U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

98–825 PDF 2016

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE FOR RURAL WATER SYSTEMS: S. 611, THE GRASSROOTS RURAL AND 

SMALL COMMUNITY WATER SYSTEMS ASSISTANCE ACT 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND THE 

ECONOMY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

OCTOBER 22, 2015 

Serial No. 114–89 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

energycommerce.house.gov 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

Chairman 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

Chairman Emeritus 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

Vice Chairman 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

DAVID B. MCKINLEY, West Virginia 

MIKE POMPEO, Kansas 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

RENEE L. ELLMERS, North Carolina 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

BILL FLORES, Texas 

SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana 

MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma 

RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina 

CHRIS COLLINS, New York 

KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

Ranking Member 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

BEN RAY LUJA ́ N, New Mexico 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky 

YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York 

DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa 

KURT SCHRADER, Oregon 

JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, III, Massachusetts 

TONY CA ́ RDENAS, California 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND THE ECONOMY

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

Chairman 

GREGG HARPER, Vice Chairman 

Vice Chairman 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

DAVID B. MCKINLEY, West Virginia 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

BILL FLORES, Texas 

RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina 

KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota 

FRED UPTON, Michigan (ex officio) 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

Ranking Member 

KURT SCHRADER, Oregon 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

TONY CA ́ RDENAS, California 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey (ex 

officio) 

(II) 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hon. John Shimkus, a Representative in Congress from the State of Illinois, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 1 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 3 

Hon. Paul Tonko, a Representative in Congress from the State of New York, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 4 

Hon. Gregg Harper, a Representative in Congress from the State of Mississippi, opening statement ................................................................................. 5 

Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the State of 

New Jersey, opening statement .......................................................................... 6 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 7 

Hon. Fred Upton, a Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan, 

prepared statement .............................................................................................. 40 

WITNESSES

Kirby Mayfield, Executive Director, Mississippi Rural Water Association ........ 8 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 10 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 49 

Robert Stewart, Executive Director, Rural Community Assistance Partnership ........................................................................................................................ 16

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 18 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 51 

SUBMITTED MATERIAL

S. 611, the Grassroots Rural and Small Community Water Systems Assistance Act, submitted by Mr. Shimkus ................................................................. 42 

Statement of the Environmental Protection Agency, October 22, 2015, submitted by Mr. Shimkus ........................................................................................ 47 

(1) 

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE FOR RURAL WATER 

SYSTEMS: S. 611, THE GRASSROOTS RURAL 

AND SMALL COMMUNITY WATER SYSTEMS 

ASSISTANCE ACT 

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 22, 2015 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND THE ECONOMY, 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:02 a.m., in room 

2123 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John Shimkus (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Shimkus, Harper, Latta, 

McKinley, Johnson, Flores, Cramer, Tonko, Schrader, Green, 

McNerney, and Pallone (ex officio). 

Staff present: Will Batson, Legislative Clerk; Rebecca Card, Assistant Press Secretary; Jerry Couri, Senior Environmental Policy 

Advisor; Dave McCarthy, Chief Counsel, Environment and the 

Economy; Chris Sarley, Policy Coordinator, Environment and the 

Economy; Dan Schneider, Press Secretary; Christine Brennan, 

Democratic Press Secretary; Jacqueline Cohen, Democratic Senior 

Counsel; Rick Kessler, Democratic Senior Advisor and Staff Director, Energy and Environment; Alexander Ratner, Democratic Policy 

Analyst; and Timia Crisp, Democratic AAAS Fellow. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The committee will come to order, and the Chair 

recognizes himself for an opening statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN SHIMKUS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS 

Today, we are reviewing Senate Bill 611, the Grassroots Rural 

and Small Community Water Systems Assistance Act. This bill, 

which passed the Senate by unanimous consent on June 9th of this 

year, is the Senate companion to H.R. 2853, introduced by our 

ranking member of the subcommittee, Mr. Tonko, and the vice 

chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Harper. 

I congratulate and thank them for their bipartisan work to raise 

the profile of this issue before the subcommittee and encouraging 

our work on it. 

According to the Census Bureau, approximately 27 percent of the 

U.S. population lives in rural areas. The smallest water systems 

account for 77 percent of all systems. 

2 

As someone who proudly represents communities in small town 

and rural America, I am glad we have bipartisan interest in tackling this subject. 

Under the Safe Drinking Water Act, small and rural drinking 

water supply systems are subject to a number of drinking water 

regulations issued by EPA. These requirements include system 

monitoring, treatment to remove certain contaminants and reporting. 

Addressing these matters requires technical, managerial, and 

physical capabilities that are difficult to develop and are often beyond the capacity of these towns to afford on the same scale as 

urban centers, particularly when it comes to regulatory compliance. 

It is ironic that these communities, where residents work hard 

to support their families and their local governments while often 

earning wages below those of their counterparts in the more urbanized areas, face per customer compliance costs and demands that 

are disproportionate to many larger communities. 

Sometimes, it is just a matter of having the ability to keep up 

with the red tape. Rather than throwing more scarce money at the 

problem, we learned in February that these communities need help 

to smartly assess what their needs are for these systems and 

prioritize the importance of those needs. 

The bill before us amends Safe Drinking Water Act to reauthorize the EPA’s program providing technical assistance to small public water systems. 

Senate Bill 611 maintains the existing statutory authority of $15 

million annually, including 3 percent for technical assistance to 

public water systems owned or operated by Indian tribes, but 

changes the law to cover funding from fiscal year 2015 through fiscal year 2020. 

The bill also authorizes EPA to provide technical assistance programs to small public water systems through grants or cooperative 

agreements made to nonprofit organizations. 

The bill requires preference in awarding grants to nonprofits that 

are most qualified and experienced and that small water systems 

find most beneficial and effective—a feature we heard about during 

our February hearing. 

Finally, while Senate Bill 611 prevents grants and cooperative 

agreements from being used to bring a citizen suit under the Safe 

Drinking Water Act, it expands the types of activities eligible to receive a grant or cooperative agreement under this Safe Drinking 

Water Act to include assistance with source water protection plans, 

monitoring plans and water security. 

I want to thank our witnesses who joined us. Having this hearing today is all the more important because, while the House Appropriations Committee has not provided small water technical assistance funding for fiscal year 2016, that committee has left open 

the option that it would reevaluate funding for this matter as part 

of a later annual spending bill if Congress enacts a fresh authorization. 

People who live in rural communities deserve every bit of water 

quality and technical resources that folks who live in densely populated urban centers do. 

3 

We look forward to your wisdom in helping us understand these 

issues. Thanks again to Mr. Tonko and Mr. Harper for their work 

on this issue. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Shimkus follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN SHIMKUS

Today we are reviewing S. 611, the Grassroots Rural and Small Community 

Water Systems Assistance Act. This bill, which passed the Senate by unanimous 

consent on June 9, 2015, is the Senate companion to H.R. 2853, introduced by our 

ranking member of the subcommittee, Mr. Tonko, and the vice chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Harper, I congratulate and thank them for their bipartisan work to 

raise the profile of this issue before the subcommittee and encouraging our work on 

it. 

According to the Census Bureau, approximately 27 percent of the U.S. population 

lives in a rural area. The smallest water systems account for 77 percent of all systems. As someone who proudly represents communities in small town and rural 

America, I am glad we have bipartisan interest in tackling this subject. 

Under the Safe Drinking Water Act, small and rural drinking water supply systems are subject to a number of drinking water regulations issued by EPA. These 

requirements include system monitoring, treatment to remove certain contaminants, 

and reporting. Addressing these matters requires technical, managerial, and physical capabilities that are difficult to develop and are often beyond the capacity of 

these towns to afford on the same scale as urban centers—particularly when it 

comes to regulatory compliance. 

It’s ironic that these communities, where residents work hard to support their 

families and their local governments, while often earning wages below those of their 

counterparts in the more urbanized areas, face per customer compliance costs and 

demands that are disproportionate to many larger communities. Sometimes, it’s just 

a matter of having the ability to keep up with the red-tape. 

Rather than throwing more scarce money at the problem, we learned in February 

that these communities need help to smartly assessing what their needs are for 

these systems and prioritize the importance of those needs. 

The bill before us amends Safe Drinking Water Act to reauthorize the EPA’s program providing technical assistance to small public water systems. 

S. 611 maintains the existing statutory authorization of $15 million annually (including 3 percent for technical assistance to public water systems owned or operated 

by Indian Tribes), but changes the law to cover funding from fiscal year 2015 

through fiscal year 2020. The bill also authorizes EPA to provide technical assistance programs to small public water systems through grants or cooperative agreements made to non-profit organizations. The bill requires preference in awarding 

grants to non-profits that are most qualified and experienced and that small water 

systems find most beneficial and effective—a feature we heard about during our 

February hearing. 

Finally, while S. 611 prevents grants and cooperative agreements from being used 

to bring a citizen suit under SDWA, it expands the types of activities eligible to receive a grant or cooperative agreement under this SDWA to include: assistance with 

source water protection plans, monitoring plans, and water security. 

I want to thank our witnesses who joined us. Having this hearing today is all the 

more important because, while the House Appropriations Committee has not provided small water system technical assistance funding for fiscal year 2016, that 

committee has left open the option that it would re-evaluate funding for this matter 

as part of a later annual spending bill if Congress enacts a fresh authorization. 

People who live in rural communities deserve every bit of water quality and technical resources that folks who live in densely populated urban centers do. We look 

forward to your wisdom in helping us understand these issues. 

[The proposed legislation appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] 

Mr. SHIMKUS. I yield the balance of my time, and I now yield to 

Mr. Tonko for the purpose of making an opening statement. 

4 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PAUL TONKO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Chair Shimkus, and good morning. For 

holding this hearing, we thank you. It is important to review the 

Grassroots, Rural and Small Community Water Systems Assistance Act. 

I am very pleased to be working with you, Chair, and with Representative Harper and the other members of the subcommittee to 

move this bill forward. 

Sen. Wicker’s bill and its companion, H.R. 2853, offers a small 

but important step that we need to take to support small water 

utilities. S. 611 reauthorizes a small but important program that 

delivers technical assistance and training to community water systems. 

The ratepayer base for these small systems does not provide a 

sufficient operating budget to support full time technical positions. 

Technical assistance programs like circuit riders and source 

water protection programs help small utility operators to keep 

clean safe drinking water flowing to their customers. 

Our community water utilities have needs that go far beyond 

technical assistance, of course. The hearing in our subcommittee 

back in February provided us with ample evidence of the many 

needs of small community water utilities. 

The situation that exists in rural, suburban and metropolitan 

areas across our country with respect to the condition of our drinking water infrastructure is indeed very serious. 

Drinking water infrastructure across the country is in need of 

major repairs and major upgrades. Communities are struggling to 

find the resources needed to maintain water mains, pumping stations and drinking water treatment facilities. 

Households and businesses across our country expect reliable 

daily delivery of safe clean water at an affordable price to their 

homes and their businesses. 

They not only expect it, it is essential to the social and economic 

viability of every community, of every household, of every business. 

The inconvenience, the disruption of daily activities and economic 

losses to businesses of emergency shutdowns to drinking water systems is indeed significant, even for a shutdown of short duration. 

A longer term break in service, as we all know, is devastating. 

Water utilities, especially those with small rate basis, cannot simply pass all of their costs for technical assistance, infrastructure repairs, tapping into new water sources or keeping pace with drinking water regulations on to their customers by raising rates. 

The backlog of maintenance is now too large to be covered by 

rate increases alone. It is long past time for Congress to step in 

and provide robust financial support, support that would repair 

and modernize this essential infrastructure. 

Too often now utilities are responding to emergency situations, 

situations created by ruptures of water mains or sudden problems 

with raw water quality or quantity. Emergency response costs far 

more than a systematic planned program of repair and replacement. 

The Environmental Protection Agency’s most recent report on 

drinking water infrastructure and their needs indicates that—an 

5 

investment of $384.2 billion over the next 20 years, about $19 billion, that is, per year. 

Because past Congresses failed to heed the information that we 

asked the agency to produce this number has grown by about $157 

billion since the first report was issued back in 1995. 

We are headed in the wrong direction. Clearly, more resources 

are needed. We are not saving money by continuing to ignore this 

problem. We are only passing an ever growing maintenance bill 

onto our children and grandchildren and generations yet unborn. 

Our parents and grandparents invested in the infrastructure 

that enabled our Nation to grow and our Nation to prosper. We 

have a responsibility to ensure that the Nation’s infrastructure remains a strong foundation for prosperity into the future. 

In addition, to support through traditional funding mechanisms 

the State revolving loan fund and grant programs, we should also 

examine alternative financing mechanisms, new technologies and 

potential new partnerships that would enable every dollar to go 

that much further in reducing the backlog of infrastructure 

projects. 

We cannot afford to delay these investments any longer. The bill 

for these repairs is growing, growing larger over time and failure 

to maintain these systems jeopardizes public health and limits development and economic growth. 

Public health, community viability and economic vitality all rest 

on the foundation of sound infrastructure. 

We cannot maintain global leadership and compete in a 21st century global economy with poorly maintained 20th century infrastructure. 

And so, Mr. Chair, I hope this bill will not be the subcommittee’s 

last effort on drinking water this Congress. I am certain that other 

members hear about this problem in their districts as often as you 

and I do. 

If we work together we can rebuild this essential infrastructure 

and foster economic growth and protect public health. We have an 

excellent panel with us today and I thank you both for taking time 

away from the important work that you do to be here with us this 

morning. 

With that, I look forward to your testimony and to working with 

you going forward. Let us build our drinking water infrastructure. 

With that, I yield back to the Chair. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Gentleman yields back his time. 

The Chair now recognizes the vice chair of the committee and the 

coauthor, along with the ranking member, of the House version of 

this legislation, Mr. Harper, for 5 minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GREGG HARPER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI 

Mr. HARPER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you so much 

for our witnesses being here. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this legislative hearing on 

S. 611, the Grass Roots Rural and Small Community Water System 

Assistance Act. 

6 

As you well know, this issue is of great importance to our constituents who live in rural and small communities. Rural water 

system often find themselves at a loss when complying with Federal rules and regulations and the technical assistance provided by 

S. 611 is the tool they use to ensure they are meeting the needs 

of their customers. 

I appreciate the work Mr. Tonko and his staff have done on this 

issue and for his help in introducing H.R. 2853, the House companion bill to S. 611. 

I also would like to welcome my friend, Kirby Mayfield, the executive director of the Mississippi Rural Water Association, and I 

look forward to hearing today from each of these witnesses and 

working on these rural water issues in the future. 

With that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Gentleman yields back his time. 

Chair now recognizes the ranking member of the full committee, 

Mr. Pallone, for 5 minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you. 

I am pleased that the subcommittee is returning to the important issue of drinking water safety. We started this Congress by examining some emerging drinking water threats including toxic blue 

green algae and the legislation this subcommittee passed on harmful algal blooms is now taking effect and it has set us on a path 

to address that serious threat. 

We also held a hearing back in February on problems facing 

rural water systems. As we heard then, these systems are facing 

serious threats from outdated infrastructure, lack of funding and 

extreme weather. 

We in Congress have continued to underfund infrastructure improvements and have continued to undermine efforts to address climate change. So we should expect these problems to get worse before they get better. 

Resources are central to any conversation about safe drinking 

water. Much of our Nation’s drinking water infrastructure is well 

beyond its useful life and in desperate need of replacement. Investing in drinking water infrastructure protects public health, creates 

jobs and boosts the economy. 

It is imperative that this subcommittee take on the important 

task of reauthorizing the drinking water State revolving fund. The 

longer we put off drinking water repairs, the more pressing the 

public health threats become. 

But the subcommittee is not tackling that important task today. 

Instead, the majority is focused on a small pot of money set aside 

for technical assistance for small public water systems. 

This money, distributed through grantees including the National 

Rural Water Association and the Rural Community Assistance 

Partnership, has been important for small systems though it does 

not begin to close the infrastructure funding gap that they face. 

Both NRWA and RCAP will be represented on the panel today 

and I look forward to hearing from them about how this program 

7 

can be implemented to the greatest benefit for small systems and 

public health. 

I expect the committee and probably the House will move this 

legislation. It will be signed by the president. That is a good step 

and I welcome it. But it is not the whole solution for small systems 

or for our drinking water infrastructure. 

Small systems serve only 8 percent of the population. We should 

absolutely do what is necessary to ensure they have safe water. 

But we should also protect the other 92 percent and that means 

reauthorizing the SRF, ensuring that fracking is done safely, ensuring source water protection, addressing drought and planning 

for climate change. 

I liked the algae bill we worked on earlier this year. This bill 

shows that we can come together to pass laws and address drinking water issues. 

So I hope my Republican colleagues will see this only as the beginning and I thank the chairman for calling this hearing. 

I particularly thank the ranking member of our subcommittee, 

Mr. Tonko, for his leadership on drinking water issues. 

I don’t know if anybody else wants my time. If not, I will yield 

back, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR. 

I am pleased that the subcommittee is returning to the important issue of drinking water safety. We started this Congress by examining some emerging drinking 

water threats, including toxic blue green algae. The legislation this subcommittee 

passed on harmful algal blooms is now taking effect, and it has set us on a path 

to address that serious threat. 

We also held a hearing back in February on problems facing rural water systems. 

As we heard then, these systems are facing serious threats from outdated infrastructure, lack of funding, and extreme weather. We in Congress have continued to 

underfund infrastructure improvements and have continued to undermine efforts to 

address climate change, so we should expect these problems to get worse before they 

get better. 

Resources are central to any conversation about safe drinking water. Much of our 

Nation’s drinking water infrastructure is well beyond its useful life, and in desperate need of replacement. Investing in drinking water infrastructure protects public health, creates jobs, and boosts the economy. 

It is imperative that this subcommittee take on the important task of reauthorizing the drinking water State Revolving Fund (SRF). The longer we put off drinking water repairs, the more pressing the public health threats become. 

But the subcommittee is not tackling that important task today. Instead, the majority is focused on the small pot of money set aside for technical assistance for 

small public water systems. This money, distributed through grantees including the 

National Rural Water Association (NRWA) and the Rural Community Assistance 

Partnership (RCAP), has been important for small systems, though it does not begin 

to close the infrastructure funding gap they face. 

Both NRWA and RCAP will be represented on the panel today, and I look forward 

to hearing from them about how this program can be implemented to the greatest 

benefit for small systems and public health. 

I expect the committee and probably the House will move this legislation, and it 

will be signed by the President. This is a good step, and I welcome it. 

But it is not the whole solution for small systems, or for our drinking water infrastructure. Small systems serve only 8% of the population. We should absolutely do 

what is necessary to ensure they have safe water, but we should also protect the 

other 92%. That means reauthorizing the SRF, ensuring that fracking is done safely, ensuring source water protection, addressing drought, and planning for climate 

change. 

8 

Like the algae bill we worked on earlier this year, this bill shows that we can 

come together to pass laws and address drinking water issues. I hope my Republican colleagues will see this as only the beginning. 

I thank the chairman for calling this hearing and particularly thank the ranking 

member of the subcommittee, Mr. Tonko, for his leadership on drinking water 

issues. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman yields back his time. 

So, again, welcome. Your full statement is submitted for the 

record. You will have 5 minutes. We are not going to be, you know, 

harsh on the time but we appreciate you coming in and making the 

effort to be here. 

So, first of all, I would like to recognize Mr. Kirby Mayfield, executive director of the Mississippi Rural Water Association. You are 

recognized for 5 minutes. 

Welcome. 

STATEMENTS OF KIRBY MAYFIELD, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

MISSISSIPPI RURAL WATER ASSOCIATION, AND ROBERT 

STEWART, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, RURAL COMMUNITY ASSISTANCE PARTNERSHIP 

STATEMENT OF KIRBY MAYFIELD 

Mr. MAYFIELD. Thank you, and good morning, Chairman 

Shimkus, Ranking Member Tonko, members of the subcommittee. 

I am Kirby Mayfield, the executive director of Mississippi Rural 

Water Association, a nonprofit association of over 1,000 small rural 

communities as members. 

All small and rural communities have the very important public 

responsibility of complying with all Federal water regulations and 

for supplying the public with safe drinking water and sanitation 

every second of every day. 

Small and rural communities often have difficulty providing safe 

affordable drinking water and sanitation due to limited economies 

of scale and lack of technical experience. 

I am very proud that our congressman on the committee, Representative Greg Harper, is sponsor of the Grassroots Rural and 

Small Community Water Systems Assistance Act in the House of 

Representatives. Thank you very much, Congressman Harper. 

Attached to my written testimony is a letter from the New York 

Rural Water Association to Representative Tonko, stating, ‘‘On behalf of all the rural small communities in the 20th congressional 

district in the State of New York, we are grateful to Congressman 

Tonko for being the original cosponsor of the Grassroots Rural 

Water Small Community Water Systems Assistance Act and for 

your continued assistance.’’ 

Mr. Chairman, I used to be a rural water circuit rider for over 

a decade back in Mississippi. As a circuit rider, as a water operations and compliance assistance technician who travels the State 

to be available on site and immediately to any small community 

that has water issues, the circuit rider concept was designed and 

funded by Congress to allow small communities access to technical 

expertise that is available to most all larger communities. 

A typical on-site contact could include ensuring the water service 

is protected and secure, discovering and repairing a faulty 

chlorination system, assisting the community to remove and reVerDate Mar 15 2010 10:55 Mar 04, 2016 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\114THCONGRESS\114X89RURALWATERASKOK022916\114X89RURALWATERPDFMA
9 

place the filtration media, training a new operator to run that particular treatment system, finding engineering and construction errors in a new sewer system, solving lead and copper rule problems 

or completing all the paperwork for funding programs including the 

State revolving funds. 

Often this means being available to travel to the communities on 

nights, weekends and during disasters when the problem occurs. 

Each community’s water infrastructure is unique, which means 

technical assistance must be available to address that community’s 

particular problem. 

Regarding the Grassroots Rural and Small Community Water 

Systems Assistance Act, small and rural communities urge the subcommittee to approve the bill for the following reasons. 

The EPA appropriation bill directs about one-half of 1 percent of 

the agency’s internal budget to drinking water technical assistance. 

Of the billions of dollars provided to EPA by Congress each year, 

small rural communities will tell you they see and feel the most 

benefit from the dollars provided to on-site technical assistance. 

The bill reauthorizes the Safe Drinking Water Act technical assistance provision and mandates that EPA target congressional 

funding for the most beneficial assistance to small rural communities. 

The preference provision in the bill ensures EPA will follow congressional intent and administration of the appropriations. 

This provision would have implementing the program easier for 

EPA by providing greater clarity of the intent of Congress to require EPA to ask each technical assistance provider competing for 

the funding to simply demonstrate to what extent community 

water systems find their proposal to be the most beneficial and effective. 

Small and rural communities are very hopeful the bill can be enacted in the remaining weeks of this congressional session and be 

operative in this appropriations cycle. 

Currently, the small rural communities are struggling under new 

Federal regulations, complex funding program applications and 

continuing mandatory operator training requirements. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to appear before the subcommittee and discuss this very important public health issue for 

small and rural communities. 

I would be happy to entertain any questions from the subcommittee. Thank you. 

[The statement of Mr. Mayfield follows:] 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, Mr. Mayfield. 

And now I will turn to Robert Stewart, executive director of 

Rural Community Assistance Partnership Incorporated, and I 

think you were here a couple months ago. It is great to have you 

back, and welcome. 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT STEWART 

Mr. STEWART. Thank you so much, Chairman. 

I really appreciate the opportunity to come back and, Chairman 

Shimkus and Ranking Member Tonko and members of the committee, it really is a pleasure to be here and talk to you about this 

subject. 

I think what we have heard already has laid a great foundation 

sort of describing what the problem is. But, you know, I am here 

to testify in support of any efforts including this legislation that 

can increase the availability of technical assistance and training for 

small community water systems that is provided by those nonprofit 

organizations best suited to provide this assistance that have staff 

on the ground in every State and that is directed at meeting the 

most critical needs of small communities in regards to regulatory 

compliance, financial, managerial and technical sustainability. 

My name, again, is Robert Stewart. I am with the Rural Community Assistance Partnership, which is a national organization, been 

around 40 years working with a couple thousand rural communities every year primarily on water and wastewater issues as well 

as solid waste, affordable housing and economic development 

issues. 

Section 1442(e) of the Safe Drinking Water Act amendments of 

1996 were meant to help small communities comply with the increasing regulatory burden that was being placed on them by the 

Safe Drinking Water Act, sort of a trade-off where we are going to 

ask you to comply with additional requirements and these have 

been coming down significantly in the last 20 years. 

In order to comply with these things, we said it was going to be 

a Congress—you all said it was going to be necessary to provide 

some technical assistance and that is what 1442(e) has—was 

meant to do and has been—we have been working on. 

And, you know, since the expiration of the initial authorization 

Congress had continued to fund this program, which we are very— 

we are very much appreciative of, the thousands of small communities that rely on this technical assistance are appreciative of. 

You know, I might point out that it has been sort of somewhat 

distressing to us the EPA has never included this funding within 

their own budget and it has fallen on the National Rural Water Association and my organization to come to Congress to sort of have 

these funds appropriated every year. 

At the same time, EPA, and Mr. Mayfield was sort of alluding 

to this in a way but I will say it more directly, EPA has spent a 

lot of money on developing a variety of tools and programs that are 

meant to help small communities but which I think in large part 

have been of marginal usefulness to these small communities. 

You know, so one thing I want to talk about, which is—I don’t 

think it is probably under discussion here at all but why—you 

17 

know, what is the need for on the ground kind of assistance that 

RCAP and National Rural Water Association provides. 

You know, we have heard about the lack of staffing. Typically, 

you have volunteer staff in these small communities, people that 

might be working part time. 

Many times there is a lack of expertise in meeting the kind of 

regulatory requirements that these systems fall under in regard to 

the operations and the compliance. 

There is a real difficulty in accessing existing financing sources. 

Whether that is due to the EPA’s State revolving funds or the 

rural development’s water environment program, it is just—it requires a lot of sophistication in order to understand that they are 

there, access those fundings, meet all the requirements and then 

carry through a construction project. 

There is also just a variety of issues just in managing a small 

water utility. This is just like any other business you might come 

across except it exists in a heavily regulated environment. 

And you combine providing a public service, heavily regulated 

environment, lack of resources, it is just very difficult for small systems—small community systems—to sort of meet all these requirements without some additional kind of training and technical assistance such as the legislation that we are considering here provides. 

The needs are many, as I said before, and I understand the resources are few, and I think any time we have a chance to direct 

the resources to where it is needed the most you are going to see 

NRWA and RCAP being in support of that and I think that is what 

this does. 

There are a lot of opportunities that we have heard mentioned. 

I know Mr. Tonko mentioned a couple of these things. You know, 

regionalization in small communities is something we really need 

to see. 

We need to sort of be in a mode of sharing resources and working 

together. As you all know, there are 5,600 thousand community 

water systems in this country. It is just how many electric utilities 

are there. 

You know, I mean, hardly any compared to the tens of thousands 

of small water systems there are. But the needs, again, you know, 

emergency preparedness—we have heard about these—a drought, 

training and equipping operators in small systems, a budget and 

rate setting, you know, accessing informational resources. 

You know, there is just this whole litany of needs that small 

communities have a real difficult time meeting whereas when you 

look at the larger utilities they will have professional engineers on 

staff, CPAs on staff, planners on staff. 

And in a small utility like Mr. Mayfield was referring to specifically, it is usually one person that has, you know, 10 different jobs. 

And so it has been really tough and so I just welcome the opportunity to talk more about this. I am going to end it here because 

hopefully you all have some questions that I can answer and I am 

sure Mr. Mayfield and I would be happy to answer any questions 

you might have. 

Thank you. 

[The statement of Mr. Stewart follows:] 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, Mr. Stewart. 

Before we get to questions for our witnesses, I would ask unanimous consent that all members of the subcommittee have 5 legislative days to submit an opening statement on this hearing into the 

record. 

Also a written statement from the U.S. EPA on the subject of today’s hearing will be included in the record and a written statement from the American Water Works Association on the subject 

of this hearing be included in the record if it is submitted to the 

committee by the end of the week. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] 

And will recognize myself 5 minutes to start the questioning and 

this is for both of you and then we will go to Mr. Mayfield and Mr. 

Stewart. 

What is the role of technical assistance through the Safe Drinking Water Act in helping you comply with the law and avoid adverse public health impacts? 

Mr. MAYFIELD. Our technical assistance through our circuit rider 

program we go out and help these systems. It doesn’t matter if it 

is technical, managerial or financial. We respond to these systems 

and these water systems—these operators look up to us to keep 

them updated on what the new Federal rules and regulations are. 

So we are constantly doing training and even on-site training 

when we go and we are training them on what the new regulations 

are and how to meet them. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Stewart. 

Mr. STEWART. Yes, I totally agree. I think the small water systems, when they are faced with the new rules like there is a revised Total Coliform Rule, which is unbelievably long and hard to 

digest, you know, if you have someone that it out there on site than 

can explain that to them probably in 10 or 15 minutes as opposed 

to spending hours trying to wade through a regulation or call somebody to try to get that information. 

So I think the technical assistance under the Safe Drinking 

Water Act is meant for compliance purposes. So that is the bottom 

line. 

One thing, I think, and this was just mentioned, that I think we 

need to keep in mind is that compliance is not just a function of 

being able to operate the system. 

It is a function of also being able to finance and manage that 

utility and sometimes I have had the impression that that has not 

been EPA’s priority. 

EPA’s priority as far as where they are putting the money that 

you have appropriated has been strictly on the operations and compliance end and somewhat neglecting the foundation of all utilities, 

all businesses and that is to have sustainable management financing in place. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Great. Thank you. 

How is the—how is the uncertainty, which we are living in right 

now, over funding or use of technical assistance provided under the 

Safe Drinking Water Act Section 1442(e) affected your organization? 

Mr. Mayfield. 

27 

Mr. MAYFIELD. With Mississippi Rural Water, it has affected us 

with a reduction of staff. We have had to lay off two of our staff 

members that was funded under this program. 

We are trying to keep our services up but sometimes it is difficult. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Stewart, do you want to add to that? 

Mr. STEWART. You are referring to my organization or the—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Well, no. Just to the organizations like Mr. 

Mayfield. What is the observation of the effect on them? 

Mr. STEWART. Yes. I think what happens is that if they don’t 

have this kind of assistance they are going to fall out of compliance. 

They are not going to be able to pay their bills. They are not 

managing their utility correctly and what does that cause? That 

causes more problems for the State regulators. 

And so, I mean, a small investment in technical assistance and 

outreach that we are talking about here prevents a large amount 

of money being spent by the States to enforce the rules, you know, 

send out administrative orders, you know, follow up on that. 

I mean, it is a whole lot better to spend a little money to sort 

of keep a system from going out of compliance than it is to get 

them back into compliance. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you. 

And my last question for you, Mr. Stewart, do you hope that Senate Bill 611 will streamline the way EPA currently implements 

Section 1442(e) of the Safe Drinking Water Act? 

Mr. STEWART. My honest answer would be no, and that is just 

because on reflection of how they used—how they have used the 

money in the past that has been appropriated for this purpose. 

They have taken a long time to get this money out to the successful people that are competing, which has typically been rural 

water and RCAP. 

They have taken typically a year and a half from the time the 

appropriations is until the money actually flows to our organizations when we have been successful in competing for this funding. 

And they have also—and I don’t want to repeat what I already 

said but there is also this emphasis on the money just to go strictly 

to a compliance operational approach and not what we really need. 

They are all the same. It is like a three-legged stool, right? I 

mean, if you don’t have the operations, you don’t have the finance, 

you don’t have the management all together supporting the utility 

then it is going to fall. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. So I think you are saying you would like for this 

to help streamline the process? 

Mr. STEWART. Yes. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. OK. 

Mr. STEWART. And, excuse me, sir. I think it will. I think it will 

provide some help and some additional direction and that is, you 

know—because it is sort of—you know, this could be used by nonprofit organizations for certain purposes and for activities that are 

supported and needed by the small communities. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Great. Thank you very much. 

I yield back my time and now recognize the ranking member of 

the subcommittee, Mr. Tonko, for 5 minutes. 

28 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you again, Chair Shimkus, for calling this 

hearing and I also want to, again, thank my colleague, Mr. Harper, 

for the work that he has done on this important issue. 

Drinking water systems in every congressional district are facing 

significant challenges as they work to ensure everyone, even people 

in small communities, have access to safe drinking water. 

It seems that every week we read about water supply problems, 

water main breaks or other events that disrupt our drinking water 

supplies and services. 

Mr. Stewart, much of our drinking water infrastructure is decades old and in need of repair or replacement. That is as true for 

small communities as for large ones. 

Your testimony emphasizes the need for technical assistance in 

applying for funds as well as for dealing with finance and management issues. 

When small systems need infrastructure repairs or replacement, 

is it just a matter of not knowing how to access funds or is there 

also a need to make additional funding resources available? 

Mr. STEWART. I think it is both because if you can’t access the 

existing funding then that funding is going to go to the larger communities. The small communities just have a hard time accessing 

that funding just because of the requirements associated with 

those. 

But I don’t think there is any doubt. I mean, you quoted EPA 

studies. There has been AWWA studies. There has been the engineering organizations which have done studies, and it is an unfunded need. 

We definitely need in this country more money to be invested in 

water utilities urban and rural. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you, and how would a small system obtain 

immediate funding needed for emergency repairs when they experience a major problem with their infrastructure or with their source 

water? 

Mr. STEWART. Well, one thing my organization has done—I know 

rural water has done some of this as well—we have six regions 

around the country and two of our regions operate a nationwide 

loan fund. 

So if somebody needs money within a small amount of time, we 

have been able to capitalize loan funds from a variety of sources, 

typically foundations, rural development and other sources. 

So that—so that if there is a—if there is like a tank failure or 

a pump failure and somebody needs money immediately it is really 

hard to go to a community bank and get that kind of funding. So 

they can come to our revolving loan funds for that funding and we 

turn it around in a couple of weeks. 

Whereas if you try to go to rural development or the SRS you are 

looking at months and months and months. It just doesn’t work. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you. 

The technical assistance programs have been funded in the range 

of $12 to $15 million for a number of years now, this year at, I believe, $12.7 million. 

There are over 48,000 small systems across our country and 

these systems, indeed, are aging. So it seems to me that while this 

29 

core funding is useful, inflation alone would suggest that a higher 

authorization for funding should at least be considered. 

So I would ask both of our witnesses, both gentlemen, would a 

more generous funding level enable your organizations to better 

meet the needs of small utilities? 

Mr. MAYFIELD. Yes, very much so it would. You know, we see the 

funding levels be real competitive when our systems, especially our 

smaller systems, have to go after the funding and you got some 

larger systems out there after the same funding. It is real competitive and having more funding would be a—help a whole lot better. 

Mr. TONKO. And you point out in your testimony that in addition 

to technical assistance, small systems also have difficulty getting 

access to capital. 

So I assume that loans are not an option for many of these small 

systems and with a small rate base for further increases in water 

and sewer rates, it isn’t a feasible option either. 

It seems to me we need to provide additional funds to enable 

these systems to repair and replace older infrastructure. Would you 

agree? 

Mr. MAYFIELD. I agree with that. 

Mr. TONKO. And would you support legislation to reauthorize the 

SRF and increase the funding available? 

Mr. MAYFIELD. Yes. 

Mr. TONKO. Would greater funding for both the SRF and technical assistance be put to good use in these systems? 

Mr. MAYFIELD. Very much so it would. 

Mr. TONKO. Both of your organizations offer training and certification programs for small system operators. Is that correct? 

Mr. MAYFIELD. That is correct. 

Mr. TONKO. And I have heard from several of my small water 

utilities that they are having a difficult time recruiting and retaining people to operate these systems and that many current operators are approaching retirement age. So the backup supply is of a 

concern. 

Are there also workforce issues that we need to be concerned 

about, from your perspective? 

Mr. MAYFIELD. We do see that. The aging workforce, we have 

seen lots of operators will be retiring in the near future and not 

many young people coming up and, you know, National Rural 

Water has been looking at it for several years now how we could 

recruit more young people into the organization. 

Mr. TONKO. Now, do you think perhaps the lack of available pool 

of trained people, skilled people, interested people might be because we have ignored this issue? 

Mr. MAYFIELD. Yes, sir. I sure do. 

Mr. TONKO. OK. Well, look, I appreciate your testimony and your 

support for the legislation. I hope to continue to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to address the other challenges 

our drinking water systems face and certainly with your very important input too. So thank you again for appearing before the subcommittee today. 

With that, I yield back. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Gentleman’s time has expired. 

30 

Chair now recognizes the vice chair of the committee, Mr. Harper, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. HARPER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And again thanks to you, Mr. Stewart, Mr. Mayfield, for being 

here. This is an issue that affects every community and our country. 

Mr. Mayfield, how many local water associations are part of your 

organization? 

Mr. MAYFIELD. There are 1,250 public utilities in the State of 

Mississippi and we have a 1,057 as our members. Of course, we 

still go help the ones that is not members, too. 

Mr. HARPER. So it is—it is quite a responsibility then, isn’t it? 

Mr. MAYFIELD. Yes, sir. It really is. 

Mr. HARPER. Would you give maybe a specific example or two of 

the technical assistance that you provide to those association members? 

Mr. MAYFIELD. Would love to. 

In the Mississippi Delta where the poverty is real low, we have 

a little town called Shaw, Mississippi, up there. Shaw, Mississippi’s 

chlorination equipment went down at one time. They could not provide the chlorination or the chlorine into the water so they just quit 

putting chlorine into the water. 

Then their electrical control panels on their wells went down so 

they were having to go out there every day to turn the well on, fill 

the tank up, and just hope it stayed full. 

And this went on for about 3 months. The primacy agency put 

them under a boil water notice and then we finally got the call to 

go up there, and our circuit rider went in and it was just something 

the matter that was wrong with the chlorination equipment. 

He got the chlorination equipment up and going. Went over to 

the wells and tanks and got the electrical control panel going and 

then he stayed with them to be sure they could pull some clear 

water samples. They got chlorine in the water. 

This town was having to buy bottled water for their school every 

day for three months there and this circuit rider come in. Within 

just a matter of a few days, had this system back into compliance 

and up and running. 

Mr. HARPER. That is great. 

Mr. MAYFIELD. That is just one of the many cases. In Wayne 

County, I mean, near Waynesboro, Mississippi, back last spring 

when we had a series of storms go through our State, one of our 

systems had a creek crossing blow out in the river over there. 

Well, the operator of this system had cancer and had been sent 

to Houston for treatment and so when this creek crossing blowed 

out the board members had to take it on their own with what few 

employees—really, meter readers, basically—didn’t know where everything was and they searched for that leak for two days. 

They called our—called our office and I sent our circuit rider over 

there. Within about 4 hours he had to leave town in the creek. 

But not only did he find the leak, he realized that without their 

operator there how desperate they was during this time. He stayed 

right there with them all day and almost night until they got the 

water fixed and back up and running. 

31 

Mr. HARPER. That is great. And how many circuit riders do you 

have? 

Mr. MAYFIELD. We have 3 circuit riders in Mississippi. 

Mr. HARPER. So they are pretty busy folks then, aren’t they? 

Mr. MAYFIELD. Ninety-five to 97 percent of their time is for calls 

only now. 

Mr. HARPER. Got it. 

Mr. MAYFIELD. They are working calls. 

Mr. HARPER. Got it. Well, why can’t State regulators or EPA provide technical assistance for the regulations that they impose on 

communities? 

Mr. MAYFIELD. The primacy agencies, you know, their men and 

women are engineers coming out of college. To be a circuit rider 

one of the national requirements is that you have a minimum of 

5 years’ experience actually out operating a system. 

So our circuit riders can go out there and talk to these guys, men 

and women, just like they know everything going on. They have 

the hands-on experience of getting in that mud hole, fixing that 

leak, where these coming out of college does not have that experience. And it gives the operator as well as the circuit rider—they 

bond a lot closer together being there. 

Mr. HARPER. That is great. 

We had a hearing earlier in the year, and some of your colleagues from Mississippi testified that of all the billions of dollars 

that Congress provides to the Federal agencies for environmental 

programs, the only technical assistance that small and rural communities see and utilize is the assistance from these on-site circuit 

riders. 

Please explain a little more what they meant by that. 

Mr. MAYFIELD. When these systems have a problem, we are the 

first call they make. I know you are from Mississippi and you have 

seen it advertised on TV, one call that is all. In the water business 

that is rural water. 

That is the circuit riders. We are a one-stop shop. If they need 

technical managerial financial help we go in and help them. 

We have went in, done great studies to where these systems 

have set there on their rates for years and years and not raised 

their rates and go in and help them get the rates at the right level 

and then they move forward from there. 

Mr. HARPER. You know, we just recognized the tenth anniversary 

of Hurricane Katrina, and I know my time is almost up. But just 

briefly tell what you went through after that and what service you 

provided for those areas affected after Hurricane Katrina and other 

hurricanes. 

Mr. MAYFIELD. That is a good question. Hurricane Katrina was 

something that none of us was prepared for but through the proper 

training we was ready for it. 

Our water, as most of you know, much of the State of Mississippi 

was devastated by Hurricane Katrina. Within 5 to 6 days, 99 percent of our water systems was back up and running and this was 

due to the help of Rural Water and those operators having the 

proper training through this program here, training on how to 

react when something like this happens. 

32 

Rural Water jumped in and we got the easy systems up going, 

then we moved further south and we helped systems locate lines, 

locate leaks, fix leaks. 

We brought crews in from all over the State and other States. 

Florida, Louisiana, Arkansas sent crews in and we stayed with 

Cedar Bay, St. Louis, some of the coastal towns for up to four to 

five weeks staff training. 

Mr. HARPER. Thank you, Mr. Mayfield. I appreciate it. 

My time is up but thank you so much for what you do and mean 

to our State. Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Gentleman yields back the time. 

The Chair now recognizes ranking member of the full committee, 

Mr. Pallone, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

As I said before, the bill before us is a small step forward on 

drinking water issues by reauthorizing technical assistance for 

small drinking water systems and I appreciate our ranking member and chairman who are working on this issue. 

But I think it is unfortunate that we are considering the Senate 

language instead of similar language authored by Mr. Tonko to reauthorize this program because some of the terms in the Senate 

bill are unclear. 

Hopefully, we can use this time to build the legislative history 

on this bill and clarify the legislation. 

For example, in Section 4 paragraph 8 of S. 611, EPA is instructed to give priority to nonprofit organizations that are the 

most experienced. Similar language in Mr. Tonko’s legislation 

would have given priority to the most effective organization. I think 

these terms are intended to be synonymous and we all agree that 

the money should go to the most effective organizations. 

Mr. Mayfield, I wanted to ask you would you say that the NRWA 

is effective because of its extensive experience? 

Mr. MAYFIELD. Yes, sir. 

NRWA is a nationwide program and like I said earlier, all of our 

people has a minimum of at least 5 years’ experience working in 

the field with all these systems. So I think we are very experienced 

at it. 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you. 

Mr. Stewart, do you agree that RCAP’s experience in this area 

helps your organization be effective? 

Mr. STEWART. I don’t think there is any doubt about it. But when 

you are talking about experience and whether or not that experience is effective or not, small utilities need a wide variety of expertise in order to help them. 

You know, again, it is not just an operational issue about how 

to operate. You know, a lot of times they need somebody with the 

kind of background in accessing financing sources, budgeting, rate 

setting in order to get their financial situation in place. 

But one thing, I think, that—regardless, you know, I would hope 

Congress would look upon nonprofit organizations such as RCAP 

and National Rural Water Association as the best means to provide 

this assistance because in part we have people on ground—on the 

ground in every single State. There are other people that have been 

doing this work who may address a part of the need. 

33 

But having the people on the ground with the experience and the 

expertise is the most effective way to do this. 

Mr. PALLONE. All right. Thanks. 

I am mostly concerned that the bill could be interpreted as requiring EPA to conduct surveys in each of the States and territories to measure support for different nonprofit that might receive 

funds, and this would consume time and resources with little benefit. 

So Mr. Stewart, do you believe that EPA should be required to 

survey water systems in each State to determine which organizations provide the most beneficial services? 

Mr. STEWART. I would say not. I think EPA is aware of the organizations that provide the best service and that having to do a survey would just reiterate and reinforce what they already know. 

Mr. PALLONE. Do you agree, Mr. Mayfield? 

Mr. MAYFIELD. I would say not. 

I would say that that should be left up to the organization presenting the proposal to EPA to explain to EPA how they are the 

most beneficial and provide the evidence. 

Mr. PALLONE. All right. 

And the last thing I wanted to ask you is I am concerned that 

neither the existing statute nor the bill before us lists specific areas 

of technical assistance that would qualify for this funding. 

Can you—I will ask both of you—give the subcommittee a sense 

of the range of activities that you carry out with this funding? Each 

of you, if you would. 

Mr. STEWART. Well, it has varied over the years because what 

EPA has done is they have separated out a compliance section, a 

management finance section, a wastewater section and a private 

water well owner section. So and both NRWA and RCAP has gotten different pieces of this funding over the years. 

On the operational end, it has been very frustrating for me because we are constrained in not being able to provide management 

and finance assistance that supports the operational needs. 

You know, so what we have done—you know, we—it is basically 

a compliance driven thing, like, how do you meet the revised Total 

Coliform Rule, how do you come into compliance with the ground 

water rule. 

Well, that is all well and good but if you have, like, an arsenic 

problem that you are treating for the only way to come into compliance is to go through a financing arrangement where you are looking for funding to sort of, you know, provide the treatment—to get 

the money to provide the treatment. 

So that has been my frustration with the approach the EPA has 

used. You know, they obviously take the money that Congress provides and what they do with that money I don’t think always is reflective of the intent of Congress. 

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Mayfield. 

Mr. MAYFIELD. We provide training and technical assistance and, 

you know, when we talk about technical assistance, like I said earlier, it is not just about the day to day operations in technical assistance. 

So, for instance, December 23rd in Marion County, Mississippi, 

a tornado went through Columbia. We—I had my people to verify 

34 

with Columbia they was OK and Columbia came back and told us 

they were OK, everything was up and good and running. 

At 2:30 a.m. on Christmas Eve morning we get a call that the 

generator at Columbia had went down and they are at the hospital 

sitting right next to the treatment plant and they inform me when 

they call me at 2:30 a.m. that morning that we got 2 hours of water 

supply left for this hospital—what can you do to help us. 

We jumped into action and at 4:45 a.m. that morning we had the 

generator hooked up and was pumping water. So it is about being 

there when you are needed, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Gentleman yields back his time. 

Chair now recognizes the gentleman from West Virginia, Mr. 

McKinley, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to 

have a discussion on this subject and I am pleased to be one of the 

cosponsors of the legislation that we have. 

I represent in West Virginia another—just like you, Mr. 

Mayfield—a rural impoverished State that struggles. We have the 

highest rate of unemployment. 

We have the second lowest per capita income in my district. I 

don’t have—I have two cities that have 30,000 people. Other than 

that, every community is smaller than that. Some—I have got one 

community that only has 500 people, a seasonal community that 

maybe can grow to 2,000 during the winter. And they had a little 

problem. 

Here is a—here is a water line that they tried for 10 years to 

get funds for and it only has the ability to pass maybe about 22 

percent of the water through that line. But they can’t get money. 

So I applaud this effort to try to get more technical assistance 

but I am—but I am wondering if we are chasing the wrong rabbit. 

I mean, it is good to get this, to get people lined up in the queue 

to get money. But we got to get the money. We got to have more 

money at the other end. 

The State revolving fund has been used as a pawn and I know 

in 2013 the president in his budget slashed almost 50 percent out 

of the money, out of the SRO. 

And if it weren’t for members on the other side of the aisle when 

working with the Appropriations Committee we were able to get 

that money restored. 

But I don’t know whether the administration and other people 

within the groups actually feel the need for rural America with the 

problems we have with us because this was done not with any— 

well, not dime of Federal money. 

They finally had to get the State to step in because everyone was 

saying there was just no Federal money. We can’t do it because you 

are such a small community. 

I have got another community that has 75 families, that they get 

their—they have to get bottled water and they have been doing it 

for 2 years. They get their potable water so that they can flush 

their toilets out of a creek. 

35 

These are middle-income people that have homes that are 

$150,000 to $200,000 in value, and they can’t sell their home. Who 

is going to buy a home that doesn’t have water to it? 

So I am very concerned about this. I want this legislation to 

pass. But I am equally and even more so concerned that we are 

giving false hope to people, get people in the queue to get money 

but there is no money because the allocation in the administration 

or whatever the programs are they are not funding it into rural 

communities to be able to help out on that. 

I know it. All the words sound right but in the real world I think 

as we live in, small communities aren’t getting that money. 

And so what would you do then to help refocus this so that this 

administration or any administration can understand the hardship 

that is incurring on small towns, these little communities of 500 or 

1,000 people? What would you do to get more money into that account? 

Mr. MAYFIELD. Well, I think that is something that we need to 

sit down and take a long look at, that the smaller systems gets 

more—is looked at more then they can be as competitive as the 

larger systems are. 

Let me just—— 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Would you agree that one of the—but one of the 

criteria they always say is where is your matching money. But a 

small town of 500 can’t come up with that matching money. 

They have—I have got a community that has to come up with 

$12.5 million. What are they going to do? They only have 550 customers. 

Mr. MAYFIELD. That is right. And there, again, at some point in 

time, that is where consolidation and merging may have to come 

into the picture when these smaller towns cannot come up with 

this matching money. 

Mr. STEWART. Honestly, there is no doubt that the water utilities 

in this country are under invested and it is not just the EPA SRF 

programs. It is Rural Development Water and Environment programs. They need more funding because you can’t have one without 

the other. You need the technical assistance. 

One thing—for EPA’s credit and Rural Development also is that 

they have been stressing just like our two organizations have for 

40 years, asset management. You know, how do you take care of 

the equipment, the facilities that you have. 

And so EPA has been pushing on that, both of our organizations 

have been pushing on that to sort of, you know, maintain that investment, you know, once it is actually made. 

But if you don’t make the investment and as we know this country is still growing, you know, and there are still needs that haven’t 

been met. There is people in your State and in many other States 

that don’t even have community water systems that are hauling 

water. 

And without that kind of investment those people are never 

going to get community water systems. 

So I think both NRWA and RCAP—I can’t speak for NRWA. 

RCAP definitely supports increased funding for the SRF programs 

and the water environment program. 

36 

Mr. MCKINLEY. I have run out of time, but can you just give me 

an idea of what kind of money should we be spending, knowing 

that the SRF is just one amount and there are other sources? What 

kind of money should we be spending annually? 

Mr. STEWART. That is a tough one because, I mean, as we have 

heard, the needs are so great. The needs are in the trillions. 

I mean, an incremental increase, I mean, even if it was just 10 

percent a year in each of those two programs, I mean, something 

to start making a dent in the backlog that we have seen anything 

would help. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Would you agree? 

Mr. MAYFIELD. I totally agree. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Thank you. I yield back my time. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Gentleman’s time has expired. 

Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Green, for 

5 minutes. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling the hearing as 

part of the subcommittee’s ongoing work on drinking water issues. 

Safe drinking water is a serious issue in our district as it is likely for every member of this subcommittee. Small and rural water 

systems face a number of very serious challenges and do not have 

the customer base to finance serious infrastructure repairs they 

need. 

Customers of public water systems in the country should be able 

to count on safety of the water coming out of their taps whether 

they live in a rural area, cities or suburbs. 

My question to the panelists, first of all, I have a very urban 

area but I also represent an unincorporated area that will not be 

annexed by our major cities because the property wealth is so low 

it would cost more to serve those areas with streets and water and 

sewer than it is to—so they are actually hemmed in by cities. 

And we have been able in the past to use assistance with matching funds to be able to bring down some of—from—for even very 

small urban water systems. 

How can consolidation help small and rural water systems, for 

example, in whether it be a rural area like Mississippi or even in 

an urban area like I have? 

Mr. MAYFIELD. You get more customer base, therefore you keep 

your rates as low as you can and more customers actually can help 

pay those loans and grants that you receive. 

I would like to, if I could, just step back just a quick second on 

technical assistance. When we are talking about technical assistance, one thing that is real good about our technical assistance providers, these men and women stay up on the latest technology out 

there, and when these towns, like you are talking about does go for 

loans and grants the engineer gives them a preliminary engineer 

report. 

Now, lots of times our circuit riders can sit down with these 

towns and look at this preliminary engineer report and say look, 

there is a cheaper and better way to do it. 

So we need to get these technical assistance providers working 

with these towns and cities on a case by case basis when it comes 

to these loans and grants. 

37 

Mr. STEWART. Mr. Green, if I can just make a comment, and 

since Texas is my home State, as you know water availability is a 

big issue in Texas and if you have small communities that can 

come together and that can access either service or ground water, 

I mean, you have a much better chance of doing that, and we have 

always tried to get the cities—even if you are not annexing you can 

perhaps provide wholesale water or just do water and wastewater 

services in those areas by extending their CCNs. 

Mr. GREEN. Well, our situation we have done that. City of Houston has been able to—of course, you have to bring money to the 

table to make sure the city taxpayers are not doing it, but they 

would sell the water. 

Of course, in our area we still use ground water but mostly it is 

surface water because it is decided for the last 60 years and flooding issues. 

Mr. Stewart, when you testified before the subcommittee in February you mentioned several alternative service delivery approaches including sharing services, cooperative operations and 

management consolidation. How can these alternative approaches 

help small systems achieve better compliance? Is it—is there some 

bureaucratic rule that you can’t do it or is it just a matter of—— 

Mr. STEWART. No, I think it is a matter of having somebody that 

is facilitating getting multiple communities to work together, you 

know, so that—so that, you know, maybe you have two or three 

communities that are close enough and they can share an operator 

instead of hiring their own, you know. 

But sometimes, even though water systems are pretty good about 

knowing what is going on in their counties and stuff, you know, if 

you have somebody that can sort of facilitate those kind of sharing 

of service arrangements, I think that can make a big difference. 

Mr. GREEN. OK. Last Congress, our subcommittee introduced 

legislation, the AQUA Act, that would expand the definition of restricting for the SRF, the State revolving fund program, to explicitly include cooperative partnerships and joint personal agreements 

and consolidation. 

Mr. Stewart, would you support that change? 

Mr. STEWART. Yes, very much so. Yes. 

Mr. GREEN. And, again, in Texas there are challenges confronting water systems in my own State that are unique compared 

to other States, although I would compare some of my rural areas 

in east Texas with Mississippi—same problems. 

Are there differences and challenges confronting rural water systems and small systems in urbanized areas like that are found in 

my north and east Houston—Harris County area—between a rural 

system and an urban system? 

Mr. STEWART. Well, you know, the economies of scale, like Mr. 

Mayfield and a couple have mentioned, are one issue. You know, 

part of the problem with small communities is just—can be availability of water, as you know, and I know in the Houston area, you 

know, you are getting off ground water and going to surface water, 

which is necessary. But—— 

Mr. GREEN. Well, and most of the surface water we are getting 

is owned by the city of Houston, by the way. 

38 

Mr. STEWART. Yes. So you are just at a—I hate to say, a competitive disadvantage if you are a small system and you are looking for 

water rights or for access to groundwater resources. You are just 

at a disadvantage, no doubt. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the testimony and our 

witnesses. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Gentleman yields back his time. 

We are waiting for Mr. McNerney to rapidly get here. So what 

I would like to just mention without objection is just talk about our 

push in southern Illinois to really encourage a lot of systems to 

move into a regional system—rural water, USDA rural water. 

It has been very successful because what I have observed is older 

systems, new regulations, small community, small rate based—as 

all the things that have been mentioned here, there is no ability 

to borrow the money, pay the rates. 

And so only through encouraging over time, you know, respectfully that most of my—most of my areas we are starting to close 

gaps in systems so that—and then the important thing is to make 

sure that we have clean potable water for our—my constituents 

and stuff and that has been—it has been a very, very successful 

program that we have worked on. It is very gratifying. It has been 

one of the things that I have been most proud of. 

This kind of untold story is when you can get safe drinking water 

to people who really haven’t had or who have had to haul it for a 

time. So I am filibustering. 

Anyone want to add to that issue? We have kind of talked about 

it. Mr. Stewart. 

Mr. STEWART. Yes. Again, I think that, you know, in support of 

technical assistance, in order to facilitate regionalization you need 

somebody on the ground that can work with multiple communities 

that knows all about the finance management and technical aspects of it and that can think about different opportunities for communities to work together because, as you know, Chairman, this is 

not necessarily a physical consolidation. 

Maybe it is a managerial consolidation over multiple satellite 

systems. You know, again, for lack of a better word, there is more 

efficiencies. But, you know, if you are operating a small system and 

you are just trying to make the water come—you know, come out 

of the pipe every day, you have a hard time looking forward, you 

know, a year in advance of what you need to be doing. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you very much. 

And I think the Chair is going to recognize my colleague and 

friend, obviously, since I waited for him, the gentleman from California, Mr. McNerney, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Well, I thank the chairman for your patience 

and I thank the witnesses. 

Mr. Mayfield, it sounds like the circuit rider is a pretty interesting job. You get to go around and see different things just about 

every day. 

Mr. MAYFIELD. A new experience every day. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. But that is a State-funded organization? You 

don’t get any money from the Federal Government about that? 

Mr. MAYFIELD. We do get some money from USDA for the circuit 

rider program. 

39 

Mr. MCNERNEY. So they are helpful then. But this proposed legislation would help that then? 

Mr. MAYFIELD. That is correct. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Good. 

Mr. Stewart, I get the impression that you feel the EPA is wellmeaning in terms of its new regulations. It is going to make water 

safer and, in fact, also well meaning in terms of trying to provide 

assistance. But they kind of miss the mark in their intention. Is 

that right? 

Mr. STEWART. Yes, sir. 

I believe that they could be better—they could better direct the 

kind of resources for where the needs are the greatest. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Would the proposed legislation help? 

Mr. STEWART. I think that is a—this is a great first step in that 

direction. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you. 

Mr. Stewart, would planning and adapting to drought and other 

emergencies related to climate change be an acceptable technical 

assistance under current statute? 

Mr. STEWART. Yes, it is, because I know both Rural Water and 

RCAP are working with each other. We work with quite a few systems in the central valley of California that are having issues, you 

know, some that are actually still considered colonias in Riverside 

County and they have not only drought issues but, as you know, 

arsenic issues—just water quality issues. 

So yes. I mean, that is an acceptable use for the funding currently. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. All right. 

And the current legislation wouldn’t change that? 

Mr. STEWART. Not to my knowledge. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. OK. Good. 

Mr. Mayfield, do you agree that the current statute protects you 

for planning for climate change or adapting to climate change? 

Mr. MAYFIELD. Yes, I agree with that. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you. 

I am going to be brief here. Mr. Stewart, do you think the bill 

would restrict your ability to offer technical assistance in moving 

drinking water intakes or finding alternative source water? 

Mr. STEWART. No, I think that is—I think when you are talking 

about compliance you are talking not only the quality but availability and quantity. So I think that is all—we have never been 

told that that wouldn’t be an acceptable use of the technical assistance money. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Is identifying and mitigating contamination acceptable technical assistance under current law? 

Mr. STEWART. Well, that is more of a source water protection 

kind of an issue the EPA has at times in the past funded separately. It is eligible but that is not really what—if you look at the 

RFAs that come out from EPA for those purposes that is not what 

their emphasis has been. I would say that. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Would the new bill change that, in your opinion? 

Mr. STEWART. See, I am not sure—that is for you all to decide. 

I mean, you know, what you direct EPA to do and then what they 

40 

do can be two different things and I am not the one to decide, you 

know, who is right—who is right on that. That is—— 

Mr. MCNERNEY. The chairman is smiling on this. 

Mr. STEWART. That is for you all to do, right. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Well, Mr. Mayfield, you offer training to monitor 

for and mitigate contamination. Is that right? 

Mr. MAYFIELD. That is correct. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. And that sounds like most of the time you are 

just reacting to crises. But you actually have some amount of resources to deploy in terms of training as well? 

Mr. MAYFIELD. Yes, sir. 

Before the money started getting cut through EPA, Mississippi 

had two, like, Mr. Stewart was talking about, source water people 

on the staff that was out in the field every day dealing with these 

type of problems. But, you know, when funding got cut we had to 

lay those two people off. But we still do it through training. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you. 

Well, I think the assistance is very important. It will only become more so as climate change exacerbates the problems of our 

drinking water sources. So I hope we can continue to work together 

on these problems. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Maybe I shouldn’t have waited but—no, I am glad 

I did. 

So with that, seeing no other member wishing to ask questions 

we want to thank you all for traveling and spending time with us. 

We look forward to kind of moving promptly to try to get this 

through our system, get it to the floor so hopefully we can meet the 

time schedules that we all know that we need to meet. 

So with that, I will call the hearing adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:06 a.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. FRED UPTON

Most members of our committee give personal attention to the needs of the small, 

rural water service providers in our districts. In particular, Mr. Harper, Mr. Tonko, 

and Mr. Shimkus have been exchanging ideas on how to better meet these challenges within the economic and budgetary realities we face and should be commended in getting us to where we are today. 

Many smaller and rural communities across Michigan and the United States face 

significant challenges in replacing, maintaining, and upgrading their aging drinking 

water infrastructure. These communities often face increased costs and burdens of 

meeting the complex regulatory requirements under the Safe Drinking Water Act. 

The bill before us today, which passed the Senate by Unanimous Consent back in 

June, and is the companion to H.R. 2853—introduced by Subcommittee Vice Chairman Gregg Harper and Ranking Member Tonko—helps these communities alleviate 

that burden. It authorizes EPA’s current program in the Safe Water Drinking Act 

that provides technical assistance to small public water systems through 2020. It 

allows grants to non-profit organizations, but preference goes to non-profits that are 

most qualified and experienced and that the small water systems themselves find 

effective. It’s a win for the smaller and rural communities in my district back in 

Michigan and across the country. 

By passing S. 611 unanimously, the Senate has given us a rare opportunity. We 

can do our part to help this reauthorization become law if we can all agree to approve the bill exactly as it passed the Senate so that, if the House passes it, it will 

go directly to the President for his signature. We would avoid the risk of returning 

it to the Senate or negotiating differences in a Conference committee. 

41 

By helping this bill become law, we help our constituents who struggle every day 

to make sure that their small water systems meet those stringent regulatory requirements rooted in the Safe Drinking Water Act’s standards. I hope that today’s 

hearing gives all Members the information they need to support S. 611 as it takes 

another step toward enactment. I support the legislation and urge my colleagues to 

do likewise. 

42 

43 

44 

45 

46 

47 

48 

49 

50 

51 

52 

53 

Æ