in good faith and uh just dies between here and the house floor because outside of this room there's plenty of members who'd rather torch a deal, get social media clicks, as opposed to doing something that actually passes into law. So this committee does the work and a handful of unserious members kill the work. Now, the data center debate is pretty heated right now, and then just real quick, yes or no, does does everyone here agree that data centers, they're they're not only inevitable, but they're a good thing as long as the negative consequences can be mitigated. Yeah? Generally agree? I would hope so. Um, you think the bills we're considering today are an effort to mitigate some of those consequences especially the affordability accountability act?

Yes.

That's good. Right. You know, the truth is that the best thing we could do for China today is to regulate ourselves out of data center construction. That's exactly what they want. And by the way, they're pushing it. Um, they're pushing anti-datacenter propaganda over social media. This past week, X investigated over two hundred thousand accounts that have been boosting anti-data center posts. They're created by Chinese accounts. They pose as American accounts. As President Trump recently said, China could not be happier with this anti-data center movement. And I agree. If you're against data centers because social media got you all riled up, You are an unwitting propaganda tool for the CCP. I'm sorry, but I'm not sorry. That's just the truth. It's people fear things they don't understand. I get that. I also don't think it's an excuse. And I have a feeling that most of the people screaming online about data centers are probably the same people that think burritos cost twenty dollars. The solution is not screaming more at the wall. It's a solution is to do your research and to seek to understand things that you don't understand. And that's up to you then to vote the representatives in that don't just mirror your anger back to you in order to get your vote, but actually work to find solutions like the people on this committee. And like I said, we do have plenty of solutions. This committee is the one of the few that bothers to create those solutions. I'm proud to be part of this committee, proud to have served, and thank you to the chairman, and thank you to the leadership um of Energy and Commerce, who had recently asked the FBI to investigate some of those um anti-data center campaigns that I had just noted. So, proud to be a part of this, and I yield back.

Gentlemen yields, I would like to thank our witnesses for being here today. Members may have additional written questions for you. I'll remind members that they have ten business days to submit additional questions for the record and I ask the witnesses to do their best to submit responses within ten business days upon receipt of the questions. In addition, any materials or responses requested to be submitted to the committee should be submitted within ten days as well. Ask unanimous consent to insert into the record the documents included on the staff hearing documents list. Without objection, that will be the order. Without objection, the subcommittee is adjourned.