This article appears in the February 2023 issue of The American Prospect magazine. Subscribe here.
Denver Water had a problem. A water utility since 1918, the company provides water to the greater Denver area that is lead-free. In 1994, the utility adjusted its pH and alkalinity levels to meet standards set by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment’s Lead and Copper Rule.
Still, in 2012, Denver Water surpassed the lead action level, a threshold set federally by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The problem was simple, in a way: Water delivered through service lines that contained lead would likely always have some level of lead in it. Lead exposure has numerous negative health outcomes associated, and it was important to manage and eliminate its levels in water.
But Denver Water didn’t own any water lead service lines. Those are laid by developers when a property is built, pumping water from the main that Denver Water owns.
“Those lead service lines are really the biggest source of lead entering drinking water to our community,” said Travis Thompson, spokesperson for Denver Water.
Lead service lines have been a major public-health concern, one that became especially salient during the Flint, Michigan, water crisis. President Biden has repeatedly promised to replace all lead service lines in the country, a promise that became part of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, which was passed in 2021. The IIJA designated $15 billion toward replacing lead service lines. Another $11.7 billion was granted to improve drinking water systems, some of which could go to lead pipe removal. In all, the bill earmarks $50 billion to water programs.
A year after the IIJA’s passage, the situation remains largely unchanged. The amount allocated is the largest investment in the removal of lead pipe in the history of the country, and the total water investment package has been hailed as historic by the Biden administration. But $15 billion is not enough money to replace every lead service line in the country—estimates lie anywhere between $28 billion and $60 billion.
Moreover, the work of replacing these lines falls to water agencies like Denver Water, which face a fundamental challenge. Water agencies can only replace the lines they own; the rest of the responsibility falls on private owners, many of whom are less than keen given the logistics. To fulfill their mission, water agencies must persuade owners of the benefits of lead removal, and manage the costs. And that’s if the agencies can find all the lead service lines in the first place.
THE MAJORITY OF WATER FUNDING IN THE IIJA is distributed through the Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds (CWSRF and DWSRF), which have been addressing lead abatement in water since the late 1980s. Funds are to be distributed over a five-year period; the first $3 billion was announced in December 2021.
Any amount of lead exposure is dangerous, and its prevalence in everything from paint to gasoline means that millions of children have been exposed. Lead has been linked to learning problems and slowed growth in children, according to the EPA. Children exposed during pregnancy may underdevelop and even risk miscarriage. An article published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences estimated that over half of adults had elevated levels of lead exposure in early childhood.
Some utilities only know that their water flows through lead service lines, not where they are.
The Flint water crisis revealed racial and economic disparities of lead exposure. The IIJA attempted to address this by earmarking at least $5 billion of the grants for disadvantaged communities. The IIJA also requires that almost half the funding distributed through the DWSRF go toward disadvantaged communities.
Before the IIJA passed, Denver Water proposed a solution for lead abatement. After receiving an exemption from the EPA, the utility instituted a five-point initiative to replace every lead water service line. This has led to the replacement of 15,000 lines as of December 2022. The plan includes replacing the lead pipes, mapping the lines, and installing lead removal filters, all at no cost to homeowners. It is funded through bonds, water rates, cash reserves, and hydropower generation, Thompson said.
The IIJA funding was a welcome addition that Denver Water was able to immediately put to use. It applied to access the first year of funding through Colorado’s state revolving fund and was granted a low-interest loan of $76 million. Denver Water estimates that the money will shave off more than a year from a 15-year plan.
While Denver Water could be seen as a model for lead pipe removal, it’s not a simple solution. The agency still has to coordinate with homeowners and obtain their permission to act. And not every utility is as far along as Denver Water to immediately utilize IIJA funds effectively.
Elin Betanzo of Safe Water Engineering points out how there is a spectrum among municipal water agencies’ willingness to replace lead service lines. Some agencies are reluctant to even acknowledge the issue.
“Most water systems don’t have a program already,” Betanzo said. And the money does not just appear one day for agencies to use: To be approved for IIJA funding, a utility must propose a plan “directly connected to the identification, planning, design, and replacement of lead service lines,” according to an EPA memorandum.
For some agencies, this means starting from scratch, while others like Denver Water are ready to jump into action. The Lead Service Line Replacement Collaborative, a coalition of organizations, works to “accelerate voluntary lead service line replacement in communities across the United States,” by closing the gap in preparedness. The organization provides resources for water agencies to create an action plan for service line replacement, and apply for federal funds.
“States are moving forward with putting the funds to use based on their assessment of the needs and their understanding of how many lead pipes they may have, where they are located, and whether some utilities are prepared to accelerate lead pipe replacement,” Tom Neltner, senior director of the Environmental Defense Fund’s Safer Chemicals initiative, said over email.
AGENCIES NEED TO KNOW WHERE THE LINES ARE before meaningful action can be taken. The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) estimates between 9.7 million and 12.8 million lead service lines nationwide, but that’s not a precise figure and doesn’t identify the whereabouts of lead pipes in every community.
While some utilities operate mains that contain lead and are working to replace those, other utilities only know that their water flows through lead service lines, not where they are. Agencies need to map the lines to take action, adding time to the process.
“There’s certainly a benefit to being careful and using the data you have available [and] identifying where the lead lines are,” said Dan Hartnett of the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies.
Usually, in order to receive money from the DWSRF, the state must provide a 20 percent match. The IIJA does not require a state match to access the $15 billion to replace service lines. For the nearly $12 billion that goes through the revolving fund, the IIJA reduced the state match to 10 percent for the first two years.
Betanzo found that in the first allotment, states with the most lead lines received the least amount of money. Ohio, which has approximately 650,000 lead lines, received just about $100 per line. This is compared to Hawaii, which received $10,000 per line, despite only having about 3,000 lines. While there is time for this to be corrected within the five years, it’s another hurdle.
In response, the EPA points out that the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) requires that funds from the DWSRF get distributed based on the Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey and Assessment. The EPA expects to release the seventh assessment in 2023, and it will be the first to include information on lead service lines, which will be used for the next allotment.
The EPA also points out that the SDWA allows for funds to be reapportioned. “Under this reallotment process, EPA expects more lead service line funds to flow to states with more lead service line projects over time,” EPA spokesperson Robert Daguillard said over email.
As Denver Water’s story illustrates, replacing part of a water line that contains lead continues the contamination. The IIJA combats this by only allowing states to access the $15 billion if they have a plan to replace the entire lead pipe, unless a portion has already been replaced, or the utility is planning to replace it through other funding.
However, Neltner said that the EPA does not seem to be enforcing this requirement on the additional $12 billion allocated for the state revolving funds, which are usually used to replace water mains. There is a concern that “some states are allowing utilities to conduct harmful partial lead service line replacements where the resident is unable to pay to replace the portion on their property,” Neltner said.
Bureaucracy moves slow, and change moves slower. Neltner sees the IIJA investment “as a critical down payment toward President Biden’s goal of eliminating lead service lines.”
It is not easy to appreciate the full suite of actions a utility has to take in order to replace a lead service line. From planning and mapping to replacing the lines, agencies and communities are being asked to take on a momentous task, one that will surely take more than five years. And if the money is not used efficiently, the progress that could be made may still fall short.
