Funding is Imperative for Lead Service Line Replacement in NYS
More than a decade ago, the public health disaster in Flint, Michigan woke up the country to the lingering danger of lead-contaminated water lines. Lead from old pipes leached into the city’s drinking water, sickening residents and leading to long-term health problems for many.
That was 2014. Just last year, Flint finished replacing all of its lead pipes. For municipalities in New York, that work is only beginning.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is requiring all states to remove their lead-contaminated water lines by 2037. In New York State alone, there are an estimated 500,000 such lines. In order to meet this EPA deadline, our state would have to replace more than 41,000 lines per year over the next 12 years, at an annual cost of more than $400 million.
This problem is close to home for me. In my own district, the cities of Newburgh and Poughkeepsie have aging water systems with thousands of contaminated water lines. I know this story is repeated across the state. Removing these lines takes money and effort, but it’s not optional.
So what do we do about it?
As chair of the Assembly Oversight, Analysis and Investigation Committee, I launched an investigation into the replacement of lead service lines in the state. I am joined in this investigation by the Environmental Conservation Committee, chaired by Assemblymember Deborah Glick (D-66), and the Health Committee, chaired by Assemblymember Amy Paulin (D-88).
As part of the investigation, we recently held a hearing in Albany to find out why, with state and federal funding available to remove these lines, is so little of that money reaching the municipalities that need it?
To date, New York State has awarded only about $200 million of state money (of which $160 million was for loan principle forgiveness), along with $340 million of federal money, for inventory and water line removal. Of the federal money awarded, just $60 million has made it to the funding agreement stage and actually been received by municipalities. Only $5 million from the $4.2-billion Environmental Bond Act has been distributed for this purpose.
In 2017, New York State established the Lead Service Line Replacement Program (LSLRP) to facilitate the process. But this under-funded program (of about $30 million) resulted in less than 3,600 lines replaced statewide. As it now stands, the state currently has no plan to ramp up spending to meet the deadline.
The hearing put my concerns into sharper focus. Over several hours of testimony from state agencies, city officials, and environmental experts, I learned that many municipalities, especially smaller or economically challenged ones, often lack the capacity to apply for grants, prepare engineering reports, or pay the up-front costs to qualify for state reimbursements.
For example, as Kingston Mayor Steve Noble explained: “I have an entire Grants Management Department of two full-time people, as well as multiple project managers who are able to focus and understand each and every one of these State programs.” He also pointed out that the required engineering report can cost a minimum of $50,000. And with all this, municipalities don’t know if they’ll get a grant, a loan, or a mix of both — making budget planning more difficult.
Municipalities also struggle with the funding application’s cryptic “points system,” and the approval process can seem subjective.
My home city of Newburgh has replaced more than 250 lines total, including 76 lines with about $543,000 in funding from the now-defunct LSLRP, and the rest from money it secured on its own, including through the American Rescue Plan. The city allocated more than $1.6 million to survey, catalog, and replace their lead service lines, including nearly $600,000 to purchase a Vac-Con Hydro Excavator to conduct a complete lead service line inventory. The written testimony from City engineer Jason Morris put the situation in stark terms: “The programs as designed — fragmented, reimbursement-based, administratively intensive, and out of step with small-city capacity — cannot scale to the level required.”
This opaque process and patchwork of funding is a challenge — if not an impossibility — for smaller municipalities with fewer staff resources. If the LSLRP hasn’t been effective, and the current funding process is hard to navigate, the goal must be to put in place a program that works for everyone.
Governor Hochul recently set aside approximately $66 million in grants to replace lead service lines under the Lead Infrastructure Forgiveness and Transformation (LIFT) program. But these grants can only be provided to municipalities that have already successfully received loans for lead line removal, and it represents only a fraction of the annual need statewide. These grants are only for loan forgiveness, meaning they do not add additional money for this purpose, and there is no requirement for municipalities to increase the amount of money they are spending on removal of lead-contaminated lines upon receiving this grant.
I have repeatedly requested additional money for lead service line replacement as a line item in the annual State budget. This year, I’m asking for $500 million — because the situation is that serious, and 2037 will be here sooner than we think.
Even low levels of lead exposure are linked to a range of serious health issues, including developmental and neurological disorders, high blood pressure, and reproductive risks. Lead impedes brain development in children, and the risk is particularly high for infants. No one questions the science. But we have to ask why we aren’t making full use of the funding that’s out there.
Put another way: Why is there a sense of scarcity when it comes to funding? The process of getting money should not be a version of the Hunger Games, pitting one municipality against another in a deadly competition. These lead-contaminated lines remain in use, threatening public health, until they are replaced.
Even when money has been allocated, there is no agency oversight or follow-up on how the money was spent. Costs range wildly, from $5,000 to $23,000 per line, and there is no guidance for municipalities on how to control these costs. There is also no account of how many lines have been eliminated and how many remain.
Let me be clear: I am not accusing any agencies of bad faith in their actions to meet this crisis. But based on what we have learned so far, I have no faith in the State’s ability to meet the 2037 deadline.
POSSIBLE REFORMS
The Department of Health, Environmental Facilities Corporation, and other agencies must help municipalities qualify for funding. They should instruct municipalities on best practices — not only for getting funding approval, but also for securing funding agreements to cut down on delays.
More broadly, the Department of Health and other agencies should make it their business to understand what municipalities need to get this critical work done, whether it’s application assistance, planning guidance, engineering expertise, or administrative support. And we in the Legislature must set the conditions to make this assistance possible.
The State must also track progress. If an unrelated water project is completed that includes the replacement of lead lines, the State should know. If we don’t know how many contaminated water lines have been replaced and how many remain, how do we effectively tackle this problem?
To fund this statewide effort, I’m proposing changes to existing programs that would restructure the defunct LSLRP program, and make it more in-line with how the State funds road construction. Like the popular Consolidated Local Street and Highway Improvement Program (CHIPS) and similar funding mechanisms, I am proposing a non-competitive reimbursement system. Instead of focusing on applications for limited funding before the work is done, the state would reimburse municipalities after they provide proof that lead-contaminated lines have been removed and replaced. Municipalities would also need to certify the direct costs they incurred. The reimbursement rate would be capped at $10,000 per line, plus interest on any loans that the municipality took out to fund the removal and replacement of these contaminated lines. The key difference here is that it would be a non-competitive process that doesn’t force municipalities into a zero-sum game for funding. All municipalities who paid to replace lead lines would be reimbursed by the State under this program, once they submitted proof of completion and spending.
This is a massive and critical undertaking that impacts public health. The State must have a plan to fund it. We cannot hope for a silver bullet of money from Washington. We need major reforms and a sense of urgency. I was heartened to hear the Governor mention this issue in her State of the State address.
Municipalities must also realize the seriousness of this problem and the deadline they all face.
Meanwhile, our job in the Legislature is to help forge a path that gets us to the finish line on time. The committee will issue a report identifying chokepoints in the process and recommending strategies to accelerate lead line replacement across the state.
We can’t let another generation of children drink water from these contaminated lines.
Jonathan Jacobson represents Assembly District 104 in the New York State Legislature.
