Workers remove a lead service line before it’s replaced by a brass one in Providence, R.I., last year. A new federal rule will require water systems across the country to replace roughly 9 million lead service lines to protect residents from potential poisoning. (Kevin G. Andrade | Rhode Island Current)
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.
“It took us close to 100 years to get all of these lead service lines in the ground, and the EPA is asking us to get them out in 10 years,” said Tom Dobbins, CEO of the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies, an advocacy group for publicly owned water systems. “The [Biden] administration grossly underestimated the cost. Obviously, if the federal government doesn’t provide the funding for this, the ratepayers will have to pay for this. That exacerbates certain communities’ affordability issues.”
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.
While no amount of lead exposure is safe, the federal rule now requires utilities to notify the public and improve corrosion treatment if lead in their water exceeds 10 parts per billion. Some homes in Syracuse, New York, recently tested at 70 parts per billion.
“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.
Olson said President-elect Donald Trump, who has pledged to roll back many environmental regulations, would have a difficult time undoing the lead rule. A provision in the Safe Drinking Water Act prevents “backsliding” for federal protections, he said, and efforts to overturn the rule through Congress could prove deeply unpopular.
Money worries
The federal mandate comes after some states, including Illinois, Michigan, and New Jersey, already issued their own lead replacement requirements and directed funding to their hardest-hit communities.
“It’s a challenging goal, but I think we’ve shown it’s achievable,” said Eric Oswald, director of the Drinking Water and Environmental Health Division in the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy. “I’m trying to make Michigan the first state to remove all lead service lines.”
The federal rule will accelerate Michigan’s timeline, as state regulations gave utilities a 20-year replacement window. But the initial state requirement has given water systems there a head start. Michigan has somewhere between 300,000 and 500,000 service lines, of which it’s replaced about 50,000 so far. Oswald acknowledged that the work will be expensive.
In New Jersey, water utilities have replaced more than 25,000 service lines since a state lead law was passed in 2021 (that figure does not include a previous effort that replaced 23,000 pipes in Newark). But the state still has more than 120,000 lead service lines, which it said will cost at least $1.8 billion to replace.
“There’s nothing yet that has made me think that it’s not achievable, but right now the focus has been on getting a good inventory,” said Trish Ingelido, director of water supply and geoscience at the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. “We’ll have a better sense in the next two years what the replacement rate is looking like.”
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 EPA contends that replacement costs will be affordable. It estimates that household-level costs associated with the rule will range from 10 cents to $10 a month. The agency pointed to the success of states such as Michigan and New Jersey, which have already replaced tens of thousands of pipes, as evidence that the 10-year timeline is achievable. Federal officials argue that the market will correct for any shortages of labor and material that some states fear will slow the work.
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.
So far, the EPA says it has distributed $9 billion of the money targeted at service line replacements, enough to change out up to 1.7 million pipes. But many water systems are still working to inventory their lead pipes, leaving them little time to compete for the federal funding that expires in 2026.
“[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
At the local level, leaders are scrounging for funding as best they can.
“We’re looking at federal money, we’re looking at bonds, we’re looking at different loans and grants,” said Randy Conner, commissioner of the Chicago Department of Water Management. “We’re making sure we turn over all the couch cushions to find every quarter we can possibly find to put towards this effort.”
Chicago has an estimated 400,000 lead pipes, more than any other U.S. city. Because of the sheer scale of the problem, the EPA gave Chicago an extended deadline of 20 years to replace its lines. Even so, that would require pulling out 19,000 lines a year, well more than the city’s current pace of 8,000. That work will cost about $780 million annually, according to city officials.
Conner said the city is hoping for more federal and state support to avoid placing a heavy burden on ratepayers.
Meanwhile, 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.
“The limiting factor is going to be the availability of contractors and professionals and materials to do the actual work,” said Robert Boos, executive director of the Pennsylvania Infrastructure Investment Authority. “That’s going to be a national issue, when you’ve got tens of thousands of communities trying to do this work.”
Pennsylvania has boosted clean water funding in its state budget, and it’s trying to tackle the workforce issue as well. Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro signed an executive order in 2023 to create a workforce training program for infrastructure jobs, including lead pipe replacement.
Olson, the environmental advocate, pointed to Newark, New Jersey, which partnered with a labor union to train local residents. The city replaced all of its 23,000 lead service lines in just over two years.
“Creative thinking and political will are really what’s needed,” he said. “This is definitely doable.”
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.
“People just don’t trust government; they don’t think that anything is free,” said Conner, the Chicago official. “We want them to understand that we’re not coming into their house to give citations.”
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.”
He pointed to Michigan, which adopted a rule specifying that water systems are responsible for the costs of replacing lines. He also noted that some cities have passed ordinances allowing residents of a home to authorize pipe replacement if a landlord can’t be reached.
This story was originally published by Stateline, which like the New Hampshire Bulletin is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity.