Cities, States Say They’ll Need More Help to Replace Millions of Lead Pipes

This article is reposted courtesy of Stateline.

A new federal rule gives water utilities 10 years to replace lead service lines.

A new federal rule will require water utilities across the country to pull millions of lead drinking water pipes out of the ground and replace them, at a cost of billions of dollars.

States, cities and water utilities agree that the lead pipes need to go to ensure safe water for residents. But they say they may struggle to do so in the 10-year window required under the rule, and they fear some ratepayers will be hit with massive cost increases to pay for the work.

State officials are urging Congress to provide ongoing funding for the lead replacement effort. Local leaders say they'll need lots of help to meet the deadline. And environmental advocates are calling on states to issue bonds or provide other financial support to water utilities.

The new rule, issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in October, requires cities and water utilities to replace all lead service lines - the pipes that run from water mains to private residences under lawns and sidewalks. Because the lines extend under private property, some water system operators say the rule has created confusion over whether utilities or homeowners will be responsible for the replacement costs.

The EPA estimates that more than 9 million service lines are made of lead, a neurotoxin that can cause nervous system damage, learning disabilities and other health problems, especially in children. If lead pipes corrode, as in the infamous case of Flint, Michigan, they can poison drinking water.

"This is a significant public health advance," said Erik Olson, who leads a drinking water protection campaign with the Natural Resources Defense Council, a national environmental nonprofit. "We've known for decades that lead service lines are dangerous, and, unfortunately, a lot of utilities just kept putting it on the back burner."

Under the rule, water systems will have until 2027 to draft a plan for replacing their lead lines, after which they will have 10 years to complete the work.

Money worries

The EPA estimates that the cost of replacing lead pipes nationwide will be about $45 billion. A separate analysis by the consulting firm Safe Water Engineering, funded by the Natural Resources Defense Council, arrived at a similar figure. But the American Water Works Association, a coalition of water system operators, puts the cost at closer to $90 billion.

"This is important on the public health side, but it's a challenge for local governments," said Carolyn Berndt, legislative director for sustainability at the National League of Cities, which advocates for municipal governments. "We do see this raising concerns about affordability."

While local governments worry about expenses, the EPA says that the public health costs of lead poisoning are far greater. A federal analysis estimates that the rule, on an annual basis, will prevent 1,500 cases of premature death from heart disease and protect 900,000 infants from having low birthweight. The agency says the savings from avoiding the poisoning of residents will be 13 times greater than the cost of replacing the pipes.

The feds have provided $15 billion for lead service line replacement through the 2021 infrastructure law passed by Congress, plus another $11.7 billion in state-administered drinking water funds that can be used for new lines. Some communities have used those federal grants and loans, along with pandemic relief funds, to make significant progress on their lead problem.

"[Federal investments] provided significant new funding for this effort, but it's absolutely not nearly enough for the successful implementation of the rule," said Ben Grumbles, executive director of the Environmental Council of the States, a nonprofit association of environmental agency leaders.

Grumbles noted that state agencies also are facing significant expenses from new federal rules to limit exposure to PFAS, or "forever chemicals," in drinking water (lead, a naturally occurring metal, is not among the man-made PFAS chemicals).

Cities struggle

State and local leaders say Congress is interfering with a key source of money for lead line replacement. Two loan programs, funded by the federal government but administered by states, provide crucial financing for water infrastructure work. State agency leaders deploy the funding based on detailed assessments of community needs.

But in recent years, members of Congress have bypassed states' funding strategies to earmark money for projects in their districts. State agencies say they're receiving less than half of the pool of money after Congress assigns its favored projects. That has left them less able to help the neediest communities. And many of the congressionally designated projects are lagging because they haven't gone through the rigorous preparation work required by states.

"By diverting so much funding away from the successful [loan programs], disadvantaged communities are less likely to get funding," said Grumbles, who oversees the coalition of state agencies.

Grumbles and others argue that any earmarks from Congress should only be in addition to the baseline loan program funding.

Other challenges

Costs aren't the only obstacle water systems are facing. Some are concerned that the rush to replace millions of pipes nationwide will strain the workforce and supply chain capacity.

Another potential problem is the fact that service lines lie under private property, meaning utilities need cooperation from homeowners to conduct the work. In some cases, they've run into opposition from residents or struggled to reach absentee landlords.

Environmental advocates also note that service lines' placement on private property has created confusion over who must pay to replace them. The federal rule does not explicitly make water utilities responsible.

"When the city goes to a household and says you have to pay a couple thousand dollars to replace your portion of the lead service line, it may work for higher-income people," Olson said. "But the studies are showing that lower-income homeowners and landlords will not pay for it. It's a real exacerbation of environmental injustices."

Public link

Please use the above public link if you want to share this noodl on another website.