The Biden administration’s requirement that all lead service lines be replaced within the next 10 years could cost far more than the agency estimated and dump costs on households, water associations told the Washington Examiner.
The Environmental Protection Agency‘s rule, finalized last week, is meant to ensure clean and safe drinking water, as water tainted by lead has been linked to illness, including premature deaths. The requirement is intended to prevent public health crises, such as the one that befell Flint, Michigan, a decade ago.
The EPA estimated that up to 9 million homes have lead pipes. To implement the regulation, the EPA estimated costs will total between $1.47 billion and $1.95 billion per year. According to the agency, the costs include completing service line replacement, improving lead and copper tap sampling, adding new or improved corrosion control treatment, making lead filters available, and providing public education. It also includes the cost of the rule’s implementation for primary agencies, water systems, states, tribes, and wastewater treatment.
The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law provided $50 billion to upgrade the nation’s drinking water and wastewater infrastructure, which will help utilities comply with the rule. The funding includes $15 billion over five years to replace lead service lines and $11.7 billion from the Drinking Water State Revolving Funds that can also be used for lead service line replacement.
Yet water associations claim the EPA underestimated the cost it would take to comply with the rule. Dan Hartnett, the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies chief policy officer, said the association expects the EPA rules to be an “expensive endeavor,” with costs likely to fall on consumers.
Last week, the American Water Works Association estimated that the cost of replacing all lead service lines nationwide could be more than $90 billion, adding that consumers would be burdened with higher water bills.
Hartnett said the gap between his group’s estimated cost and the EPA’s will have to be “filled by ratepayers if more federal money doesn’t come through.”
Typically, a public water system infrastructure project is paid for by local water ratepayers. Federal assistance programs exist, but they usually take the form of loans.
Kristina Surfus, managing director of Government Affairs at the National Association of Clean Water Agencies, also said consumers may have to pay more for drinking water.
“If there is a significant shortfall or significant difference between EPA’s estimate and what the industry is saying, that is going to be borne by customers,” she said.
The rule itself is an “important goal,” Surfus said, “we just want to make sure it’s implemented in a way that utilities succeed and get the lead out.”
“We’re just really concerned about collective costs,” she added.
In response to a request for comment, the EPA referred to the cost-benefit analysis of the rule and noted the federal funding available to replace lead pipes. It also said the agency “strongly encourages water systems to offer customer-side service line replacement at no direct cost to the customer.”
New Mexico’s Environment Department Drinking Water Bureau Chief Joe Martinez said the funding is a “good start” and applauded the EPA for providing money to help localities fulfill the Biden administration’s goals. Still, Martinez noted that the department would have a better sense of whether the funding was enough once it had the exact number of lead pipelines in the state.
He added that if some communities find a lot of lead pipes, they might need to contract with companies to help replace those lines.
Martinez said, “We don’t know the ultimate cost,” but the department is hopeful that federal funding will help cover it.
“At the end of the day, it is a challenge for state agencies and programs like ours,” he said. “But we do this to try and help protect public health, and we have a lot of committed staff that are willing to put in the work to make sure that it gets done.”