-- $117 billion a year. 98% of the cost of providing services and investing in infrastructure. they are paid by you and me and our ratepayers and as a general but, this is appropriate wastewater is funded by the taxpayers receive these services. not payingly, we are for services, we also paying for billsl mandates and the are paid by individual homeowners and becoming unaffordable for many americans. communities to change their priorities in the water and sewer world. this pushes basic repairs to the bottom of the list when they

forced communities to chase mandates that may have very small, incremental benefits. we risk losing those basic public health protections in the economic foundations of our communities. inre is a federal interest maintaining these health protections and economic benefits. there are a variety ways we can help. we have to support the clean water and drinking water state revolving that provides the low-cost loans for infrastructure improvements. year 2017, cutting the and providing a $197 million increase in the drinking it does not make that much difference. the net is a loss. we have to find new ways to

increase investment infrastructure. water4, we added the infrastructure and innovation act. epa is finally requesting unlinked to start the program although they are only requesting $50 million. third, we need to look for a way to encourage even more private investment in water and wastewater infrastructure with loans provide a 49% of the project cost. where is the funding for that? it is a 50-50 thing.

fourth, we need to increase support for small communities that cannot afford the investment that the epa wants them to make. and to keep up with the federal mandates. will havere testimony. we have to make sure federal mandates do not force communities to spend hundreds of millions of dollars for projects that may have little impact on water quality. delaying other critical programs, the u.s. conference of ayers have spent a lot of time working with the epa on these issues. rhetoric,e epa communities are still being threatened with penalties even as they are trying to negotiate with the epa. i shrunk the believe investments in infrastructure can expand our economy. inh public dollar invested

water infrastructure increases private long-term gross domestic 6.35%. by si it has not been persuaded by these numbers. these programs increase the use of tax-exempt bonds creating a loss to the treasury. this increases funding authority of the state revolving funds and loan programs and the water environment federation which is represented here today. it conducted a new study to conduct income taxes paid into to waterury attributed infrastructure investment. in other words, more money is coming into the treasury as a result of this.

this is laying the foundation for foundation -- laying the foundation for income and our water resources is taking place. senator? >> thank you, so much. thank you so much. i am pleased we are having this hearing. i think it is important to look at this issue where the party does have significant significance. uses mandates are ridiculous. they make zero cents. common sense mandates is critical. had aample, yesterday, we hearing on nuclear power plants. we can say let's not spent any money worrying about the safety that we have more problems like we had like fukushima.

that says we will set standards and regulate these pathways. we may have a disagreement on how far we go back, but the fact is we do something important for the american people. it is called protecting them and that is critical. as we discussed the federal road supporting our water infrastructure, safety should be prominent. aging drinking water pipes and waste treatment easement -- systems is a nationwide problem. they are not republicans or democrats, it is everything. a "d" for drinking water. it is unacceptable. we have to be very smart. the way we do it, but we have to do it. i believe it is a national problem. i don't think it is fair that in one city in the country that our kids are getting poisoned water

and we have the example. state,r, including in my because we have had this bulls this bulls will. posal.fuld with the these minimum standards extend to the water infrastructure. i was so proud to join of my said therewhere we those much lead in facilities that deliver our water and we changed that requirement based on science. across americaes received water from pipes before public health officials knew that harm.

it.n't know if you recall we worked on these. we know now from the american water association that 7% of homes -- a new study -- 7% of homes, 15 to 22 million americans have led pipes. that does not mean it is leaking but some of it could be and a lot of it could be in the future. as parents in flint know, there is no safe level of lead. it affects the brains, nervous systems and fetuses. the children poisoned will do you will these comp -- consequences all their lives. we have a long way to go. we have cities across the u.s. that discharge raw sewage. effects, theres is much more to do.

we know the tragedy in flint was due in part to the decision to switch to the polluted and highly corrosive river as a source of drinking water but the flint river is not alone. just last month, the epa released a report showing nearly half of u.s. waterways are in poor condition and one in four has levels of bacteria that fails to meet human health standards. testifying is talking about the affordability to meet standards to protect their own people -- i understand. i was a county supervisor like many of us and i dealt with those mandates, but what we have to do -- if you think something is totally useless, tell us. if it will have the benefit, we have to work together to protect your people, your kids. you want to do that as much as anyone of us. we need increased investment. it is very clear.

we should fund existing financing programs such as they revolving funds. widget update these programs to target those investments where it is needed most. when we invest in water infrastructure, we support jobs. water council estimates one billion investing water and wastewater infrastructure can create up to 27,000 jobs. finish.rman, i will i believe there is bipartisan support for the need for federal investment and water infrastructure. the next work -- i am very excited about it -- we have an opportunity to address her aging from drinking water infrastructure. the health and safety of our children and families depend on a modern infrastructure that provides safe drinking water and clean screens. i look forward to the panel.

can i put my full statement in the record? >> without objection. we normally don't have these many people on the panel so we will be trying to keep within the five-minute limit that we have. we will start with david berger, the mayor of the city of lima, ohio. andood morning, chairman, ranking member boxer. invitation onthe the nation's water and wastewater issues. my name is david berger. i'm in my 27th year of lima, ohio. years in negotiations with the epa over long-term control plan and participated in over five years of discussions with epa concerning integrated planning, green for structure and affordability. this i believe makes me a reluctant expert in the field.

local government, not the federal government, is where the job of providing water and wastewater services gets done. local government has invested over $2 trillion in water and sewer infrastructure and services since the early 1970's and $117 billion in 2013 alone. conference, we had unanimously adopted policies dealing with this issue. one is a simple message to the congress and administration. give us money or give us believe. the members -- in the mayors of this nation would be happy to implement any rule or regulation you were epa comes up with what you have to provide at least half the resource. i'm talking real money, not authorization levels that never get funded. i'm talking about grants, not loans. the cost for unfunded federal

mandates are ultimately paid for by our customers, citizens. many of whom are the residential households and the cumulative cost has reached or exceeded thresholds of clear economic burdens on low end fixed income households. than a third of my residents live under the poverty threshold. spend $150d i million to fix overflows for a community that only a 30,000 residents. would bected average over $870 a year. my households of will be spending more than 4% of their household income on just their sewer bills. with nearly 14% of our reticence spending nearly 9% of their household income on their sewer bill.

in the conference of mayors ,tudies, 33 california cities 24 cities report more than 10% of their households are now paying more than 4.5% of their income on water, sewer and flood of thoseosts, with 10 cities having more than 20% of their households spending 4.5%. ,lease keep in mind that these many of the cities have not yet factored in the cost which is $140stimated at -- up to billion. one county, $140 billion. how did we get here? when the clean water act on the safe drinking water act was first established, congress had lofty goals. congress put skin in the game and provided grants to local communities and that investment

fostered a reasonable avenue to accomplish those goals together. that is m. not the case now. congress retreated because of the high cost. the water policies did not retreat with congress's retreat from funding. the administration transformed the s petition -- aspirations into unfunded mandates involving hundreds of billions of dollars of cost on local communities. let me give you some examples. in the consent decrees, cities are whole to epa policies. however, there is no science's attention in the need for that. in some cases, cities are a lot 14 while other cases have zero overflows. engineering that can handle any

kind of storm event with zero overflows is almost impossible, expensive and wasteful. ismy own city, a river fishable and swappable. deep ofonly four inches stagnant water. i can safely say no one is ever going to swim in that river, yet we are held to that standard of compliance. bottom line, epa is dictating our priorities. i don't want to give any impression that mayors do not care about clean water -- we do. we care passionately. we need federal government to once again be our partners. we fundamentally believe that change must take place and we are asking congress to act -- caught up by planning. define affordability. develop reasonable and sustainable goals.

allow for additional time and establish a review process. i thank you for the opportunity to speak here today. >> i thank you, mayor. mr. chao is the director of baltimore. >> good morning. ranking member and members of the committee. i'm the director of department of public works of baltimore. it is my honor to be here today. to discuss the importance of the federal role in keeping water and wastewater infrastructure affordable. i have over 30 years of experience working in the water and wastewater field of. today, you are examining an important national issue of how we can address the need for investment in a water

infrastructure. appeared before this subcommittee back in 2012 and testified on the challenges of financing water infrastructure using baltimore experience. baltimore is faced with a massive cost of more than $3 billion of regulatory mandates, wastewater treatment plants and our stormwater improvements. and covering up our reservoirs. this is a snapshot of the .roducts we must undertake we consider ourselves to be a good open environment and public health and the chesapeake bay water shed. maintaining awith

large and aging infrastructure system. how do we pay for this? to say baltimore is not a wealthy city is a gross understatement. below our population is the national median household level. impactedroportionally to pay for the inter-structure investment that we must take. my written testimony highlights a number of efforts the west and other water organizations have undertaken to identify policy changes and programs that will assist communities and ratepayers dealing with affordability issues. this. you to review the legislation to reauthorize the increased funding in the clean water act drinking water

act is an important first step that congress should read -- we all the rise. in baltimore, we have experience with frf programs and they work well. over $168 million in low-interest loans from the maryland srf and $4.5 million of principle. additionally, congress supports increased funding and other existing financial plans, programs like usda. all these programs are vital to help communities make needed investments. about theak infrastructure, i use the word investment. mirror havethat we long known congressional budget

office that is not fully reflecting on economic benefits of these programs. this contract -- a team of economists that conduct analysis on the benefit. the analysis estimated that the , namely california, maryland, ohio and oklahoma, which represents a good population of states across the nation, representative of geographically sized cost of living and urban population ural, the model of analysis was based on the

economic model which impacted srf standings outputted. . it captures the effect of saving as it ripples through the economy. in thees will result direct impact which is the contractor. when they use that money to buy goods and services. spending and tax employment which generates income for households. impact is theomic sum of the direct, indirect and affects. investment inws water and wastewater infrastructure through the srf program has meaningful benefits

to the economy, u.s. treasury and households across the nation. the analysis found srf spending generates federal tax revenues. annual srf revenue in the four state averages 4.4 -- $1.46 million. thank you. words, everyher million dollars is estimating to $2.25 million. urge the committee to support our efforts to invest in infrastructure. the investments we make will support the environmental public health and economic benefits to our country. thank you very much.

>> thank you, mr. chao. robert moore is representing the national rural water association. >> good morning, members of the committee. i'm from oklahoma. i'm a manager of the water association. suppliersenting water through my association with oklahoma and the national water rural association. our communities have a public responsibility of complying with all federal regulations and supplying the public with clean water everyday. the water supplies are small. 94% of the country's 51,000 drinking water supplies serve fewer than 10,000 people. i want to acknowledge that

america is very appreciative for sending up for the rural communities. your actions have improved the lives of rural families and the public health in rural usa. small and rural communities are difficult at providing clean water. we have fewer resources but we are regulated to the fact same manner as large communities. rural communities in the country do not have access to safe drinking water or sanitation due to the lack of funding. i'm what you would call a working general manager. i'm repairing water lines, routine maintenance. if someone in the community loses water, the emergency call

gets over to to my cell phone -- forwarded to my cell phone. a similar story to tell. , small waterrule suppliers, we started to supply the first water service to rural communities that had limited access to water. operatinge began water to 800 ranchers. the federal government, funding began and later expanded through low-interest loans from the usda. we now serve approximately 15,000 customers through the lower 6000 towns. in crafting water infrastructure policy, we urged congress to consider the following -- first, local communities have an

obligation to pay for the water infrastructure and federal government should only subsidize water infrastructure of the local community can afford it and there is a compelling federal interest such as public health, compliance over economic development. a have recently been denied $3 million usda low-interest loan for a 50 mile water. we can't afford a commercial loan from the bank and did not meet the subsidize . founding progms achieved thisk objective by requiring federal subsidies be targeted to communities most in need. that itour concerns ios lacks any needs based targeting, credit, elsewhere or focus on compliance issues.

this year's epa budget request srf andd funding for increased funding requests for the wica program. this gives the appearance that federal water levels are being decreased. second, all epa water funding dedicateds primarily to the compliance issues of the federal mandates and standards. third, water companies should subsidies.liant to there is no limited sign or imitation of the water project and concern to leverage to create a much larger loan for f portfolio.

dollars ateveraging a one to 10 ratio. srf funding is allotted to large communities. a simple review of projects funded included in my testimony shows numerous projects funded that cost over $50 million and over $1 billion. thank you all for your opportunities. i will be happy to answer questions. >> thank you very much. representing the american water works association. >> thank you. i to thank you on behalf of the 50,000 plus water professionals that make of the membership of the water works association for this opportunity to provide

comments on the critical issue of affordable financing for our water infrastructure and, in particular, what the federal role should be. we have had two long-standing policies that their unofficial for financing. first, water service should be provided by utilities that are self-sustaining from local rates and other charges. second, water infrastructure can be best finance with a multifaceted tool recognizing there can be significant diversity among water systems in our country and infrastructure needs differ. i would like to provide context on the suggestions. important toare set the stage for circumstances that we face. there are a many studies that estimate where our country stands on average for water infrastructure.

widely butts vary most of the results hone in the vicinity of $30 million a year. it is important to recognize those numbers fluctuate year-to-year based on circumstances on the economy, interest rates, the regulatory requirements imposed and competing local demands in many of our communities. ist is very clear, however, the annual need for foreign investment in our water infrastructure is going to grow dramatically coming decades. it will atimates, least triple and possibly even quadruple by 2040. produceda report was no longer confronting the water infrastructure challenge. it addressed one narrow area of our water infrastructure,

specifically are aging water mains. concluded is we will require them invest of $1 trillion over the next 25 years just to replace the water mains that will be obsolete during that timeframe. that number includes nothing of drinking water needs or cso or fs or or other wastewater types of issues. clearly, a significant number is blank. another important feature to services arewater the most capital intensive of all the utility services we provide our country. what this means is when we invest dollars and so that water infrastructure, and will have a big impact and will have a big impact on the affordability of those water rates to the consumers. we believe given the

circumstances that we have to do two kings -- due two things. first, we need to preserve existing sources of water infrastructure capital and add new sources to the toolbox which rests those needs. toalso need to find ways reduce the cost of the capital that is available for water infrastructure. in our written testimony, we had identified important areas where the government needs to have rules. bonds, water infrastructure finance, state revolving loan funds and private activity bonds. in my comments, i will address the first two, not because the other two are unimportant but i believe they will be addressed by other panelists today.

with regard to taxes them bonds the largestt bonds, source of funding for water infrastructure. between 80% of her annual investment is currently funded by that. hat is used by approximately 70% of the utilities across the country. concernsledge the and scrutiny on tax-exempt bonds that is under discussion, but we believe the concern is on appropriate considering they are used in the case of water infrastructure to finance essential public services. as water utilities, we need billions of dollars annually. we need to have lenders who can provide those billions of dollars. recognizing, recognizing the tax treatment, the steady stream of revenue and the security of

investment -- they accept the lower market interest rate and that is passed along to the utilities. savings are used to reduce the rates to customers in the proof the affordability operates. financing,away this the cost of capital and the customer rates that follow will rise to unprecedented levels and create unprecedented difficulties for affordability in our older cities. i want to thank the committee thetheir role in enacting water bill in 2014 were recently removing the van on using tax-exempt bonds to provide a local match via loans. think that is a great step forward.

this is one of those tools that can -- >> you are over your time. please wrap up. >> i will wrap up quickly. >> this is another of our mutual projects. >> we have four recommendations, but most importantly we need appropriations so that we lost that money can be put to work for water systems across the country. thank you for your attention. phoenix, arizona, representing the national association of letter companies companies.r >> thank you. of thee president national association of water companies. i'm pleased to join me to talk

about the federal government .ctions to innovate private companies have existed for the last hundred years. collectively we serve more than 73 million americans. we believe that by embracing the powerful combination of public service and private enterprise we can approve water infrastructure and create jobs in we applaud this committee for bringing these issues to the forefront, and your leadership. this morning i would like to emphasize a few points regarding e in ourwaters rol infrastructure and resource

needs. communities nationwide face mask of fiscal challenges. the american society of civil engineers give this a failing grade with the current funding gap except -- estimated to be as high as $1 trillion in we innovative funding solutions in the private sector as federal funding alone will not route growing investment gap. tos will require congress ensure the private water industries part of the solution. helprivate water communities with capital invest we're collectively investing about $2 billion annually in their systems. significant.--

clearly the private sector has financial capacity, resources and expertise to assist in the nation water infrastructure challenges that plague many of our cities. sustainable water management also requires innovative technologies and strategies for long-term planning. nawc members operate in multiple jurisdictions and are uniquely qualified to deliver strategies and solutions for long-term resource development and security. these range from water conservation programs to developing wastewater recycling and recharge facilities, or long-term public/private regional water agreements, such as the one epcor recently signed to utilize renewable resources when shifting from act to municipal applications. further support in funding the nation's water challenges can also be achieved through public-private partnerships. our member companies have experience with p3s which have benefited communities in delivering superior water service while freeing up scarce municipal funds for competing priority projects.

the same models can be applied to broader water augmentation and infrastructural projects to serve large t jurisdictional or state water projects to address growing water scarcity requirements. unfortunately current rules and regulations create impediments that restrict many municipalities entering into cost-saving worship private water companies. federal policy plays an important role in establishing incentives for water investment. congress and the administration can act to remove barriers to access the best potential of capital in much-needed water infrastructure projects in to succeed we recommend the following actions. of state volume caps on private activity bonds for water projects, allowing for increased private investment and water system and the alignment of our critical infrastructure when airports, high-speed rail, and solid waste disposal. secondly, clarify the internal revenue code to avoid deficiencies of beneficial key

threes so that long-term concession agreements are no longer penalized. thirdly, expansion of state revolving funds in their eligibility so private water utilities are no longer limited in their use of the water funding and in addition, fully implement the program to facilitate private investment in water infrastructure and ensure private companies have the opportunity to submit fully leverage the same programs and finally, establish a centralized office to navigate the complex t3 training, providing social services to assist all means of policies with this model and mr. chairman and committee members, thank you again for the opportunity to address you today. we are committed to work with you, our industry colleagues and stakeholders to meet the challenges of sustainable water infrastructure. i'm happy to answer questions and >> the wife. mr. olson? thank you chairman and senator boxer and members of the it's an honor to

testify this morning on behalf of the 2 million members and activists at the natural resource defense council. i wanted to summarize. it's been more than 30 years i've been working on drinking water and water infrastructure issues. and we've been talking about deferred maintenance, about the failure to upgrade treatment and upgrade technology, steady deterioration of our water supply for many, many years. and i find myself in agreement actually with several of the points that have been made earlier, that we really need to be making these investments. we've long known that wastewater and drinking water infrastructure are deteriorating. and you know, frankly, the chickens are coming home to roost. where we are now is that what we've all taken for granted, which is safe drinking water, we can't really consider a given any longer. you know, flint really does remind us that the penny-wise and pound-foolish decisions to save a few bucks by not investing in our water infrastructure can really come home and harm public health as well as harming the economy and really erode public trust.

and you know, i think in these debates sometimes it's easy to forget the impacts of these decisions on real people. and this really came home to me a week or so ago when we were working on behalf of some of the citizens in flint. and we were working with one mom, her name is miriam. her husband and her two kids live in flint and she's lived there most of her life. and when the water was switched in 2014 in flint, she noticed that the water started to smell like rotten eggs, that it tasted awful, that it was brown. she wondered about it. they switched over to bottled water, but public officials kept saying, no, it's perfectly safe, don't worry about it. so they went back to tap water,

it was really expensive, they're not wealthy people. and they switched back to tap water. unfortunately, miriam's family started to suffer from some adverse health effects. in june of 2014, miriam had a miscarriage. she had never had a miscarriage before. she started getting skin rashes. clumps of her hair started to fall out. a doctor prescribed treatments for her hair loss, which helped a little bit, but her skin rash continued. her husband also had skin rashes and here loss. her son, who is 13, had a bad outbreak of eczema sores all across his back. and this happened after the water change, and it got far worse than it had ever been. they stopped using the flint water for bathing and his skin rashes disappeared. miriam read that lead contamination can be linked to miscarriages and to complications of pregnancy. and she told us, quote, "just not knowing whether lead exposure may have caused my miscarriage is really painful."

she worried about the possible that an iq of her children and their ability to learn. and she is really worried about having to continue to use bottled water for all purposes, cooking and drinking. she takes her kids to her parents, who are on a different water supply, just to be a which is quite inconvenient she -- inconvenience. she says it has taken a toll on her family. isthe reason i mention this that it is really easy in these policy to begin to forget we are really dealing with real people who are adversely affected. and it virtually way of a widespread problem with a lack of investment in water in structure. i think a lot of water utilities have done a fantastic job in improving our water structure, but we have huge challenges. we do not want a two-tiered water system where wealthy people get good water that is clean and safe, and poor people get any water that is threatening their health. we have a big backlog of

-- andent is a structure in water infrastructure. we really need to fix this problem. infrastructure investment, the good news is, creating a lot of good jobs and we strongly support our testimony investments in this area. i also want to point out that there are ways we can reduce the costs for citizens that are paying for water bills. isil several them in the testimony, including protecting the water before it gets good so polluterssupe are paying to clean up, rather than consumers paying to take the contaminants on the water. the national drinking water advisor council for the group, which i served dr. had several recommendations including the low-income water system program, affordability rates for logan's -- low-income consumers, targeting compliance assistance and increased funding. my time is almost out, so i will highlight the recommendations briefly that we layout of the testimony. first we need to explains

infrastructure. 2579.port the bill second, we need to invest in our water structure. we support senator cardin bill that would increase state revolving fund lending. sourceix our water protections. we need to address small system resolve patient cut costs, fix the leading, rule, and finally left the immediately when there is an imminent and substantial injury to their health. thank you for the opportunity to testify. >> thank you, mr. olson. berger, 27 years, is that right? >> yes, i am a slow learner. [laughter] has denied a lot of ideas here, a leftist money here, but the things that seems to be missing is affordability and flexibility. can you tell us why?

representing the u.s. conference of mayors as well as a mayor yourself can you tell us why the u.s. conference of mayors believes that the integrated planning policy isn't sufficient to address the mayor's concerns about affordability that we talked about? >> thank you. >> it was meant to do that, but is it doing that? >> first of all, i think part of -- i think for the fact that because lima was the first city to actually negotiate successfully a concept to create involving integrated planning, that we would never have gotten to the point of actual agreement without the integrated planning policy. it does give us the flexibility that we need to proceed and forward. and we actually are grateful for the fact that there were champions and orders and u.s. epa that created the policy and actually worked through with us the negotiations with the regional office. it concern is the fact that

is a policy. it is not the law. our concern is that it should be codified so that the cities all across the country have the opportunity to use it to do long-termrate -- planning and priority setting for their own systems. process, we up on a are already in the process of actually electing a new president. who knows what happened to that policy and the next administration? so there's that transitional change we are concerned about. but secondly, it can also tell you that the experience of cities around the country, that there is an almost resistance in the regional offices to actually implementing the integrated plan cities. as of this point will know it really only for communities that have been able to successfully put in place integrated plans. that is being on a ohio,

evansville, indiana, springfield, massachusetts and spokane, washington. our concern is that this is an opportunity that cities have, successfullyle to implement. it needs to be part of the law. >> well thank you. i'm going to, it was simply sit in the u.s. conference of mayors that the word was used in the its prosecutors. that the epa treat some of the small communities like prosecutors. >> all i think that is a widespread experience for cities. >> yes. treated as polluters. we are not treated as stewards, along with state and the public environment, our systems. it was very clearly the case that regional staff was dismissive. i mean, it took us 10 years to get to an agreement. and i believe that the attitude of an arrogant dictatorial attitude of the agency for more cities.

>> do you agree with that, mr. chow? yes, i do. first, baltimore city, we also use integrated writing and basically try to manage our $4 billion with the capital projects >> ok. do experience that is negotiate with our consent decree, sso to consent agreed. favorablemore comments of support for the headquarters that from the region. >> all right. past,ore, the covidien sen. wicker: introduced bills 611. , and they passed this bill now it is law. that establishes technical assistance under the safe water drinking act for small and rural communities, which are representing. do you think that this bill should include those communities meeting wastewater mandates? >> yes.

the technical assistance under this, we serve is a certain percentage of whether it is srf or the wis i-8 to go to the technical assistance, to supply that assist as to the smaller systems that cannot go out, and before the engineers or put a burden on them. i have stands, because in our state, the state of oklahoma, there are a lot of vigils around. we have a lot of cmunities that would say that you are representing them well. and i think these are some of the things that we could do in our community. >> sen. boxer:? ? >> thank you, mr. chairman. many say that in addition to bread, water is the stuff of life. so you're dealing with the most critical, and thank you for your passion about it, i really do, and dedicating your life to it. everybody takes it for granted,

we all took mentally kid gets violently ill or in the miscarriage or cause rashes all over her body. then we go, what have we done wrong all of us together. and we're in this together. this isn't an us versus them situation. as eric said, it is all about all our families and so when something goes wrong like that, or when a child's whims and a link that has untreated sewage in it, mr. berger, and the get very ill because of the from everyone focuses on it. so today, we are focusing on it. we are focusing on of the things that believe are secondary. and let me tell you something, we have spent so far $2 trillion on the war in iraq ok. i care about this country. i care about our kids being safe. and to say we cannot afford it, baloney. we could or the war, think are not with my vote, but we could order the war, so we can afford this so i mean, i really preach all of you are today, to help us figure out how we could do this and not harm our people physically, mentally from this

problem, and also in their pocketbooks. so i want to talk about a few of those things. but first i want to mr. olson, discharges of combined sewage overflows and sanitary sewer flows, are they a concern? because we're focused on lead, as we should be what about these overflows with bacteria? >> yes, they are a certain concern. there are definitely public health concerns as well in environmental concerns. from a public health standpoint, often raw sewage is exit jumped into lakes and streams and that can cause massive contamination. seeee be disclosed, we people getting sick, waterborne diseases from swimming in it, from being exposed to it. >> is definitely a big problem in your opinion? 's dental a big problem in hundreds of communities across the country.

because that is what studies are now showing, it is disgusting and we have to fix it. can argue over everything, we have to fix it. now mr. berger, i want to be your partner. the first part of your money i agree with what the rest of that i found buried serving. first of all you mentioned my state and you talk about what it cost. i want to know that my state has tougher environmental law and the federal government. that is with the people there one. no one and now i called me to complain so who is he you talk to specifically the incontact in say what are weblogs? will the conference of mayors published a study of 33 cities. >> you mentioned los angeles and >. >> that is correct. >> who told you they are upset about this? will give you the published study with those names. >> i am not asking for the study.

you said l.a.. i wanted because you do not represent l.a.. tell me who's complaining and i would really appreciate it if you sent it in writing. now, mr. berger, in your system and you complained that epa resist flexibility. this could be true, we want to make sure they don't what we want to get it done, just as much as you do, with minimum -- maximum flexibility and insist on unrealistic timetables for meeting water quality measurements at your consent decree provides the city 20 years to come into compliance. to come into compliance with the clean water act. this consent degree comes after years of the city failing to lie with water only meant requirements. ended is also my understanding that you have one of the longest consents great country. his 24 years and unreasonable timetable? took us 10 years of

negotiation and order payable to deal with the agency. >> you did not mention the fact that your efforts. off. you got a 24 year consent decree. you, mr. berger committee begins appropriate percentage to make improvements to stop the discharges of raw sewage into waterways that are used by our kids? >> i believe that it is appropriate for us to take reasonable measures, whether it is with combined solar overflows or scented to a overflows, to minimize those kinds of problem. but there are also instances, many insist where the requirements are not realistic. mr. chow, would increase funding of the programs that you say are helping you help the

communities facing affordability issues? we care about that. >> it definitely would. -- forceden forcing to basically pay for the rehabilitation of our infrastructure. so with federal dollars, it would be helpful. >> will close. i want to thank mr. arnie for your kind statements about this because we are excited about it. room youo fix it to me will but we are very excited about it. it is a new tool and we think the leverage is going to be fantastic. >> thank you. havewicker: now that i fatigue you up with your legs are solution you are recognized. >> thank you. items to say and five minutes is inadequate, but i will do my part in it is exactly the is actuallyiscretion to reduce the availability of technical assistance to small

communities by 75 percent. this has humanity to full-time soccer writers of my state of mississippi. and i do appreciate the chair mentioning the legislation which senator heitkamp and i championship last year. the grassroots role small community water systems assistance act. this was signed into law the president in december 11, 2008. let me just tell you what we are facing in mississippi. -- the town of new hebrew has 400 people. they are being told they have to spend $3 million to eye with the epa. how are they going to do that? lawrence county water system with approximately 2000 persons needs half $1 million for a new well. town of congo, population 1200 is facing overwhelming water challenges and failing to meet the current epa permit. they just finished paying approximately $1 million loan, now they have to spend another $1 million.

town of utica comes with a population of 850 persons is facing a $1 million complaints of it. anybody went why for city councilman or mayor in these small towns. my hat is off them for trying to make a small town and local government better. the small-town of shot, 1900 and orderder all water because of a broken coordinator that they couldn't afford next to the city of mound bayou has actually 2300 or since. they need $7 million to pay for a new sewer treatment facility that he is mandating on them because of nitrogen and phosphorus discharges. i hoped thekamp and very minimum, the legislation that the president i would result in a return of circuit riders in rural areas, and that increasing regulatory markets. sadly, the soccer writers have not returned to my statement that they have so capably provided us.

mr. moore, we see the burden of federal unfunded mandates increasing and epa system decreasing. his epa insisting on a catholic for these communities would actually use chevrolet would do all right? is there in the middle ground there? i am concerned about the horror stories that editor boxer ,entioned i think we are all let in the water completely unacceptable, absolutely unacceptable anywhere, particularly in the united hates america in the 20% regret there is a balance there that the regulators to come in its treat you like their prosecurs run partners, is there a balance there that we are missing? much can you tell us in that regard, what do you say to these small towns? i would say that even as a

small community or small role system. is our top priority to put us a water. we will not put out water that is anyway unsafe. >> absolutely. >> talking about comparing a catholic system, you know or something that a big music quality we need. the facilities that create safe water and there's only so much you might say bells and whistles that go on some of the bigger water treatment late. how can these small communities, the small-town municipalities pay for these mandates?

>> think part of the two with what the requirements are. i think the opportunity for technical assistance this essential to be able to make certain that they have proper technical advice about what is

appropriate when it comes to the there'sortability issue a question of government needs to become a major factor in grants are now made to states and states will lose money two cities. that impacts the affordability and makes it unaffordable. i think that the federal government needs to look back at the time of the clean water act safeplemented, and the drinking water act him and look at the successful were achieved with the federal government has given the game in the term of direct assistance to localities. >> thank you. >> i want to thank the entire panel, and senator booker, i have visited the treatment

.acility plants in my state commitmentoud of the that the local government of maryland have made to have seen drinking water, because we do. but it is not a cadillac will or used chevy. we are rebuilding the model t. they are a hundred years old. the plants in baltimore was built 100 years ago. the state-of-the-art at the time, and we're modernizing it, but it is still a hundred-year-old facility. so it is a struggle to and obviously we all want to make sure that regulations are done as efficiently as possible, but bottom line is we must make sure that there is safe drinking water for the people of our country. flint wasned in

absolutely outrageous, we all understand that. there was some conscience decisions that should have made. but we have problems throughout this country. let's make a mistake about it. in washington dc in the early we havethe last decade close the drinking water phones in all of our public schools. the reason is not that the water is not safe coming into the community, it is the connections to the facilities that contain lead that cannot be used to so .e have serious modernization in 2012, there is a trillion dollars of backed up water infrastructure improvements that could be spent. epa did a study showing over $600 million in the next 20 years in order to modernize.

i was listening to each one of you and saying that the city is there to do that. the ratepayers cannot burden that type of amount. and when you look at the federal tools, and there are several, including the tax-exempt authorities that you all would like to see, but if you look at the state revolving funds it's one-third the level it was in 2009. and i want to thank the chairman, i want to thank the ranking member, because they're trying to do something about that. we're going to try to reauthorize the state revolving fund and that would be at a level, i hope, that reflects at least what the federal partnership should be. show . and i thank our leadership on our committee because this committee, in a bipartisan manner, has tried to make more predictable water infrastructure federal partnerships and a reasonable amount to deal with the needs that are out there. so we're going to continue to try to make those investments. and i've introduced some legislation and i thank the leadership of this committee for their encouragement of the

legislation that we are pursuing. show less text lawcha [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] mr. chow, i want to give you an opportunity to respond to a point that you made in your statement, and that is recent findings of economic benefit analysis on the state federal revolving fund, you indicate that the way this is scored doesn't always reflect the true economic cost and benefit of the federal investment. could you elaborate on that a little bit more? >> sure, senator. so traditionally when we're looking at the state revolving fund, you know, we're looking at the money coming from the federal government and/or from a state, which is looking at that sort of one-sided. however, those state and federal -- so for example, the four states in the study, it showed that the total state and federal investment for the years 2012 to 2014 amount to about $1.46 billion. so out of that, it actually --

so as a result of that study, it actually shows that combined investment generates about $160,000 in terms of the federal tax from that investment. well, if we're just looking at a federal portion of srf, which will e-mails to about 23% of that total combined, federal and state, that every million dollars actually generates $695,000 in terms of the federal tax from the states. so in other words, the $695,000 in federal tax revenue is generated by a federal investment of 23 percent of the $1 million. so i mean, that's quite awesome. >> thank you for underscoring that. obviously we're interested in clean, safe drinking water. but there's also an economic impact here. and i think the committee understands that and i

appreciate your testimony. >> thank you, senator cardin. senator fischer? >> thank you, mr. chairman. and i thank the witnesses for being here today. we need to discuss the real-world implications of these unfunded federal mandates as well as the lack of flexibility and the fear of penalties that many of our communities are facing. the affordability of water and wastewater infrastructure is a critical concern around the country. in my home state of nebraska, the city of omaha's east with the challenge of addressing a $2 billion unfunded combine over show -- sure overflow comforting and the epa. cost is a burden, and it is particularly hard on our low and income fixed residence. so mr. mayor, i would like to ask you a question. in your testimony you discussed extensive and costly cross that

your city endured to reach an agreement with the epa's required mandate. water the tools that they can use to comply with those mandates? >> thank you. i believe that, first of all, that one of the critical elements of integrated planning is the opportunity to prioritize. thatxample, we have sso's we demonstrated had no public impact, but twitchell cost us eliminate. to we were able to push those off to a later time while we took on much more serious issues relating to the cso.

that ability to prioritize is part of integrated planning. it needs to be part of the law, it shouldn't just be a policy. the second issue really is around affordability. the council may responsible proposals for it how to define affordability based upon not mhi, because median household income really masks the impact that these costs will have on low income households. we believe definition of affordability, which absolutely respect the need to do something, do it within the affordable limits of the communities resources is important to ultimately getting to solutions. we think the additional time. its 42nd water act had birth date. what we accomplished and not happen overnight.

tookhas been a cap list four years to get to this point. we're still making advances in any expectations which are there in the regional offices, that things must be accomplished in 10 or 15 years are not realistic. so part of the challenge deal the ability is allowing for the that communities need to accomplish it within their budgetary needs. >> could you speak a little more on the necessity to address those high-priority control measures and specifically what impact does that priorities asian have on public health and water quality. that?n omaha benefit from >> that comes back to a technical assessment of where in any system there are places

where things are happening at frequency,ls, more events, and then there are places and systems which should not have the kind of frequency or impact assessments of the authority of the solution and the plotting that overtime for implementation is the key to ultimately getting to something that is reasonable for any given community. >> thank you. the median household income was just spoken about. in your testimony you talked about the impact on epa when the agency looks at the communities affordability to cap the unfunded mandates. thepecifically mentioned invention mark is used there. it you explain why that medium house: income benchmark is harmful to our low and fixed income families? -- 40% of our populations

are not meeting this level. there below the poverty line. when you are looking at the median household income, the curve is skewed. they should be looking at the low end, meaning the folks who are most vulnerable, because that's the greatest economic .mpact is to the population so in essence, what the local ends up having to do this, programs that helps senior citizens as well as the low-income citizens to help offset. isking at the low end, it hard to be more practical and reasonable. >> thank you.

we have a lot of low income residents who are being hit right now with the water and sewer bills. if we can provide flexibility for those people, i would appreciate it. >> thank you. when you're turkey vote wastewater it is like talking about real estate location, location, location are the three keys. very often what is reasonable is in the eyes of the beholder. conflict inevitably between the upstream and downstream. there are a whole bunch of municipalities in massachusetts who are of the blackstone group are for rhode island probably think they are doing what is reasonable for getting rid of their wastewater and their overflow into the

blackstone river. they pushed back really hard against epa trying to get them to clean it up. but they leave the music have to deal with one that is not clean because they have not done the steps that we have undertaken to protect our way that they have not done themselves. and i the beholder issue here, and the dow streamers have a different opinion about what a good job the upstream people are doing. the second point i would like to make is that for all the mockery it generates from the side of the committee, in rhode island, the wolf is already out the door and this is not a hypothetical or what we're seeing is things that are most clearly connected with climate change from a general point of

view, unless someone wants to appeal, the sea level will rise. we are already seeing that. in 2010, we had back-to-back hundred year storm's we had over 10 feet of flood level flooding. they all had their sewage facilities flooded out why the rising river. a highway stopping on overpass and looking down into the sewage treatment facility. all you could see was the top defenses and the roof of the building. all the stooge was off and down into those yards. you're talking about how individual communities should pay or that, pretty tough to tell them you have to rebuild entirely because suddenly

reimburse that you had no cause in. and on our coast, it is actually our university of rhode island have identified 10 at risk wastewater treatment facilities. rise, stronger option for storms, plus the zones and flood zones, who was going to pay to move that? when you pay to build a completely new one? they do not cause the sea level rise. it was something that years and years ago was anticipated. so i or my colleagues to say where you went about sea level rise, joy or drew near what occurred, but in states like mine it is very real. is last second i want to say

we are dealing with a lot of old things. here is a bigger version of the same thing they by pipe at one point, but it got clotted up. in my lifetime we have been removing wood and water infrastructure out of older rhode island unities. we have a big catch up cap in stuffof horse and buggy that we need to invest in building it so we do not get on this.ncerns

pick you all reference herein in guys thank you all for this hearing. the diverse views and a lot of the inside that you are bringing to this hearing. i want to ask questions that relate more to the focus on the small communities. the struggle with in alaska. number of senators have been talking about the challenges of old infrastructure. in my state i have the challenge of no infrastructure. there is a big difference.

i am sympathetic with communities that have to get rid of pipes and deal with old aging infrastructure, but we are unique in that we have entire communities with no infrastructure. overral alaska, there are 30 communities, thousands of my constituents have no running water, no flesh toilets. and thee honey buckets honey buckets to not smoke good. that is a euphemism. i will be working with the committee, i have talked to the ranking member about this little bit. i am trying to address these urgent issues. alaskaormal homes in lack wanting water or flushing that can actually lead to high levels of disease, third world disease levels in

america. i wanted to ask mr. moore you were talking about the small community. ox. i think it is an important point, that even if we had infrastructure, and a lot of small communities, there is no ability to bond. there is no ability to dramatize financing on future projects just because of the lack of population base that hit critical mass. how do we address that? i will start with you and an open it up to anyone. address reaching office water system to those who do not axes water this point, or

how well the even marginal water quality. >> but in terms of financing, should it be grand programs? your community does not have the ability to bond, there is a different step you need to take this anyone else see what i'm talking about? you are stuck. youre not like l.a., where can see anybody. it is different for the small cities. you think the federal grant program has to be part of that option? toof the things that we need look at closely as relates to small systems of the state roll up offering loan funds at least in my state they had always tension hard that he used a substantial part of their

funding. and certainly, given the volume available that are for these funds, it is not like they can fund major issues that are out there. there is a direct linkage there. robust of funding is clearly something that is important. the other thing that i would say last 40thority for the years has acquired approximately 40 systems in pennsylvania. only two or three of those systems were small systems, and what we were able to do is leverage the presence of our provost and noso smaller systems, lawyers replacing supply, upgrading means. the ability to spread the cost over a broader customer base is an advantage.

i recognize that may not be practical in alaska. >> let me ask one final question that has testimony. it is a really important issue. according to the u.s. conference longer a, they are no partner to local government that it once was. the agency has assumed the role of a prosecutor. not agree more with that assessment from the u.s. conference of mayors. but you are alluding to this issue of moving from partner to prosecutor to one's home -- size fits all to small towns. can you go into that a little bit more, and is there anything from a statutory standpoint?

what should we do in congress in terms of trying to change that attitude which articulated so well? >> in the consent decree process, you have not just the agents you have the department of justice. this is a hostile set of. the principal facts that can entrancee is to take to a poor permitted process. arrangements made between the state and federal governments and local does not have to be enforced through december degrees. permitse built into thank you renewed with a set of obligations they get attached to it over time. so changing it from a concentric

group process paperwork process at.ld change th >> thank you. about to talk to you moral america. we heard our senator from alaska .peak on issues but i think we have found in raw over the virginia at least of the places that have the least amount of resources are still going to comply the same kinds of levels. it is difficult because you to ratepayer to see if they can where the burden. we are also economically challenged at the same time and support kind of solutions to you

seem to be able to alleviate the burden, but to help rural areas get over this hump? assistance, our moral water is the asian through pa funding have circuit riders. they are instrumental in our's and and helping compliance getting the ideas that are hopefully solving the problem bringing in millions of dollars of new equipment because we cannot afford that. whether the resources are you looking at beside the rate here, i do not know if obama has a state infrastructure bank or anything of that nature.

quicklyould enumerate what you are doing? >> we have a small cities grant, and they are administrative through the water resources board. , that isthe usda rules ir the resources are proud >> would like to talk about public-private partnership, deal, wen the last think we have progress in terms of being able to access private and public dollars to maximize the availability of resources. are you familiar with the? so it has not been funded, what, promised you think that has? lote think it has a that it in the fact

will go ahead, hopefully. the loss for the lending of federal funding as well as private money to come together and leopard properly infrastructure you is the right now. you have to bring in these their funding resources to do that. part of the risk transference that have been the customer hoping to take that risk and we feel that we have a couple of partnerships, we can get incremental volume as a definitive delivery of a model fixed price and delivery over the life of the project. infrastructure initially very origin of the life of the

project before you turn that back to the client is very important as well. the transportation that is allowed a lot to move forward one of the things we're doing in our for the creativity of our governor and others is to have the company come in and forward fund the project and then have the state reimburse over a long time. you timing and you can trust and loaded. do you see that have the same possibility of these projects? >> absolutely. process of's in the tilting the largest project in canada a $200 million wastewater treatment went wise reasons. they have a 30 year ongoing

operation, and then they turn it back to the city at the end of that time. the timeline to cringe this down to turn the financing and deliver the project is critical. >> thank you. >> to our. clearly, flint, michigan is the perfect example of how water policy can just go completely wrong. they have the walk wastewater bills, and in a very poor community. we know that communities that are poor or just fortunately harmed by this issue and other environmental issues as well. of a group of questions i

would like to ask because as we saw in the, michigan the timeliness of 44 holiday issues is exacerbated. pro-daschle of the agencies to receive occasion. information to be related to the citizens of the does anyone disagree that one would epa the information would be to require state to inform the epa about persistent violators or systems that have serious violations? does anyone disagree with that? >> they are already required to do that. >> so none of you disagree with the is already a requirement. does anyone disagree with importance of drinking water quality would be increased if it was online and reported

electronically rather than paper reports? >> we agree. our utilities are moving to the online reporting as well. >> with that be a reasonable all?rement for >> yes. the only problem is that there are still elements of the community that are not accessible to that kind of information. to so, the best way is record it wouldn't have the capacity to work that? think this was he was saying that the customers may not have the ability to

perceive the electronic information. ultimately, should the unity have the capacity? in a minority community have well over 50% it would have access that would make it impossible for them board. >> i think you would find general agreement in the water works industry that take electronic distribution. tearful scene can reach everyone of your customers. clearly issues between agencies, cdc ofisagree that the state and local public health is shipping immediately notify of drinking water violations that are found? those public agencies can help to detect on to the illness and evidence of exposure?

we're all pretty much doing that is part of our water quality rumor group that already exists. >> does anyone disagree that encouraging real-time monitoring concerns, potential which may have had adverse effects on the health or even in r?timely manner > was a huge, is to andsystem for testing evaluation. again, i think what is now required is a timely report. i think flint broke down not because of learning, but because you worsen pretty bad decisions

made, deliberate human decisions made that a variety of circumstances just on itself. regime ins that the most places allows for the kind of notification and timeliness that are you're seeking. >> senator, i think there is a combination of problems in one, that some of it was the lack of swing reporting an adequate testing, and we certainly would strongly support immediate reporting of violations and reporting to public health authorities, particularly in cases of significant health threat. levels are not even being automatically reported to see the the, and i know there is legislation they that.roposed to address

>> you see why. to assist rural communities, it operations, training, management regulatory compliance for the wastewater system. but is seems to me the apa of the last will your session did a portion of that funding provided for this initiative away from this technical assistance and training to other methods that include lending entities with very little or no experience in the water industry, with no established relationships, things like webinars used as a primary tool to provide outreach and training rather than people on the ground. do we want communities in

a:lities is a website or automated hotline to get help, or have them reliant technicians who can provide on-site training? technical assistance especially during an emergency? >> i do know that the circuit rider from has taken cuts of the last three years and a lot of states have lost circuit riders. there's nothing wrong with webinars, but in the state of oklahoma we have many small systems that may have 100 users. they do not have access to the webinars, where the circuit riders can come in and they do a job and they are there ways to raise.

structure, they see the problem, and we normally .ave immediate response >> they live there, they are part of the community. >> they have seen other systems in a very are those in they have gather that information can apply to your system. >> you talk about the on-site technical assistance that allows communities to comply with epa rules and i would ask valuable this on-site assistance especially to utilities is have the expertise to comply with epa? it is critical that we found

the circuit rider programs. on the small world water systems, they rely heavily on that technical assistance. mayor, if i could ask about have a question that you might are theything into you were in length with the epa maximum containment level to level standard until that level was changed from 50 parts billion 10 hertz per billion. these communities had arsenic levels in the mid to low 20's. parts pers the 50 billion was an acceptable level. somehow it has changed. has become very expensive to

improve the technology ticket town to that. for community hundred 400 people that money is still on 320 think about the other issues that amir to deal with. question that no the technology of measurement has changed dramatically lost 40 years. could imagine that we would be measuring things down to the nano level? following the measurement, the

.egulations have become mandate for any circuit circumstance, , theyou're looking at regulators come in with a silent kind of way. there is charge of this particular mandate, and ignore the rest of the mandate that a cane he might have. integrated planning allows people to build to look at all .he challenges in front of them >> thank you. i have apologizing for this. i have been classified briefing

on another subject. olson tooing to mr. respond to these questions there .s for waterrge more when supplies are tight? >> no, sir. >> no, sir. for water isrge watering lawns were washing cars than essential function like drinking and bathing? >> no syrup.

we have a tiered system that the water around again five thousand dollars, and now it is seven .ollars thousand and you may have just answered this question for yourself. do you charge more person for water use? >> the lower the unit rate become. >> go ahead. ours is the escalating tiered system. ok.

same question? >> county authority has different rate schedule. --re are lower increase rates as consumption increases. wente largest here is that eurogroup .low >> this will be for quality, including mr. olson. why can't or shouldn't we increases?ce similar to what you would see with electricity? embraceuldn't we

laceration demand? the stress of demand. if your system has plenty of water than there is no need to impose those cans of restrictions. we do have the authority under city ordinance that the point of growth or other kinds of stress, can puts, we do and limits on consumption. >> we do not have restrictions set, we do get to the drug situation that he just spoke about. >> why couldn't we were washing we? >> it is individual. housing, individual

residents within the household and the is pattern is different that may not be practical. specialist on the residential rate, i have no problem escalating rate. the is a certain amount for domestic use, and when it fuses. about the >> the ability to do this and practical way, the other part of this is in our state we have uniformity clause that you have forsame rate within a class every residential customer need to be treated the same. if you customer who works night

, you are creating a disadvantage. >> same question. we are moving to a semi-we have not advanced dismantlement to the side to measure repository of all the data that would be required? >> i want more yes or no question for you. shall utilities consider an .nverted block pricing

>> it really depends on the driver in terms of stimulating the economy and looking at an industry versus raikes. a free municipality might be different. >> tijuana. difference, ie think we have a right to set those rates. option,should be an specific circumstances of each system. cash i wouldou agree that the cost structure of the utility is inversely related to the other structures. 70% are fixed, but some of them

are at risk on consumption. if you have been increasing block reads, that represents a real threat to the real cost of delivering water system >>. the rate with more watering. it encourages conservation and helps low-income people. >> thank you. taken today, and i would like to andlude by recognizing things have come from oklahoma. the wife of the speaker of the house. we want to recognize that. i would like to also make a comment that you get mixed reports from the media's was going to happen. i have every confidence that i'm in leadership and have talked to

leadership on our side. berbers of the same thing on her side. payment to. but we will be able to do this and get this out of committee on to the floor during this work time. also knowledge that there are a lot of problems, and a lot of solutions. , withs of this committee the proposal for grants to place lead service line, senator booker's trust fund ideas, sen. boozman:'s alternative water supply all of you. we're working on ideas, and it has very helpful to have you coming in from your different perspectives and levels to give hometowner idea from what the problems are. >> thank you. let me be brief and take a couple of minutes to thank each and everyone of you. thank you to sen. carper: those

questions were fascinating. that you pay less when you use more is late culture shop. but i completely understand that every district in every state is quite different from the next. i think that is a critical part of goshen. very briefly, all you want more grants rather the loan and i completely get it. i will work toward the. ofyou look at the history federal grants on water, it is very interesting and when the .rograms through

nelnet is a partnership in terms of funding and what is in or to and we have this added to drinking water later, the states have 10 come in to pick up the maxing to -- matching to. i want to make the point. we had some harsh words about the income and being a problem it was interesting to me this and look at and they were very their clients, they were not aggressive. i still do not dismiss the

point, but i hate those broadbrush concept. it is very important is that you write to us and tell us the case specifically where they were in some of you may not agree that their process shooters, but i know i couple of you do. please give me that in writing, because if that is going on, that is not good. i will say: thank you frequent. thank you to my chairman, and i'm looking forward to another bill. he will be here forever, but i want. so as long as we're in tn and prove that we can do it, you are right. we do not agree on a lot of things. the table for a long .ime

we are adjourned.

>> the signature of tv is our coverage of beers and festivals .cross the country nonfiction out, the weekis politics with tabloid. race in the visa, living

.nd dying one manident soon with against the world with the tragedy to victor nixon. go to the tv for the complete weekend schedule, and upcoming book festivals. >> former president bill clinton spoke at a campaign rally for his wife, hillary clinton. at mount st. held vincent. this is just under an