with the initiative, we will act according to the principle

of wide consultation joint contribution and shared benefits. we will carry out equal consultation and respect independent choice of other countries. we will be sensitive to ensure transparency and openness, align the initiative with the development strategies of participants and create synergy with existing regional cooperation mechanisms. the vision of this initiative is common development. and the goal is win-win progress through cooperation. if i may use a musical metaphor it is not just a chinese solo, but a symphony performed by all relative countries. >> thank you.

against the background of western sanctions on russia and a sharp depreciation of the ruble. how will china carry out cooperation with russia especially the energy and financial sectors. and what will china and russia do to further strengthen their coordination and cooperation in international affairs.

the china russia relationship is not dick tated by international facilities and does not target any third parties. thanks to the strong strategic trust the two sides have established, our relationship has become more mature and stable. as comprehensive strategic partners, china and russia have a good tradition of supporting each other. and the friendship between our two peoples provides a strong

foundation for strengthening strategic cooperation between the two sides.

the practical cooperation between china and russia is based on mump wall need. it seeks win-win results. this year, our practical cooperation is expected to deliver a series of new results. for example we'll work hard to lift two-way trade to a hundred billion u.s. dollars. we will sign arn agreement to work on the economic belt and begin to our cooperation on that score. we will start for construction of the eastern route of the natural gas pipeline and sign an agreement on the western route of the gas project.

we will accelerate joint development and research of long distance passenger jets. we will strengthen our cooperation on high-speed railways. at the same time, we will continue to intensify our cooperation in the financial oil and gas and nuclear power sectors.

we will continue to carry out strategic coordination and cooperation to maintain international peace and security. this year, both countries will hold a series of activities to kmem rate the ebd of the world's antifascist war. we will support each other and jointly uphold international peace and the outcome of the second world war. thank you.

this year marks the 70th anniversary of the founding of the united nations. it is an important historic moment to reflect on the past and look to the future. some people say that china wants to challenge and even overturn the current international order and replace it with the new one dominated by china itsz. what is your comment?

i want to be very clear that china has always been a constructive force in building the international order. if we can compare the international order and system built around the united nations to a big bolt, then 70 years ago, china was intimately involved in designing and building that boat. and china was the first country to put its signature on the charter of the united nations.

today, we're in this boat together with more than 190 nations. of course, we don't want to upset the boat. rather, we want to work with if other passengers to make sure that this boat will sail forward steadily and in the right direction.

70 years has passed. the international situation and e and landscape has changed dramatically. and, naturally, the international order needs to be updated. china supports reforming the international order and system. but such reform is not about overturning the current system or starting all over again. rather, it is about seeking new ideas to improve it. the general direction is to promote democracy in international relations and the rule of law in global governance. in particular it is very important to safeguard the legitimate rise and interests in developing countries which are in the majority so that we can make the world a more equal harmonious and safe place.

thank you. last month, state kouns lat and national security advisor declared that both sides agreed to cope with strength and coordination, regional and global challenges. we anticipate visiting the u.s. later this year. how can we strengthen -- we saw that u.s. china debuts over for example, cyber security or the maritime conflicts. thank you.

following their meeting, will have another productive disz cushion and inject new momentum into our efforts to build a new model of major country relations between china and the united states. the undertaking to build a new model of relations is a pioneering effort. it will not be smooth sailing.

but it is a logical development. it's with the common interest of both sides and the trend of our times. there is a chinese saying, sincerity can work wonders as long as the two sides shows sincerity. but the bottom line of no conflict, no confrontation cement the foundation of mutual respect and then we can explore the immense possibility of win-win cooperation between china and the united states.

it's impossible for is there not to be too many disagreements between us. and they will not disappear between the moment we commit to

build a new model of major con tribulations. we shouldn't magnify the problem through a microscope. rather, we should use a telescope to look ahead to the future and make sure we'll move forward in the right direction. at the beijing apeck meeting, the president called for shake shaping the future through asia specific partnership. many countries responded enthusiastically to his initiative china and the united states interact frequently and the most in this region. the building of a new type of may jor con tribulation ship should begin with the asia pacific region. in our view, if both sides can work to deepen strategic trust,

then we can shorely go to prosperity in the region. both china and the united states are major users of the internet. we have common swress in upholding cyber security. we hope cyber space will become the new frontier of our cooperation rather than the new source of our friction. thank you.

attacks have frequently hit many parts of the world from paris to sydney from western asia to western africa. what is china's position on fighting terrorism and carrying out international counter terrorism cooperation.

terrorism is the common scourge to mankind. china has always been an active participant in international terrorism cooperation. at the same time, we believe

that to uproot terrorism we must remove its breeding ground and to deny any haven to the spectrum of terrorism we have to prevent economic and social development, appropriate regional conflicts and advocate between different civil saigszs, religions and ethnic groups. china has always suffered at the hands of terrorism. and the eastern islamic movement is a clear and present threat to our security. to jointly address the new threats brought by terrorism. thank you.

the top leader has decided to attend the activities to be held in russia in may to mark the victory of the great patriotic war. but the dprk leader has not yet made a visit to china.

is it possible that the six-party talks can still be resumed. the challenge with our traditional membership was the dprk and we seek the normal development of our relations. there is a strong foundation that should not and would not be

affected by temporary events as to when our leaders will meet, it will have to suit the schedule of both sides. the situation is basically stable and china has played a constructive role in bringing that about. it is in the common interests of all relevant parties to maintain

peace and stability on the peninsula and achieve the denuclearization of the peninsula. the moment the situation there has entered into another delicate period, we exercise calm and restraint and say and do things that exercise a positive effect and the conditions for resuming the six party talks. thank you.

china radio international. the negotiation of an intercomprehensive agreement has been twice extended and the june deadline is not far away. can you talk about the prospects of the negotiation and what kind of role will the chinese government play in the negotiations and what steps is the government going to take to push forward the negotiations.

the comprehensive settlement of the isle rain yan nuclear issue can help strengthen against nuclear proliferation, promote peace and tranquility in the middle east and provide useful experience for resolving major difficult issues through major negotiation. we believe the parties should keep it e at it and finish the negotiation. the possible ramifications of the iranian negotiations will go far beyond itself and it's not surprising that there may be some ups and downs on the way. there is still some uncertainty about the prospect of the negotiation, we're beginning to see light at the end of the tunnel.

etc. specially the main protagonists should make a political decision as soon as possible. china is an important party to the negotiation. and we have made a positive contribution to resolving the difficult issues and the sticking points in the negotiation. we're prepared to work with other real varnt parties to finish the marathon ne goeshuation on the nuclear issues at an early date. thank you. >> the director of the national institutes of health and the commissioner of the food and krug e krug administration testify before the senate health committee before.

>> the house commerce subcommittee haeld a hearing on drinking waterer in rural areas. witnesses answered questions about drinking water safety, infrastructure improvements and federal funding for water programs. >> i'd like to recognize myself for today's opening statement. i con gratulation and thank the ranking member of the subcommittee, and the vice chairman of mr. harper for their bipartisan to raise before the subcommittee.

under the safe drinking water act, subject to a number of drinking water regulations issued by epa. these requirements include systems monitoring treatment to include certain reporting. particularly when it comes to compliance. these communities where residents work hard while off and earning wages below those of their counter parts in the more urbanized area and demands that are disproportionate to many larger communities. sometimes it's just a matter of having the ability to keep up with the ret tape. i'm sure we will explore the

funding mechanisms in epa. it's not just a matter of throwing more scarce money at the problem rather it's about smartly assessing kwha the needs are for these systems finding out whether the current system can be improved and examining where erts can aid where congress cannot. people who live in rural communities deserve every bit as folks who live in urban centers do. thankings again for the work on this issue. i appreciate the work he and mr. harper are doing to break the ice with this first effort. with that, i'd reich to yield to

the vice chair for the remainder of my time. >> thank you, mr. chair. like you and many other members of congress, i represent a rural district where many of my constituents get their drinking water. these smaller communities do an incredible job of providing our constituents with clean, safe drinking water that are often at a disadvantage with a need for more technical expertise. i know that this is an important issue to you and i thank you for the opportunity to continue working on legislation to ensure our constituents get the help and clean water they need. i'd like to say welcome to my

fellow mississippiians. mr. chair thank you again for the commitment to this issue. >> thank you chair, for holding this important hearing on what is a very vital topic. as we address, again, a very important phenomenon for all of our chunties across the country. we have all heard the often-repeated statistics about rural and small-water systems. more than 94% of the 150,0 0 public drinking water systems serve fewer than 3300 customers.

it's not the size of their water utility. it is reliable, daily safe, clean water at an affordable price to businesses that matters. keeping pace with drinking water regulations onto their customers with on going rate increases. the rate bases for these small systems are too small to cover the cost of these essential materials and services. it is long past time for us here in congress to provide robust financial support for our water utilities. in addition to support through traditional funding mechanisms, the srf and grand program, we

should also examine alternative financing mechanismings, new tech nothing enologies and potential partnerships that would of its infrastructure projects and in ways reduce operating costs through efficiency both water and energy. i am very pleased to have mayor keegan here to represent the small water utilities that serve people throughout our state new york. mayor keegan and our witnesses from representative harper's district in mississippi will provide us with a glimpse of the challenges they face each and every day and their efforts to deliver clean, safe drinking water to their public. they do a remarkable job in keeping clean water flowing to every home every day. water infrastructure is essential. it's the only way to state it. we can afford to do this. we cannot afford to delay these investments any longer. public health, community viability and economic vitality all rest on the foundation of a sound infrastructure.

we cannot maintain global leadership and compete in a 21st century global economy with 20th century infrastructure held together with a hope and a prayer. we have an excellent panel with us today. thank you for taking time away from your important work and busy schedules to be here to do your messaging this morning. and thank you mayor keegan, mr. newman, mr. salmon and mr. stewart for the expertise and dedication you'll demonstrate to your communities that you demonstrate to your communities each and every day at work. i look forward to your testimony and to working with each and every one of you as we move forward. i'm pleased to be working with the chair of the subcommittee and with our vice chair representative harper and other members of the subcommittee on this very important issue. with that i thank you. and mr. chair i yield back. >> gentleman yields back.

the chair looking to the republican side anybody seeking recognition. seeing no one. chair recognizing the chairman of the full committee. for five minutes. >> customers of all public water systems large and small wealthy and disadvantaged deserve safe and affordable drinking water. unfortunately public water systems across the country are facing staggering infrastructure replacement costs and emerging threats including climate change. resources is essential 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 protects public health, creates jobs and boosts the economy. this is particularly important in the case of small and rural systems which even minor

projects can be unaffordable and i thank the chairman for calling this hearing to examine the challenges these systems face. in 1996 this committee passed amendments to the safe drinking water act that set a number much programs intended to help small and rural water systems. those programs focus on capacity development, operator certification, infrastructure funding and technical assistance. all of them are designed to ensure that customers of small systems receive safe and affordable drinking water. the small pot of money set aside for technical assistance distributed through grantees such as the national rural water association and rural community assistance partnership have been incredibly important for small systems and i'm glad that both groups are represented to discuss any changes that might be needed to strengthen the program. i expect we'll hear the need for technical assistance far out paces the funding available and i hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will join with us to ensure this program is given sufficient funding to meet the requirements of small systems. the same is true for the

drinking water. if we want to ensure that small and rural systems are providing safe and affordable water we should reauthorize the whole srf not just the technical assistance piece. the technical assistance piece is less than 2% of the whole pot. so we should not lose sight of the bigger picture. for disadvantaged communities, the amendment allows states to provide additional support through the srf. and mosting funding through the srf goes out as loans. for disadvantaged communities states are authorized to provide zero interest loans or principle forgiveness. for small and rural systems with small customer bases, this is incredibly important. unfortunately states are not currently required to provide the assistance to disadvantaged communities and not all do. the assistance may become scarcer in coming years as the need continues to grow faster than the available funding. when this subcommittee with legislation addressed toxic algae i expressed my hope it would be the start of broader drinking water work and i'm please ds the chairman is now addressing another important drinking water issue. but as i said in the toxic

al gee algae, small systems serve only 8% of the population. we should absolutely do what is necessary to ensure they have safe water but should also protect the other 92% and that means reauthorizing the srf, ensuring fracking is done safely ensuring source water protection addressing drought planning, of course, for climate change. i look forward to more drinking water hearings and more bipartisan conversations about some legislative solutions. thank you, mr. chairman. >> gentleman yields back his time. now the chair would like to welcome our panel. i'll introduce you one at a time. your full record submit forward the record. you'll have five minutes. again we expect votes between 10:45 and 11:15. i think we'll get through opening statements. we'll see how it goes. with that i would like to first recognize mr. alfredo gomez, director of the natural resources and environmental area for the government accountability office. welcome, sir and you're

recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. good morning everyone. ranking member tonko and members of the subcommittee. i'm pleased to be here today to discuss the infrastructure needs >> if you could, if you could pull that little bit closer and for our other panelists there's a button in the middle. hit that button when it's time to speak. thank you. >> thank you. i'm pleased to be here today to discuss the infrastructure needs facing rural communities across the nation, particularly for drinking water systems. the u.s. faces costly upgrades to aging water infrastructure. the demand for drinking water and waste water infrastructure projects in communities with populations of 10,000 and fewer is estimated to be more than 190 billion in coming decades. my statement today summarizes the results of our reports on rural water infrastructure. i'll focus on two main areas. first rural agencies funding for drinking water. and waste water infrastructure. issues affecting rural communities abilities to obtain

funding for this type of infrastructure. first, federal agencies administer programs that can provide funding and technical assistance to rural communities to help them build drinking water and waste water systems and comply with federal regulations. epa's drinking water and its clean water state revolving fund programs known as the srfs provide the most funding totaling 907 million and 1.5 billion respectively in fiscal year 2014. states are required to provide at least 15% of the drinking water srf funds to water systems that serve 10,000 people or fewer. the department of agriculture's rural utility service program is the next large evident at 485 -- the next largest program at 485 million in fiscal year 2014 all of which goes to rural communities. some of the other agencies that can provide funding to rural communities include the department of housing and urban development, the economic

development administration, and the bureau of reclamation. while these agencies can provide fupding for drinking water and wastewater infrastructure in rural communities, they have varying eligibility criteria. they may focus fupding to specific communities on the basis of population size, economic need, and geographic location. second, our previous report found several issues that affect rural communities ability to obtain funding for drinking water and waste water infrastructure. these issues include financing, technical expertise, and agency coordination and both mr. chairman and ranking member tonko and others have noted some of these challenges. with regard to financing, communities typically did not have the number of users needed to share the cost of major infrastructure projects while maintaining affordable user rates. in addition rural communities generally have limited access to financial markets, restricting

their ability to use bonds to raise capital. as a result these communities depended heavily on federal and state funding. rural communities also did not generally have the technical expertise to rebuild or replace their drinking water and waste water systems. we found they had few staff and often higher consultants and engineers to help them design projects including preliminary engineering reports, plans and environmental documents. agencies provide for some technical assistance that communities can use. lastly, we found that federal communities face potentially duplicative application requirements when applying for multiple state or federal programs. this included preparing more than one preliminary engineering report and environmental analysis which likely made it more costly and time consuming for communities to complete the application process. captions copyright

national cable satellite corp. 2008 we recommended several actions to improve coordination among the agencies and programs. in response as of february 2015 epa and the department of agriculture have developed a uniform preliminary engineering report template that applies to multiple programs. seven states have adopted the template for their use. epa and usda have also begun taking steps to develop guidelines to assist states in developing uniform environmental analysis. in summary, the nation's drinking water and waste water infrastructure needs are large and funding them will be challenging. rural communities face additional challenges in funding their infrastructure needs, given the financial, technical expertise and coordination challenges they face overall. federal agencies with states should consider how to ease communities efforts to be taken funding provided technical assistance and better coordinate

agency efforts. mr. chairman, ranking member tonko that concludes my statement. i'll be happy they answer any questions. >> thank you very much. i would like to recognize mayor joseph keegan mentioned by my ranking member mr. tonko. from upstate new york. i see it's castleton-on-the hudson. and i know the hudson guy. i lived in a small technical school down south on the river. the west point school for wayward boys. that's my alma mater. i know the river and valley real well. welcome and we're glad to have you recognized for five minutes. >> thank you. good morning mr. chairman and members of the subcommittee and my congressman, good morning, congressman tonko. i'm mayor keegan of the castle-on-the hudson. my village is a member of the new york rural water association a nonprofit associate of small and rural communities throughout the state to somewhat responsible for my appearance here today.

i got a call from the association on monday asking about my availability and i happened to be traveling back to castleton last night for a trip related to my day job. my village is typical and representative of communities that have water supplies in new york and the rest of the country. according to the u.s. environmental protection agency the state of new york has 2305 community water systems, 88% of those serve populations under 3300. all of them small community and water and sewer utilities have to comply with the same regulations, testing and certifications as the biggest cities, but only with our small rate payer base. we have to operate, maintain and update our water infrastructure with very small budgets. as a small community mayor my number one concern and worry is drinking water and number two is waste water. everything else is a distant third.

if there's a problem with the drinking water it has to be addressed immediately. middle of the night, middle of the winter, it doesn't matter when. every citizen and especially the most vulnerable depend on the safety of the water including families with infants, schools nursing homes and people with compromised immune systems. we can't have any contamination of the drinking water. our sewer system needs to function properly to avoid possibility of a sewage spill or back up in people's homes. i would say to you that this does keep me up at night. congressman tonko knows our part of the state is buried in snow. last week the frost penetrated the ground so deeply we experienced two ruptures in our water mains that are five to six feet under ground, this forced us to issue a boil water advisory where we have to tell families to boil waters as well as contact all the schools. they have to cover their water

fountains, the press, the nursing home et cetera. i call as many citizens as i can by row -- robo call. when something like this occurs, we manage the situation around the clock, repairing the water line, getting the test to the lab and waiting for the all cloer results with the boil water order. we appreciate the assistance of the subcommittee and congress in helping us to protect the public and successfully operate the public drinking and waste water supply through the various funding programs and the various onsite initiatives. my village relies on this assistance. i want to thank congressman tonko for supporting the act of 2014 in the last congress. small and rural communities support your legislation because it enhances the current drinking water state revolving fund by further targeting the funding to communities most in need. we do need help. everything from financing, regulation, compliance and various programs are very complicated for small

communities. we don't have financial professionals on staff and often don't understand many of the funding processes. we currently have needs approaching $3 million for our waste water system. we need new aeration tanks. new sludge drying equipment and new pumps as our facility is over 30 years old. we need to stop rainwater from leaking in to the system and overtaxing our capacity. my water operator is constantly explaining to me the need for these upgrades and his concerns for possible failure. however we don't really have a way to finance it. it would triple the sewer rates to take out a loan for that much. you can see the picture in the back of my testimony we have old pipes that need updating or replacing at a substantial cost. the one in the picture is stamped with the date from the 19th century, and they are still in the ground in parts of the village. we're concerned without more water line replacement we're vulnerable to more breaks and crises.

you can see the other picture of a pipe recently dug up that's loaded with corrosion and deposits. to the point it is almost occluded. in my remaining time i want to emphasize the essential assistance we receive from the new york rural water association, and explain why it's so helpful. the association has circuit riders that are on call throughout the state that will come and assist us immediately including evenings and weekends. they are experts on the technical side of water operations. just a week ago we called for help for locating a water leak from a ruptured pipe that could have occurred over any part of 100-foot water line. the circuit rider has specialized equipment that can detect noises and vibrations under ground. in addition my operators 1r0e69% of the training needed to retain their operator's licenses from the new york rural water association. we depend on them just like every other small community. mr. chairman, i have a lot more to say but you've been very charitable with your time.

on behalf of every small town elected official we're grateful. thank you from hearing from us and i'll answer any questions later. >> thank you very much. my district mostly has communities below 2,500 people. thank you for those comments because hopefully they are paying attention. those bells signal that we have been called to vote early. i think we'll just break here. we as a congress, i don't think will be in a hurry today. so we'll, most of us will get back here and hear the final testimony and go into questions. with that i'll recess the hearing.

we'll call the hearing back to order and now i'll turn to mr. k.t. newman on behalf of the rural water association. sir, you are recognized for five minutes. >> good morning, mr. chairman and members of the subcommittee. thank you for the opportunity to testify here today. my name is k.t. newman and i have been working for or in small and rural community water systems in the mississippi delta for nearly 20 years. i first started out as a small city water manager in my home town of baden, mississippi which has about 1,000 homes. i then worked for the mississippi rural water association as a circuit rider for ten years. in this capacity i visited every one of the delta's approximately

500 small communities to help them with their water and sewer problems. currently i am working for about two dozen small delta communities assisting them with their water and sewer utilities. i am honored to be accompanied here today by the mayor of one of these small towns, mayor everett hill. the town of komo has a population of 1,200 persons. the mayor challenges are compounded by the fact that as a small town mayor he has a full time job as a truck driver. and has to handle much of the city's issues on its free time. his community has little professional staff because they simply can't afford it. in komo the waste water system is failing because of its age and inability to meet its current epa treatment. the cost to update the sewer system is approximately $2 million.

the komo drinking water system needs an additional $1 million in upgrades. the town was recently fined by the department of environmental quality for failure to comply with their waste water discharge permit. currently the komo waste water treatment facility is actually discharging only partially treated waste water due to failure of the current treatment works. komo is just like thousands of other small communities in the delta and other states. they need a grant rich infrastructure program like the usda's rural development program and they need access to someone that can trust for technical advice, on site assistance and help with managing the funding application process. mississippi has 1,234 regulated public water systems. only two serve populations over 50,000 persons and only 59 serve populations over 10,000 persons. more training needs to problem -- needs to be provided to small

town mayors like mayor hill to that multimillion dollar upgrades that will most certainly tax the rate pairs of these communities can be more readily understand and communicated to these residents who will ultimately be responsible for bearing the financial burden. recently many of the small communities in the delta have received violations for a relatively new epa regulation referred to as the disinfections byproducts rules. these byproducts are as a result of disinfecting their water to make it safe to drink. if these small communities limit or reduce the disinfectant limits of the water they will comply with this epa regulation but the water may no longer be safe to drink. once the disinfection byproduct rule is violated many small communities are forced to spend limited resources to report these violations to the consumers. in the town of shaw population 1,900 persons, the community was

under a boil water order for over six months because of a broken chlorinator needed to disinfect the water. local schools had to buy bottle water for six months. after they called the mississippi rural water association circuit rider, tom abernathy they were able to revise the town's billing program, come up with a plan to pay for a new chlorinator and to accurately assess the water used by citizens, and receive the payment, train the new mayor and town council. get the town's credit staple and secure emergency state revolving fund financing. in closing, whenever a small community is facing a compliance issue, the complication avenue -- of a new epa rule a line break that they can't find that is causing people to lose water service and emergency from a storm or water loss we all call the circuit riders to tell us

what it means and what to do. they have developed a trust relationship with small communities in their states that know how to fix things and are willing to come to your town day, night or weekends. thank you for the opportunity to testify here today. mayor hill and i are available for questions. thank you. >> thank you very much. welcome, mayor hill. good to have you with us also. i would like to turn to mr. bobby selman on behalf of the mississippi rural water association. you're recognized for five minutes. thank you. >> good morning, mr. chairman, and members of the subcommittee. it's an honor to appear before you today. my name is bobby selman. i'm a certified drinking and waste water operator in mississippi. i have been working in the water world for 25 years. starting in my home town in lawrence county. i still work for the lawrence county water authority in addition to 12 other small communities.

and rural water associations. i want to thank my congressman greg harper for his support and assistance to over 150,000 small public water systems across the country sponsoring the grassroots rural and small community water systems assistance act. representatives harper's bill directs the u.s. environmental protection agency to prioritize the type of technical assistance that small communities find is most beneficial. the rural water type of on site technical assistance is what all the small communities in mississippi and the other states rely on for help with compliance, operations, emergencies, line breaks, loss of water, setting rates and training for operator certification. i'm told that congress funds the epa's internal management budget by hundreds of billions of dollars every year. small rural communities want congress to know the only benefit we gets comes from a small portion of epa funding that is directed to onsite

technical assistance provided by what we call circuit riders. what small communities do when they have a question or water issue is call their local circuit rider they know, trust and know can give them clear answer. these circuit riders often come immediately on site to small communities and teach them,000 fix their problem. there's just no one on the field at the local level providing this essential help. after katrina two of my small communities were devastated. each served approximately 2,500 people and they were without power and water. people in communities can get by without power for a while. but not without water. i called the mississippi rural water association circuit riders and they found emergency generators for me and delivered them to the communities at no charge. since the circuit riders know everybody in the state they were able to borrow some generators from northern communities not impacted by the hurricane and had the generators delivered to get the drinking water and sanitation restored immediately. the circuit riders also had the

technical know how to rig the generators electrical system and even drive a backhoe if needed to clear the streets. all of this type of assistance is essential to restore water supply in an emergency. i call the circuit rider to help me at a double pond water association, a community of about 1,000 homes to find a line break, causing a loss of water for many homes. the circuit rider came with advance radar equipment that can precisely identify the location of the break, which on this day happened to be out in the woods. by funding the circuit riders congress is allowing all small s and rural communities to share this technical resource that no one community can afford on their own. we think it is the best use of our federal water environmental dollars. with the certification under the safe drinking water act of 1996 state rural water associations have become the main source of training for operators and main

source of continued education credits. which are needed every year to maintain this certification. many parts of rural america have seen things move on. many parts of rural america have seen interest move on leaving behind depressed economies. in my region the garment industry moved south after nafta. when this happened raising rates becomes overly burdensome. in the town of new hebron, mississippi with a town of just over 400 people we're now being told we need to comply with a new epa waste water discharge permit that will cost 2 to 3 million dollars. i will close with some comments on the federal water infrastructure programs. namely the epa state revolving funds and the usda rural development grant and loan program. we are very appreciative for congressional funding of these initiatives. and realize funding constraints in congress and the nation notwithstanding the curtailment of federal funding, the regulatory burden continues into crease and become more complex. we urge you to emphasize grants

in these funding programs. low interest loans don't help the communities facing a severe hardship from federal compliance, leaving the loan funds to be used for compliance with greater availability to afford financing. we are very grateful for the funding assistance. it has allowed many rural and small communities to have access of drinking water and sanitation that would otherwise not have been able to afford without the federal assistance. and we want to be partners in the effort to make the initiative as efficient and as successful as possible. thank you very much, mr. chairman, and i'm eager to answer any questions at the appropriate time. >> thank you very much. our last but not least. panelist is mr. robert stewart, who is the executive director of the rural community assistance partnership. welcome, sir, and you're recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, chairman shimkus. ranking member and members of the committee.

i think the previous witnesses and y'all have done an excellent job at sort of framing the issue. as someone that has worked 20 years with hundreds of communities in texas, both for the rural community assistance partnership and the rural water association and someone who has directed the national program for ten years i'm here to tell you that the needs of small communities are many. the resources are limited. the dedication and determination of small communities to provide their citizens with the best possible water is strong and undiminished. i'm sure everyone knows a little about the rural community assistance partnership. it's in my testimony. i won't repeat things that are in my testimony. i just want to make a few points that have been touched on but maybe i could amplify a little bit. one is the access to capital. there's a real issue in accessing the resources they need to extend lines to new customers. i believe mr. gomez talked about access to the municipal bond market. for small communities this is not an option at all. 53,000-some community water systems in this country.

perhaps 4% of them have the ability to access the municipal bond market. so what they are left with is the two primary federal financing programs being the drinking water srf and usda rural developments. rural and environmental programs. it's really critical that those programs continue to be supported in a robust manner. we work a lot with rural development and their water environments program. they are the primary lender in rural communities. they have some 18,000-plus loans out with small water systems. and as you probably know there's virtually no default on these loans. we take these matters very seriously in repaying the loans that are made to small communities. one of the things r.d. has going for them is they have field staff never state. theft ability to work directly with the communities. the communities know their local folks in the district and state offices. it's more a cooperative easier way to get funding through rural

development. rural development also funds the rural water association and rcap for technical assistance and training. a lot of the staff that work for me around the country work through the application processes and all the requirements that are needed in order to get a loan from rural development. epa state revolving funds are also a very important part of the financing scheme for small communities. as a result of the 1996 amendments to the safe drinking water act, the state revolving program was formed, and it was mainly to deal with compliance issues. if you look at who is out of compliance and where the most health-based compliance issues are, 96% of those are from small communities. you would think that most of the money, a big portion of the money would go to the communities whether they're urban, rural, small or large that have the compliance issues. but as you can look at epa's own numbers, perhaps 25% of the funding actually goes to the small communities in this country.

we would think a larger amount of money from the srf program should be dedicated to economically disadvantaged and small rural communities. epa does have a program as a result of the 96 amendments that funds the technical assistance kind of program that both rural water and rcap have taken advantage of. it's not funded at the authorized level that was was authorized 20-some years ago. we hope you would consider some additional resources for that particular program. one of the thing you are looking at is, what else can be done? what else can we do to work with small communities? there's a lot of other options. one of which both rural water and rcap work on is sharing of services, how can small communities get together, share an operator, share a manager, share purchasing. how can we look at possibilities of combining systems if they're

close? it's very difficult. and one of the problems the funding agencies have is it's easier for them to make a $10 million loan than 10 $1 million lens. -- loans. that hurts smaller communities even more with reduced staffing levels in both epa and r.d. there's a emphasis for the larger loans which adversely affects small communities even more. the regionalization approaches where appropriate is important. but the only way those are going to happen is if you have people like the circuit riders and the technical assistance providers for rcap that are out working with those communities on a day in day out basis to work through those issues. one of the things rather quickly because my time's running out is you talk about tools. i'd like to give credit to epa for developing the variety of tools and working with rural development on tools. asset management tools, tools to look at sustainability for communities. again, tools are important to be developed for use by small communities but it takes someone in the field like a rural water or an rcap person to bring those tools out to these communities. maybe this could be handled in

the questions. i know you're interested in wifia and some of the other alternative financing programs. i'd be glad to talk about that also. my time's up, though. so i really appreciate the opportunity to be here with you today. >> thank you very much. and i'll recognize myself for five minutes for starting the questioning. before i start, i'm in my 19th year. my first district was 19 counties. my second congressional district was 30 count why's. -- counties. we have really been able to access and use the usda rural development and rural water and it's helped force a push to realism and closing the gaps of -- regionalism and closing the gaps of water or addressing the challenges small communities have because they just -- in rural america sometimes these

communities are shrinking. they're not growing. they're shrinking. so they're based to keep up especially with new capital expenses. that's in my area. it's been a very, very successful program. and i just throw that out because i have great people work on that and they've done great work. i'd like to go to mr. gomez first. you've heard some of our witnesses claim the drinking water state revolving funds are not being made available to provide safe drinking water to the needs of our most needy communities. is there a way to measure across the country whether the drinking water state revolving fund is mediating -- its congressionally intended purpose or authorized purpose? >> that's a really good question. what we are aware of is the drinking water srfs are required to provide 15% of the funds to the small communities.

the extent to which states are doing exactly what you're asking we don't know yet. that would be a good question. possibly for gao to look at. there are estimates from epa, for example, that about 38% of the drinking water srfs have gone to small communities. as of 2008. that's the estimate that's out there. but to the extent that it's meeting small communities' needs we don't know that. >> great. well, thank you. are there any reports that show how fast this drinking water funding is spent, by whom and where it goes, including distribution to the neediest communities? >> so one of the things that we are doing at the moment is we do have ongoing work looking at the financial sustainability of the drinking water srf. there we are looking at different ways in which states are managing these srfs and we're hoping to identify best practices that states are using. that report should be coming out this spring.

>> great. thank you. mr. stewart, in your testimony you state that epa state revolving fund needs to be and i'm quoting, better managed to meet small system needs. can you elaborate a little more on that? >> when you look at the numbers, epa has a difference in between the number of loans they're making and the amount of the loans they're making. so the amount of the loans is not sort of the same as the number. not as much actual money that's going in there. the whole purpose of srf was to give the states latitude to run it how they see fit. i think most of the members of this committee would sort of agree with that because the conditions are different from state to state. but i would think there are some minimum requirements if we're looking at the high non-compliance rates of utilities, the problems with

affordty. my home state of texas has a lot of money they're putting into water problems as a result of droughts. california's done the same thing. each state runs it different. a lot of states put extra money in. some states don't. but i think it's good. g.a.o.'s done a terrific job at looking at some of these issues and i would encourage them to continue to do so. >> thank you. my last question, for mr. -- for mayor keegan, mr. newman and mr. selman, can you just given us briefly your success on the state resolving fund versus the r.u.s., or do you access that? why don't we go with mr. keegan first? >> sure. we haven't had very much success. we've had some limitations due to the average income of our community. we've been told it's been too high. and our average bill doesn't meet the minimum to qualify for the funding.

we've paid two separate consulting firms to search out funds for us and both reported the same thing. >> thank you. mr. newman? >> thank you, mr. chairman. in my experience one of the issues with the srf as compared to rural development has been the paperwork is considered to be cumbersome. and the added administrative cost in applying often nullifies the low interest which in turn makes the srf an option of last resort, which i don't believe was the intended purpose. >> mr. selman? >> yes. some of my systems we have used on srfs. we're drilling a well right now on one of the systems because it depends on what area you're in in the state. but we were having trouble through rural development getting a timely process to get money to drill this well and it was needed. the town of monticello.

we got a state revolving fund grant for a sewer project right now we just completed. in our district, in our part of the state we've used it. and it's helped. but the usda seems tore more of a grant. some communities can't afford a loan and the grant helps them. >> my time's expired and i know mr. stewart wanted to answer but i want to go to mr. tonko, who's recognized for five minutes. >> thank you for calling this hearing and for inviting a witness from the 20th district of new york. mayor keegan, i appreciate you make the trip here today. drinking water systems in the district i represent and i think every district across the country are facing significant challenges as they work tone sure that everyone including people in small and rural communities have access to safe water. that's why i introduced the aqua act last congress, to improve all of the tools epa currently has to assist these systems. i appreciate the work that my colleague mr. harper from mississippi has done on these issues.

i look forward to working with him to get at least some of these changes into law. seems every week in my district there's at water main break. treated water and the money we've invested is being wasted. so it's dollars and water flowing out of those pipes. mayor keegan, can you describe some of the issues you have had in your town with water main breaks and the obstacles you face in preventing these ruptures? >> we don't really -- with the recent frost when we have a water main break it doesn't just pop up through because the ground is so frozen, so we often don't know where the break is and we don't have the tools or equipment to locate the break. so we have to either call a consulting firm that could be $1,500 a day to come with special tools or we call the new york water association. if they're available, they'll come. so that's -- it's very

difficult. we don't always know where the breaks are located. >> thank you. and you know, this is such a serious issue and one that will require more significant infrastructure financing including that investment in technology, not just technical assistance. mr. gomez, gao has studied the range of government programs that provide assistance to rural and small-water systems an the need the systems face. what is the funding gap for water infrastructure. i know earlier you gave a combined total, i believe for water and drinking water and sewer. what is the fupding for the drinking water infrastructure and how much money does it entail? >> so epa has estimated the funding gap and they have estimated it to be $662 billion. that is an estimate from 2002 and that is based on the next 20 years. >> thank you.

and obviously the water systems represented on this panel, i would think, i would agree more resources are required. so mayor keegan, do you support legislation to authorize the srf and increase the funding available? you mentioned in your testimony, the need for grants and not just loans and i think many of you mentioned that. is it fair to say your village has reached the limit with the ability to borrow more for the needed funds? >> oh absolutely. we really can't even entertain a municipal bond at this time and right now we are only spending budget items on repairs. we don't have enough money in our budget for replacement of old infrastructure. so we are looking for funding, but it is just a struggle to find any -- >> and i say that is a favorable thing? >> yes. absolutely. and we encouraging the refunding of that. >> and do you support efforts to

expand technical assistance initiatives like the aqua act? >> absolutely. we call on lots of different -- any technical assistance that can be provided to us is really a value. >> uh-huh. and to the other gentleman on the panel, any responses in terms of technical assistance, any relevant role it might play? >> in my experience, technical assistance is absolutely essential in complying with the various rules and regulations of the epa, particularly because many of these rules are often complex and require innovative approaches. so the training and technical assistance that is provided, for example, by our state rural water associations is indeed a essential component of compliance. >> and the other gentlemen, in terms of technical assistance and funding and the srf. >> various.

-- very essential. we have -- you know, we get mayors and water board managers or whatever and they need all the training they can get. and the secretaries, they put on a training for them and to ser -- to certify them. every bit of the assistance we can get is very well needed. >> and mr. stewart? >> yes, sir. one point i would like to make is technical assistance is important because we need to make sure the investment the federal government is making through epa and the rural development and that technical assistance allows people to go out and make sure that they can repay and making sure sure the infrastructure and the facilities will be maintained at the top operating system and they could go back and maintain. >> and the act i initiated could cover some of these costs. i appreciate your comments and with that, i yield back. >> and so mr. harper for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

and i can think of few topics more important in every congressional district than the topic we are on today. so thank you for the guests giving testimony and also welcome mayor hill and also just to have each of you here is something that we greatly appreciate and my dear friend kirby mayfield who is here and ceo of the mississippi rural water association who has been a great contact and person sharing information with us. so we are thankful for that. if i could, mr. newman, ask you, in your testimony, you talked about the trust relationship that small communities have with circuit riders. as we continue discussing this issue on how epa could and should help our small communities comply with federal regulations among other things, would you take a minute and elaborate on the importance of that trust relationship that our

water systems have with our circuit riders? >> yes, sir. the relationships that have been established over the years, between the rural water association and the utility managers, the certified water operators, mayors and small-town council has been well established over many years. prime example, last evening a small community in mississippi, their water well was down due to snow. and they lost power for a significant period of time. and the mayor, of course customs were calling and it was developing into a situation.

the mayor contacted me and i immediately contacted the mississippi rural water association and they in turn immediately began locating a generator for that town and thankfully were able to get that generator delivered to resolve that situation. so, in essence, the experience is if you've got a problem and don't know what to do, you call the mississippi rural water every -- association and they are there every time to provide the needed assistance. >> and i'm glad you explained to some of our folks that we have snow in mississippi. >> yes. >> so that was a surprise to, i think, some. >> and mr. sellman, thank you for your kind words and your testimony. and i look forward to visiting with the double ponds water association folks next month in

d.c. >> thank you. >> you talked about hurricane katrina, which impacted our state and louisiana greatly. it was the greatest, most costly national disaster in our state's history and you mentioned two water systems in simpson county in my district and the assistance they received after katrina. would you talk for a minute of the tools that small systems don't have access to. i think you mentioned radar equipment. how important are the tools to the survival of our smaller water systems. >> yes, very important. before katrina, we hadn't had a natural disaster in south mississippi like that since camille. i reckon 1969. but we were without power and 120 miles from the coast and without power for 19 or 20 days. and at that time, the water system had started putting in generators, very few, but some had. and like i said, in the testimony, you can make it without power for a while. rig up your generator to get the tv on or something. but without water, you can't make it. and we immediately called our circuit riders. they found generators in arkansas, north mississippi and

wherever and brought them us to and helped us getting them hooked up and get them working again. and same with the wastewater we had some lift stations that you had to pump wastewaterers, and we hooked them in and got water to the wastewater to the treatment plant. the radar you mentioned we keep some of these. a lot of lines that were put in have grown up in trees. you don't know exactly where the line is. you come out there with this machine and locate that line for us and help us tap it. help us do whatever we need and that machine is about $35,000. and most of the little systems don't have the money for that. so what we do, we call rural water and they help us with whatever we need. >> that is great. thanks to each of you and great to have all of you here and great for that and i want to specifically thank ranking member tonko with his assistance as we try to work threw these

issues. >> and thank you, the gentleman from texas, mr. green for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman and ranking member tonko for holding the hearing, and others for the drinking water. i represent an urban community in texas and we have the same problems in our suburban areas that won't be annexed by the cities because the property tax could never cover the cost, and yet they are literally south in houston and we've received money from the state revolving funds and in fact, participated with using? in of these communities in finding fresh water and partnering with the county for sewer service. but it bothered me that texas received the lowest amount of money from the state resolving fund of $53

million and that goes back to 1997 and that is not accounting for inflation. the fact is deeply troubling because of the significance of growing drinking water infrastructure needs of texas in general. and like i said, a very urban district. if it is in the city, they'll do it. but this area is not attractive to be annexed and it's very poor communities. that's where we need the help. and there are septic tanks in very urban areas and very shallow water wells. and that is why this hearing is important. my first question is, mr. newman, mr. sellmon and mr. stewart, do you believe the congress should reauthorize the drinking water state revolving fund this year? >> i believe i can start off -- yes. >> it seems like it is easy. >> yes. it is one of the most important funding mechanisms in this country for water systems. >> for the other three gentlemen, do you all of you agree we should reauthorize it? >> yes, sir. >> yes, sir. >> do you believe congress should increase the funding to

the state and local communities for the drinking water for the safe state revolving fund, raise the authorization for it? now i explained to folks, authorization is we have that, but you can raise your authorization as high as you want and you still have to go back every year and beg the appropriation committee for the money. >> he's saying do you think the authorization amount should be raise add cross -- raise add cross the country. >> if we asked for appropriations, not only your states but others? >> yes, sir. >> well my opinion is this is an investment. this is to capitalize the revolving funds and this is not money going away in capital grants this is money capitalized again and again for communities large and small. >> but should the fund be raised

so we can cover more communities? >> absolutely. >> mr. newman? >> absolutely. >> i would also like to add that in addition to raising the funding to cover more communities, take a look at the process and make sure that the money is being utilized by the communities that it was intended to be beneficial for. >> you think there is something authorizing law that we need to change that would make that happen? >> i'm not so sure about the process of the authorization of the law as i am concerned about just the implementation of the funds and those things that discourage the smaller communities in mississippi that i'm familiar with pursuing those funds, because these funds were intended to benefit the smaller communities and there is a gap. and i think that we all need to figure out how to bridge that gap. >> you know, the biggest problem we have in my area is that these are very poor communities. and to have a revolving fund and to have it pay back, they can hardly afford the monthly water and sewer bill to be able to pay it back.

so there is -- that is the issue again, in my area and a assume it is in north mississippi and just like in other parts of rural texas. and -- mr. stewart, you indicated you worked two decades on drinking water issues and i used -- for the last two years, our rain stopped at the louisiana border because from beaumont, texas, it has been drought. but we have problems out past san antonio because that is still in a drought area. how would you describe our state drinking water infrastructure in texas? >> i would say for the most part it is pretty strong. but i think there is a certain disadvantage, communities that you are talking about, that need some additional resources. and there is some hard-hit drought areas in north central texas of my area of central

texas that need additional support. and fortunately, texas has benefited because we have river authorities and progressive water development board and people looking at this issue from a lot of different angles. >> and texas did provide recently, the voters you voted for a constitutional amendment to provide for it because of the problems we have. and in 2011, harris county, as much of our state was in the grips of the drought during the height of the drought due to aging water lines, hardening soil, hundreds of water line breakage, resulting in billions of gallons of lost treated water, do you have any sense of the impact of the 2011 drought had on our state? >> that is something the gao might be better to answer. but i know it is severe economic impact because if you don't have the water sources, you are not going to be able to support the businesses, the growth occurring over texas. water is the foundation of all of the economy in this country.

>> i know i'm over time. thank you. >> way over time. >> we talk a little slower. >> i think my colleague and i recognize the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. murphy for five minutes. >> thank you. i'll talk fast to get what i can in. and this is for mr. sellman and mr. newman. and thank you for being here. a very informative panel. and the engineers who serve in the rural water district, for example in green county, in southwestern pennsylvania, very rural area, they say the states oftentimes impose their own drinking water requirements which are far more stricter than the epa standards set forth in the drinking water act. could you provide some examples for me where some of the state-imposed requirements in your communities go beyond or differ from the epa standards? >> in mississippi, and mr. sellman can elaborate on this or correct me if i'm wrong, but i believe in mississippi, that our

state regulations are exactly the same as the federal guidelines, being no more or no less stringent than the language in the federal act. >> same here, mr. sellman. >> and does anybody else see differences in their communities? >> no. that is correct. i don't think our regulations could be more any more stringent than what the federal act is written. that's the way the state of mississippi does. >> mr. stewart. >> i note, some states, epa regulate water quality. some states require that you have a certain well production and surface water treatment plant, storage and pumping capacity and those adversely affect small communities because they are not -- they are not -- the >> on an engineering basis justified on how much water is being used. >> so in greene county, where they are dealing with dam energy, that is not water

quality, but water delivery, is that what you are saying? >> exactly. the capacity requirements, pumping or storage, elevated ground storage, that is higher than i think -- to what is needed to protect public health. >> what this gets into it -- let me come back to that. so how much could -- the heightened standards cost rural drinking water systems. if we make changes -- will it affect -- i heard some of you alluding to cost issues here and mr. keegan, you talked about consulting and engineering, what those costs are what does this vary for communities, rural communities, and anybody have any estimates here of the costs that you would bear? >> probably saving the consulting fees that we spend looking for funding. >> anybody else have any thoughts about this? >> well, i would just say it depends on the requirement. if you are having to treat for arsenic, you are talking about doubling or tripling of the water bill for a small

community. it depends on what kind of treatment or constituent the epa is requiring the small community the small community to treat for. >> so the question i have and you talked about some of these things, but how do rural systems get the funds they need to deal with this compliance issue? anybody have any thoughts on this of what we do? i heard one comment, could the federal government send more money and certainly where the federal government increases or changes standards i sometimes think it's unfair to say you now must do all these things and you must bear the cost. but it comes down to a question, though, of what else. i mean, how are these costs borne oftentimes when you have someone who lives a mile from the next person or half a mile from the next person? and there's huge costs associated with this. anybody have any comments on how that should be set up? >> we just raised our rates. we just had the d.e.c. required our local school district to be on municipal water and they passed a bond. so they passed that.

price on to the taxpayers to took honey the system at considerable expense. >> what kind of percentage increase would you say that was? >> i'm not sure. >> anybody else have any other thoughts other than put it on the rate payers? >> raising rates is the only way that small communities like i work for, that's the only option they have. in the 10% to 20% range sometimes. >> and we have these grant systems. i know that some of my communities are asking for some changes in the way that the loans are established. rates, et cetera. any comments on those? >> the paperwork is quite cumbersome. and usually we have to hire a consulting firm to help us apply for the loan. >> can you elaborate on that cumbersomeness? what kind of hours and time it adds to your cost. >> we just aren't -- we just

don't have the staff who can understand what's required in the paperwork. we give them the data, how much water we use every day and that kind of thing. >> is it safe to say that simplified the paperwork and if you're going to be giving -- required to have lots of paperwork to also provide some assistance in filling that out? >> absolutely. >> thank you very much. >> for the second time i'm going to try to be quicker on the gavel so everyone gets a chance. for mr. lott is recognized for five minutes. >> well, thank you, mr. chairman. and to our panel thanks very much for being here. this kind of strikes home to me because the county commissioner from wood county in ohio for six years and handled a lot of water and sewer issues. and also we created a regional water and sewer district i was the commissioner to put things together because my home county was over 600 square miles. we had all or part of five cities. 21 villages, 19 townships, and a lot of unincorporated area.

and it's important. and hearing all of you brings back memories of over 20 years ago that i used to sit in a lot of meetings and hear people talk about because they're really important issues. in ohio alone i think we've got about $21 billion right now that we're looking at that we need in infrastructure improvements from water to waste water and storm water. so what you're saying here today is very, very important. we really appreciate you being here because i can commiserate with what you've all said. i've also been working on legislation for at least one session to try to help on the waste water side, to help rural communities. but if i could, because i tell you, you've all had very good testimony today. and again, i appreciate you being here. and if i could start with mr.

gomez. i think it's important because one of the things we've been hearing out here is there's a shortage of dollars, especially when you're talking about rural areas. could you discuss the relationship between the epa and usda programs? whether there are overlaps out there and what about the efficiency or synergies that could accrue if we were looking at these programs, making sure we didn't have duplication out there or anything like that. >> sure, thank you. we have looked at those two programs in particular and also at the other agencies that have programs that help rural communities. with respect to the usda rural utility service and the epa drinking water srf, they are -- they do have some similar programs and we did not find any areas where they were duplicating effort, meaning they were funding the same project for the same purpose. projects can get funding from both programs, but they're usually focusing on different

areas. the other things we're reporting on is the importance for those two agencies to work together to collaborate but also to encourage the state srf programs to work closely with the usdf rural utility service so they can get efficiencies. one of the recommendations we made was they needed to come up with a uniform preliminary engineering report. so that communities aren't filing multiple engineering reports which cost money. those are things we're tracking. we were happy to hear they have come up with a uniform preliminary engineering report and that some states are have adopted it. >> you both touched on it in your testimony. you mentioned, mr. stewart, about bringing the tools back to the communities and the cost of

that technical assistance. what do we find? are the tools there -- i know we've heard from some other of the members asking the panel about the cost. do you find you have that assistance out there to be able to get it as soon as you can get it? >> both rcap and rural water have a right of tools we can bring to bear to smaller communities. an epa and -- i think i touched on it in my testimony. i think it's the access to the tools. we need the technical assistance to bring those tools, whether it's an asset management program, whether it's a financial management program, whether it's an owen and manuals. whatever those tools might be. the real expense is not just creating the tools it's bringing it out to the small communities that can't access them unless they have a technical assistance provider out there working with them. >> mr. newman? would you like to touch on that? about the assistance out there

in the communities. >> so reiterate the comments i've made as well as mr. stewart, from the perspective of the water system manager, the resources, the assistance is invaluable because there are very varied issues that occur. across a water system that may be beyond the scope of a particular utility and beyond the financial capabilities. utilizing the services of the water association is absolutely essential. >> gentleman's time has expired. i recognize the gentleman from west virginia. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

going to go in several directions with this. we've heard a lot of horror stories. i think we've got a slide perhaps of a water line that they've been facing. can we get that up? here it is. it shows how occluded the line is. they have applied -- knowing this they have applied ten times to try to get money. and they've been rejected ten times since 2002. we don't have the money in the srf. and what i was particularly pleased about was the president this year actually maintained for the most part the funding from the previous year as compared to what we've seen in the past where the year before he made a 40% reduction in the srf because they said the priority was climate change. they thought climate change was a higher priority than funding our water problems in rural america.

i hope someone has seen the light with that. but i'm confused a little bit about the regulatory burden. because particularly a lot of you have been talking, this hearing is about rural america, not what's been offered as we've got to be concerned about the big cities. i'm worried at this hearing that we stay focused on rural america. because here's just a listing of some of the rules. i've designed a lot of sewer and water lines. as an engineer i'm quite familiar with this. but we've got things that a small city has to take care of is the arsenic rule, the chemical rule, lead and copper rule, uranium rule, the ground water rule, enhanced surface water rule, 1 and 2, disinfect by-product rule 1 and 2, the ptd -- the surface water rule. i could go on and on. these are rules small cities have to deal with just as well as a larger community of 100,000

or 200,000. and i've got three other communities, they're just trying to find money for operations let alone install this one community. they're working on -- one of you sat up here and 19th century system. they're trying to replace it with that water line right there. how can we get money for operations? we've got one community in west virginia they're dumping raw sewage into the potomac river because they don't have money to be able to do the maintenance work they have to do. i've got another community, they're getting their water through water buffaloes. poured into a cistern so they have some water with that. this is 2015 in america yet we have an administration until this year every year for the last three years has been reducing money to the srf. how are we failing our country when we don't put enough money into the srf? that's what i've heard many of you say we need to put more money into that program.

what do we have to do? how much more money? can any of you suggest where we have to go with that? i would also add should wish prioritizing the srf money for rural communities so we're weighting them a little more heavily than the big cities? >> sir, you're preaching to the choir here. i think all of us would agree a significantly greater percentage of the srf money should go to rural communities and they should be able to access it more quickly. you can't even have a chance of getting the srf money unless you get on the intended use plan. and for a small community how do you get on the intended use plan? all of us can tell you that's difficult to do. i mean, do you have the technical assistance? do you have an engineer you're working with, somebody that's going to submit the paperwork? do you even have a chance to get on the money? and that's a problem. that's one thing i said in my testimony. we need some assistance just so these small communities can get on the intended use plan which is what they do to prioritize money into the srf. >> how can we -- what are some

factors that we might be able to weight so a small community putting in will be given better consideration than a larger community? any of your thoughts? mr. gomez. >> well, generally, what g.a.o. always recommends is that you target federal funds to those communities. so if these are the communities that's one of the areas we could target. >> okay. i guess we're running out of time. again, mr. chairman, thank you very much for bringing this out. i hope we continue to -- this is for small cities. the big cities have their own issues, but they have the resources and the critical mass to be able to take care of it. our small towns are 400, 500 people. we're struggling. we'd better find it. thank you very much. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from ohio mr. johnson for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i represent appalachia, ohio and i don't have to tell you folks, probably, how rural that is.

i hear the horror stories, many of which you've just heard. i could cite similar cases that my colleague from west virginia, mr. mckinley, did. mr. selman, long before i was elected to congress i served 26 years in the air force and i was stationed in columbus, mississippi. and you know how rural that area is. so i've seen this for a long time. mr. gomez. does the gao track and can you tell us in regards to all urban and rural systems how many municipalities have their systems charged the true cost of providing water to their customers? in other words, how many of them are operating in the red? >> that's a really good question. and it's always one area that's debatable, right? whether people are actually paying the true price of what the water cost. i don't believe that we have done work on that. but if we have i'd have to get back to you on that. >> would you take a look at

that, please? i think the american people would be interested to know how these small rural communities are struggling and many of them are operating in the red as it stands right now because their residents can't even afford the cost of providing the water. >> what it can also say is epa has estimated that for these rural communities if they have to undertake these water and waste water infrastructure projects their rates will likely be four times what the urban rate payer would be paying. >> oh, absolutely. >> it's not affordable. >> and i've got rural areas that are under that exact pressure. they don't have the money, because of the economy. they don't have the money to comply with the epa's clean water mandates and system mandates today. and on top of that they're being

leveled with these fines that they also can't pay. it's like trying to get blood out of a turnip. and i know you guys know what a turnip is. it's tough. let me ask you a question, mr. newman. your testimony mentions that the town of como, mississippi has 2 million in waste water needs and 1 million in drinking water upgrades it needs to undertake. what's the operating budget of como? >> the annual operating budget in the town of como is approximately $150,000 annually. >> okay. and what's the average income of como residents? >> per capita, about 21,000. >> okay. is raising local water rates a realistic possibility? >> it's a realistic possibility from a standpoint of operation and maintenance but not from the standpoint of addressing --

>> making these upgrades. >> that's correct. yes. >> and even if you raised the rates operationally and maintenancewise, would it be enough to cover the cost of providing the service? >> no. >> okay. what is their access to or are there limits on other funding sources like commercial lending? that's a double-edged question because the question itself kind of says why don't you go in debt to provide water. and that's certainly not a principle i subscribe to. but are you considering other sources? >> by and large the primary source is rural development. primarily because of the grant component. other options as we have discussed include a state revolving fund. even commercial lending. however, as is the case with srf, commercial lending is 100%

loan and the interest rates on a commercial loan is typically going to be layer than the srf. at either case because of the low economies of scale a community like como can't afford to borrow the money necessary to make these improvements. they just don't have enough customers over which to spread the cost. >> okay. all right. for mr. newman, mr. keegan and mr. selman, what challenges do you have in assessing the drinking water state revolving funds and how does that compare with accessing rural utility service funding? >> well, i'll allow these gentlemen to elaborate, but one of the issues, and i think we touched on it as well, you've got more help in applying with r.u.s. as opposed to srf. the cost of applying for srf, you may have to utilize services from a consultant which adds to the cost. and that's typically not the case with the rural development process.

>> okay. mr. selman. >> we've been able to use some srf money. our engineer takes whatever they allow as that consultant amount. whatever they allow for an attorney, an engineer or whatever. he does the paperwork for whatever that is. and they've got that specified in the loan. and we've been able to -- i know certain regions. maybe not. but we've been able to take advantage of sfr money. we've been having trouble getting money through rural development. >> thank you, mr. selman. my time has expired. but mr. keegan, do you want to respond? >> we've had trouble accessing funds from either program. in new york state a lot of funding goes to communities that have some sort of citation, some problem with their system. engineers work very hard to keep our systems smooth running. so we're sort of at the bottom of the pile. >> thank you very much. mr. chairman, rural america knows how hard it is to get blood out of a turnip.

and i appreciate you having this hearing so that we can shed some light on how difficult it is to do this. thank you very much. >> thank you very much. and i thank my ranking member and my vice chair, who is trying to lead this charge too. last but not least, mr. kramer from the rural state of north dakota. you're recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman, from illinois and ranking member from new york for acknowledging rural america and for reminding us there are other rural places that are better known or their urban centers. it's good to have an alliance. my colleagues -- or my constituents with the north dakota rural water systems association would be very proud of all of you. you've done a great job today and i felt right at home, even with the unusual accents. but it's a reminder there are some things we work together on

and that are very important. and i won't -- i won't delay except to tell you that i hear a lot about the circuit rider program from our folks and i think you raise a very important issue. i think it's incumbent upon us now as policy makers and eventually appropriators to look for opportunities to prioritize some of the programs you talked about within the context of the entire act. and given the constraints, financial constraints we have, we do have to be a little bit creative but certainly we can reprioritize. i want to just ask for maybe a little bit of elaboration on one point. i got the gao report was fantastic frankly. and i think it was -- it's nice to see the alphabet soup as my constituents often refer to it and see that there's both recommendation, findings and then response by multiple agencies that have -- to have a

tendency perhaps to create extra burden by virtue of requiring sort of uniform processes but not in a uniform way. the uniform preliminary engineering report template i think is a great tool. and i think at a time when our constituents are looking for an efficient effective government this is a good example. and i raise it because i wonder how many more times we could duplicate this throughout the system. one of the frustrations i've seen in the last two years here is not just with epa and usda rural development. certainly in fact there are many others have more. i just hope we could as a house, as a congress, and as public officials at every level look for more of these times of opportunities. the public could go wild. that makes perfect sense. because right now they look at it and i'm sure you all do, you mean i have to hire the engineering firm to dot exact

same thing for another agency and pay them? i guess mainly what i want to say is thanks for that. i will want to be monitoring that very carefully, see how it works out. and i know you will as well, mr. gomez because i think therein lie the nuggets of opportunity to demonstrate functionality of government in a way that people expect of us that that we probably haven't done so well. >> thank you. and we are tracking that, by the way. it's part of our tracking that we do every year because we want to make sure that those agencies are making progress and that it's helping the communities in need. >> thank you for that. and again thanks to awful you. and i will leave some time on the clock and not -- and just thank you for being so patient to hang around with me this long. thank you. i yield back. >> gentleman yields back his time. looks like we're about gone. do you have anything else you want to say and take an opportunity?

>> thank you, mr. chair. i just want to commend the entire panel. i think what you shared with us is not only great insight but advocacy for what is a very high priority. and you've done it through that front line experience. it provides an extra bit of impact i think on the decisions that are made here. but thank you for reinforcing what we have understood to be a problem, and this is a very high priority problem i would think for the country. so thank you very much and i was impressed by all the statements that you've made and the responses you've provided. i want to thank the ranking member for those comments and thank you for being here. i think it's just going to energize us to try to -- i've kind of asked mr. tonko and mr. harper to now get together and try to see where there's similarities and agreement so we can kind of move forward together and you can see there's a lot of areas in our country that are kind of left behind just because they're small.

it's not a political statement. it's just the nature of our country. i really appreciate the involvement of my colleagues too. so thank you. i need some business to do. i ask unanimous consent that all subcommittee members have five legislative days to submit opening statements for the record. without objection so ordered. also unanimous consent in asserting a letter from dr. ralph jones and a letter and report from the environmental working group without objection. so ordered. and remind folks that members of the committee have ten days to submit written questions for the witnesses to be included. you may get some as follow-up. we'd ask you that answer those, or return those if you can. and that is without objection.