Requiring LSL Replacement When 

Opportunities Arise

• The Need
• State Examples      
• Local Examples
• Opportunities                                

<

>

​The most straightforward means to accelerate lead service line (LSL) replacement is to mandate it to happen. State and local governments could require utilities or property owners to replace LSLs either on a schedule or when an opportunity arises. Opportunities vary based on the use of the property but examples include:

• Operating licenses for food service or child care are renewed;
• Registries of rental property are renewed;
• Property is sold;
• Service line is leaking;
• Buildings are demolished and replace or substantially rehabilitated; or
• Service line is disturbed by nearby construction on the property such as repairing sewer lines, digging drainage ditches, rehabilitating streets, or removing trees.

​Federal and state legislatures have the general authority to impose mandates on utilities and property owners regarding LSLs where they determine that public health and safety is threatened or there is a public nuisance. Depending on state law, local government may also have the authority.
 
Generally, mandates to private property owners are difficult to adopt and even more difficult to enforce, especially for owner-occupied housing. They are most effective when coupled with other support such as education, ease of implementation, funding, or the issuance of a permit or license. Examples of a multi-layered approach include mandates to wear seat belts and to install a working carbon monoxide and smoke alarm.

• In 2016, California enacted SB-1398 that requires public water systems to provide the state water board:
  • By July 2018, an inventory of known LSLs in use in its distribution system, a timeline to replace these lines, and identified areas that may have LSLs in use. 
  • By July 2020, for those areas that may have LSLs, a determination of the existence or absence of LSLs in the distribution system and a timeline to replace service lines whose content cannot be determined. 
  • The California Water Board must approve or deny the utility’s timeline within 30 days of receipt. If it misses the deadline, the timeline is approved. If denied, the Board and the utility must develop a compromise timeline within 30 days. The requirements only apply to a “user service line” which connects the water main to an individual water meter or service connection. This term may not include the portion of the LSL on private property.​​

• In 2016, the Governor of Washington issued a directive to the state department of health ordering it to prioritize the removal of LSLs and other lead components in water distribution systems when considering a funding proposed through the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund. 
• In June 2018, Michigan filed rules overhauling the state’s Lead and Copper Rule to accelerate LSL replacement. The rules require full LSL replacement in addition to replacement of galvanized steel lines downstream of a lead pipe, with special provisions for emergency repairs. Community Water Systems must achieve replacement on a schedule averaging 5% per year starting in 2021 totaling not more than 20 years for replacement of all LSLs – unless the system has an alternative plan approved by the state. 

For additional examples of state and community initiatives: 

• Environmental Defense Fund: Recognition of community and state LSL replacement programs

• New York City’s Code at Title 15 Chapter 20-03 Section 20.03(s) requires that a new service pipe must be installed where more than one-half of an existing service pipe is in need of a repair or when any repairs are required and the existing service pipe is lead, galvanized steel or galvanized iron. 
• In 1986, the City of Woonsocket, Rhode Island adopted a policy that builders must replace LSLs when a building is sold, demolished or replaced. The City checks whether the replacement has happened after the building pays a fee to resume the drinking water use.
• In 2000, Madison’s Common Council passed Ordinance 13.18 requiring inspection of all water services on private property within the Madison Water Utility and replacement of any LSL discovered. 
• In 2015, Kewaunee, Wisconsin adopted Ordinance 569-15 requiring replacement of LSLs on private property when discovered during water system reconstruction. The utility has the authority to discontinue water service 30 days after giving notice to the homeowner if they do not replace an LSL on private property within 18 months of discovery.       
• In 2016, Green Bay passed an ordinance modifying the City Code and requiring replacement of all LSLs in the water system and prohibiting partial LSL replacements. The city established a schedule to prioritize certain property types for replacement and set a deadline of December 31, 2025 for replacement of all LSLs on private property. The penalty for noncompliance is $50-1,000 per day. 
• In 2016, the Milwaukee Common Council issued an ordinance requiring the replacement of LSLs on private property under several common circumstances and provides stipulations on public funds for such replacements. The penalty for a violation is $100 per day. 
• In 2016, Waterloo passed Ordinance 2016-04 requiring inspection of service line material and replacement of any LSL discovered on private property. If a homeowner does not replace the LSL within 90 days of notification, the utility has the authority to discontinue water service and the property owner could be charged $10-500. 
• In 2017, Two Rivers, Wisconsin adopted Ordinance 5-1-8 requiring replacement of LSLs on private property when discovered during water main replacements. The utility has the authority to discontinue water service 30 days after giving notice to the homeowner if they do not replace an LSL on private property within 90 days of discovery.       
• In 2017, the Fond du Lac City Council (Wisconsin) passed Ordinance 3629 mandating replacement of LSLs on private property if a leak or failure is discovery in the pipe or if the side on public property is replaced during planned or emergency work. The penalty for noncompliance is $5-5,000.
• In 2017, Oshkosh, Wisconsin updated its Municipal Code with Section 20-13 requiring replacement of LSLs and replacement if any portion of an LSL is repaired or replaced within 180 days. The penalty for noncompliance is $75-500. 
• In 2017, the Cincinnati City Council passed an ordinance that prohibits existing LSLs as of June 2017 but provides a grace period. Property owners only need to take action to remove the LSL when given written notice with a minimum of 30 days. In addition, full replacement is required when an LSL is discovered during planned water main replacement projects, is leaking, or if it is disturbed for any other reason. Cincinnati also offers financial assistance and property assessments to assist property owners to replace lead lines.
  
• Ames, Iowa passed two ordinances in November 2017 requiring full LSL replacement when a service line containing lead develops a leak (at the cost of the property owner) and when discovered during water main replacement (at the cost of the water utility).
• In April 2018, Kenosha’s city council adopted Rule 06-06 requiring the replacement of all existing LSLs in the water system, banning partial LSL replacements, and creating a financial assistance program for customer-side LSL replacements – subject to approval by the Wisconsin Public Service Commission (PSC).
• In October 2018, the Menasha Common Council and Menasha Utilities approved a joint resolution recommending a goal of replacing all lead and galvanized service lines remaining in the city within 10 years.
• In January 2019, the Washington, DC City Council passed a new law requiring that, if a property owner requests an LSL replacement on private property, DC Water must coordinate with the contractor to also replace the portion of the LSL on public property. Property owners are only expected to finance the cost of replacement on private property.

For additional examples of state and community initiatives: 

• Environmental Defense Fund: Recognition of community and state LSL replacement programs

Opportunities to support efforts include:

• State health, building, or environmental agencies could pass laws mandating  replacement of LSLs as a condition of service.  These conditions could require full LSL replacement:
  • Where significant numbers of children or pregnant women may be exposed, such as childcare centers, schools, health clinics, and apartment buildings.
  • If the line leaks, is disturbed or damaged, or if they find that the activity poses a threat of public health and safety or is a public nuisance.
  • If the structure connected to the service line is substantially remodeled.
  • Where the property is being sold.
• Municipalities in home-rule locations could pass laws revising the plumbing code or implementing rules mandating replacement of the entire service line in the event of any change of ownership or in the event of any leak or fault in the existing LSL.
• The International Code Council could revised the International Plumbing Code, a model code used in 35 states, to provide standardized language to help states and localities adopt effective LSL replacement requirements.
• The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and the Department of Agriculture (USDA) could require LSL replacement when investing in a property.
• The Departments of Defense and Interior could require LSL replacement on property they own.
• The Federal Housing Administration (FHA) or Federal Housing Finance Administration (FHFA) could recognize that LSLs reduce property values and homeowner’s ability to repay loans and require that LSLs be removed as a condition to insuring homeowner mortgages.
• States could also make LSL replacement a requirement in their Qualified Allocation Plan (QAP). These plans enable redevelopers to be eligible for Low Income Housing Tax Credit from the Internal Revenue Service.
• The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) could act under Section 6 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) if it determines that the lead in LSLs present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment. If the agency concludes there is an unreasonable risk, it must set standards so the lead no longer presents such a risk. Setting these standards is a complicated, resource-intensive, and time-consuming process, but provides national uniformity. Note that TSCA was significantly revised in 2016 and there are questions whether or how it applies to products already in use.