State SRF Policies to help Communities Fully Take Up the new Federal Funding for Lead Service Line Replacement
By Janet Pritchard, Senior Water Law & Policy Analyst for EPIC focusing on state SRF policies
This blog outlines three strategies states can adopt to make it easier for communities to take up the federal funding for lead service line replacement (LSLR) made available through the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), also known as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.
*The federal funds are distributed to local communities through State Revolving Fund (SRF) programs administered by the states.
By strategically channeling support for LSLR-related activities through set-aside funds as allowed by federal law, states can (1) lay foundations to enable more equitable, expeditious, and cost-efficient lead service line replacement and (2) provide more attractive SRF awards for LSLR construction projects that require water systems (and their ratepayers) to pay back a smaller proportion of project costs.
By offering zero-interest, forty-year terms on loans for LSLR projects, states can reduce the repayment burden for the portion of funds that water ratepayers will need to repay.
By aligning the scale and timing of LSLR project awards to support multi-year project planning, states can help local water systems to (1) manage project costs and (2) help ensure that the LSLR funds deliver quality local jobs, as envisioned by the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.
IIJA provides a welcome influx of federal funding to help replace toxic lead service lines.
The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act appropriates $15 billion to help communities identify and replace toxic lead pipes. Although insufficient to fully meet the need, this is a substantial pot of funds to advance the urgent task of removing lead, a dangerous neurotoxin, from water distribution systems. The funds will be distributed through the Drinking Water State Revolving Funds (DWSRFs).
To access the full amount of funds available for grants or principal forgiveness, a state must utilize a roughly equal amount for repayable loans, technical assistance, administration, and/or local capacity building.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) allocates the LSLR funds to states in accordance with an allotment formula. The state allotment is called a federal capitalization grant. To access the full LSLR grant allocated to it, each state must provide 49 percent of the federal funds in the form of grants or forgivable loans (also referred to as principal forgiveness) to state-defined disadvantaged communities. The remaining 51 percent of the LSLR grant must be provided to communities as repayable loans or, alternatively, can be set aside and used for administration, technical assistance, state program management, and/or local capacity building related to lead service line replacement. States need to strictly adhere to this 49:51 percent ratio. That is, states can only utilize the 49 percent of the funds available for grants or forgivable loans if they are also able to use the remaining 51 percent for repayable loans and set-asides.
Many communities are reluctant to borrow funds for lead service line replacement
Notwithstanding the urgent need to replace toxic lead service lines, many communities are reluctant to borrow a substantial portion of the funds required to replace lead service lines (LSLs). To the extent that water systems need to borrow funds for water infrastructure, they may feel compelled to prioritize projects needed to remain compliant with federal and state drinking water regulations. Even though studies indicate that there is no safe level of exposure to lead, there are currently no state or federal requirements for water systems to replace LSLs unless tap water monitoring triggers the federal Lead and Copper Rule’s lead action level of 15μg/L.
The vast majority of the costs for building and upgrading water infrastructure are either paid for directly out of ratepayer revenues or financed with SRF loans or municipal bonds which are, in turn, repaid by ratepayers. Without a broader legal requirement to replace all LSLs, some drinking water systems are reluctant to take on loans for LSLR projects that would need to be repaid by the system’s ratepayers. Others may be committed to removing this environmental hazard but already face substantial debt burdens and will struggle to take on more debt.
The good news, however, is that states can reduce the repayment burden borne by local drinking water systems and their ratepayers for LSLR projects by implementing the strategies discussed here.
Further good news is that several states are already implementing one or more of these strategies. Moreover, EPA, state policymakers, local water system administrators, frontline communities, and environmental advocates can all take steps to further encourage more widespread deployment of these strategies.
1. States should maximize the strategic use of set-asides from their LSLR grants
Federal law allows states to set aside up to 26%** of their IIJA LSLR grants under the following categories:
Administration and technical assistance (4% of federal grant)
Small System (<10,000) Technical Assistance (2% of federal grant)
State Program Management (10% of federal grant)
Local capacity development(10% of federal grant).
Maximizing the use of LSLR set-asides would improve the loan-to-principal forgiveness ratio for LSLR project awards.
Instead of issuing $51 in repayable loans out of every $100 from the state LSLR allotment in order to access the remaining $49 available for principal forgiveness, maximizing set-asides would result in the following:
$26 of every $100 channeled through set asides to help update LSL inventories and other activities that lay the foundation for more equitable, cost-effective, and expeditious LSLR projects. Local communities receive the benefit of these expenditures, but do not need to repay these costs.
$49 of every $100 awarded as principal forgiveness or grants for LSLR projects.
$25 of every $100 awarded as SRF loans that need to be repaid.
The improved loan-to-principal forgiveness ratio makes SRF awards for LSLR construction projects more attractive and affordable for lead-burdened communities to take up.
LSLR funds should only be set-aside to support activities that will help to achieve the replacement of LSLs in the most expedient, cost-efficient, and equitable manner.
Set aside funds should only be used for activities that would significantly advance one or more of the following objectives:
Build public understanding of the importance of replacing LSLs and and enlist property owners’ and residents’ cooperation to ensure LSLR projects progress smoothly.
Help water systems to plan for LSLR projects.
Develop a local workforce for LSLR projects.
Enable more equitable, cost-efficient, expeditious LSLR projects.
Where LSL inventory updates are needed, states should first utilize set-aside funds to meet this need, reserving LSLR project award funds for construction projects to replace LSLs.
There are an estimated six to ten million lead pipes across over 11,000 communities in the US, but many places lack water system-level inventories of LSLs and this lack of information can lead to inertia, lack of acknowledgement that lead pipes are a problem, and a failure to secure available funding to remove LSLs. LSL inventories help communities to fully understand the scope of the problem, set tangible goals, put together a financial plan, and incorporate the issue into the political agenda. Moreover, the Lead and Copper Rule Revisions require that all water systems complete LSL inventory by October 16, 2024.
As emphasized in EPIC’s recent guide to replacing the nation’s toxic lead pipes over the next decade, From the Ground Up, it is important to not only locate and map LSLs quickly, but also replace as you go. New and emerging technologies are available to estimate, locate, and map lead lines, as EPIC has highlighted in two recent reports. In some cases, technology companies have grants to offer these tools free to municipalities, or are developing open-source tools, but municipalities may still need guidance and technical assistance to access and utilize these tools, which the state could provide using set-asides.
EPA has urged states to use LSLR set-aside funds to complete LSL inventories. States can use set-asides to provide technical assistance to local water systems to help them identify LSLs. For example, Indiana, Wisconsin, and Ohio are all planning to use LSLR set-asides in this way. States can also use set-asides to support measures to standardize LSL inventories and create a central and publicly accessible database to trace LSL replacements statewide, as Indiana is planning to do.
Where LSL inventories need to be updated, states should first utilize LSLR set-asides before drawing on other funds that could instead be used for LSL replacement projects. The rationale for doing so is two-fold: (1) communities will not need to repay set-aside funds used to support inventory work and (2) the SRF awards for LSLR construction projects will have a more attractive loan-to-principal forgiveness ratio, as explained above. Thus, communities benefit twice over if set-asides, and not SRF project awards, are used for inventory work.
Other LSLR-related activities that could be supported by LSLR set-aside funds include
LSLR program administration by the agency(ies) responsible for the state’s DWSRF
development of online dashboards to track LSLR progress
engineering and other project planning costs for small systems
state implementation of the federal Lead and Copper Rule
public outreach and education, including obtaining permission and meter access from property owners needed to complete lead service line replacement
non-routine monitoring of lead in tap water
technical assistance to expedite more cost-efficient and equitable neighborhood-scale LSLR projects by eliminating private cost-shares
region-wide workforce development and joint procurement efforts
coordination of LSLR projects with projects to replace leaky sewer laterals in the same neighborhoods
wage supports for apprentice laborers on LSLR projects
These options are described in the box text at the end of this post, followed by a table that clarifies the set-aside categories that could be used for each type of activity described.
2. States should provide zero-interest, forty-year terms on SRF loans for LSLR projects.
Even where states maximize the use of LSLR set-asides to improve the loan-to-principal forgiveness for LSLR project awards, almost all communities seeking SRF funds for LSLR projects will still need to repay at least a portion of the funds awarded. To the extent that it is still necessary for communities to incur debt to ramp up the replacement of toxic lead pipes, states should offer zero interest on loans awarded for LSLR projects and also provide extended repayment periods, particularly for disadvantaged communities. Several states, including Indiana and Ohio, are already doing so. Such terms ease the repayment burden and make it easier for drinking water systems to take on loans for LSLR projects.
3. States should align the timing and scale of LSLR awards to enable multi-year planning in line with equitable workforce development and supply chain logistics.
Understanding the logistics of local budgeting and procurement, material supply chains, contractor capacity, and workforce development required to scale up LSLR, and aligning the timing and scale of SRF awards for LSLR projects with these logistics, can help enable the acceleration of LSL replacement that we need to see.
Typically, a water system applying for SRF assistance for lead service line replacement receives an award to replace a specified number of LSLs within the state fiscal year following the award. Then, if more LSLs still remain, another SRF award could be pursued in a subsequent year for another set of LSLs to be replaced, and the cycle repeated until all LSLs are replaced. For large drinking water systems that have thousands – or tens of thousands – of LSLs to replace, it would be beneficial for the system to obtain a larger SRF award to replace a larger set of LSLs over sequential years. This would enable water systems to more confidently engage in multi-year project planning, to better manage supply chain risks and more economically procure supplies needed for LSLR projects, and to contract for larger, multi-year LSLR projects. Larger, multi-year LSLR contracts will, in turn, give water infrastructure contractors the longer-view security they need to make the equipment and workforce investments needed to take on LSLR projects, including building apprenticeships into their labor force for LSLR projects. Systematic, neighborhood-scale, multi-year contracts to replace hundreds – or thousands – of LSLs each year provide better circumstances for training apprentice craft construction laborers, plumbers, and operating engineers needed to do this work. Greater security of funding to replace a larger number of projects over a few years would also enable cities with thousands of LSLs to explore innovative contracting and procurement arrangements to further reduce LSLR costs.
In response to such concerns raised by water utilities and advocates seeking to maximize the potential for IIJA’s LSLR funds to accelerate lead service line replacement and employ local workers, Wisconsin SRF administrators clarified in LSLR amendments to the state’s DWSRF IUP that flat caps would not be imposed on SRF awards from the LSLR funds, enabling the potential for larger awards to be issued each funding cycle. State administrators also clarified that applicants can plan to use SRF awards for LSLR over a series of years and still apply for additional LSLR awards in subsequent years, so long as they are making sufficient progress using the funds previously awarded. This creates the potential for water systems to obtain overlapping SRF awards financing LSLR projects to be built over a series of years to enable longer-term planning and related cost efficiencies and workforce benefits.
Smaller water systems serving small towns with relatively few LSLs could also benefit from arrangements that allow for the planning and contracting of larger, multi-year LSLR projects. Coordination across neighboring small communities to self-aggregate for joint procurement of larger, multi-year LSLR projects, framed with an understanding of local contractor capacities and workforce development needs, can bring the same workforce development benefits and cost efficiencies to smaller water systems and communities in more rural parts of the state. Regional strategies aimed at combining the technical, managerial, and financial capabilities of small water systems across a region to achieve greater economies of scale is something SRF programs in most states have generally sought to encourage and incentivize. Similar regional collaboration should be pursued for LSLR, to ensure more expedient and cost-efficient LSLR projects that deliver greater workforce development benefits for local communities.
Of course, municipalities with relatively few LSLs (<500) should still aim to replace all their lead pipes within a single construction season. However, drinking water systems – or regional cohorts – with thousands of LSLs to replace will likely need several years to complete the job in any case, and so states should adopt policies that provide funding security to enable multi-year LSLR to proceed most cost-efficiently and with greater co-benefits for local communities.
Potential Uses of LSLR Set-Aside Funds
State LSLR program administration
To utilize the new federal funding for LSLR, state SRF administrators need to define policies to determine how those funds will be spent, educate potential funding applicants about those policies, solicit and review applications for funding, and develop and implement work programs for set-aside funds, among other tasks. States can set aside up to 4 percent of their LSLR grant for program administration.
Online dashboards to track LSL replacement progress
Converting LSL inventory data to public-facing, online dashboards would enable residents to check whether their drinking water service line is made from lead, galvanized steel, unknown material, or confirmed as lead-free. Nearly 60 million Americans do not trust their drinking water and many have resorted to bottled water in recent years, especially since the Flint lead contamination crisis. Proactive, easily accessible information about the risk of exposure to lead in drinking water, the status of LSLs in the water system, and plans to replace them is important to build and maintain trust and to engage community support for and involvement in LSLR programs and projects.
Dashboards can be used by water systems to track and report LSLR project planning, scheduling, and completion. They can also provide an interface through which property owners provide permission to replace the private-side LSL as well as contact information for the person who can provide access to the water meter at the time the LSL is scheduled to be replaced. Obtaining permission and meter access on a timely basis is crucial to ensuring that LSLs can be replaced systematically and cost-effectively. Platteville, Newark, and Denver provide good examples of interactive online LSLR dashboards.
In many cases, paper records will need to be digitized to generate online dashboards. New technologies exist to speed up and make this process more affordable. There are also applications that utilities can use for their fieldwork that would automatically update LSLR dashboard databases in real time. Municipalities may require guidance and technical assistance to deploy these technologies, however, and set-asides can provide these resources.
Using DWSRF set-asides to enhance the data management systems and providing public access to water system data are well-established uses of DWSRF set-asides, including converting data to electronic recordkeeping and Geographic Information System (GIS) mapping.
Prioritization plans for LSL replacement
Large water systems with thousands of LSLs that need to be replaced may need more than one construction season to replace them all. This begs the question of which LSLs to replace first. Milwaukee, for example, needs to replace over 60,000 LSLs and has been collaborating with frontline community organizations working on lead service line replacement to develop a LSLR prioritization plan using the reported incidences of elevated blood lead levels, the Area Deprivation Index (an aggregate score of socioeconomic indicators of disadvantage), and the density of lead service lines as criteria. States could provide guidance and other technical assistance to help local communities determine how to ensure the equitable prioritization of LSLR projects.
Engineering and other project planning costs for systems serving fewer than 10,000 people
Funds set aside to provide technical assistance to systems serving communities smaller than 10,000 are routinely used to help small systems identify and plan water infrastructure projects eligible for DWSRF funding including a wide range of technical, financial, and managerial capacities such as engineering plans. States should take full advantage of the small-system set aside to help these systems complete LSL inventories and to identify and plan projects to replace identified LSLs.
State implementation of federal Lead and Copper Rule
States can set aside up to 10 percent of each DWSRF federal capitalization grant for State Program Management activities. This set-aside allowance from state LSLR grants can be used to support state implementation of the federal Lead and Copper Rule (LCR). For example, Wisconsin is using set-aside funds under this allowance to support several staff positions responsible for implementing the LCR.
Public outreach and education, including obtaining permission and meter access from property owners
The development of online dashboards described above could provide an important tool to educate water system customers about the need for and progress of lead service line replacement, and to obtain from property owners legal permission and contact information necessary to replace LSLs. But further efforts, including a public information campaign and door-to-door outreach, will likely be needed to secure permission and contact information for every LSL slated to be replaced as part of planned neighborhood-scale LSLR projects.
Securing signed documents from property owners that are required to replace LSLs can be cumbersome and time-consuming. Where difficulties obtaining permission are encountered, it can cause project delays and increase project costs. To overcome these problems, states should use LSLR set-asides to help drinking water utilities systematically educate the public about LSLR plans, engage residents, and secure the required authorization documents from property owners. Local community-based organizations or others skilled in engaging residents in prioritized communities should be employed to undertake outreach and education activities. Through neighborhood and system-wide efforts to obtain authorization from property owners well in advance (rather than pegging this task to the front of each LSLR project after funding for that specific project has been secured), projects can proceed more smoothly and cost-efficiently over the several years. Milwaukee’s drinking water utility and the Coalition on Lead Emergency, a coalition representing frontline communities and other advocates urging LSLR in Wisconsin, are working with state SRF administrators to define how LSLR set-asides could support community outreach and education to expedite cost-efficient LSLR projects. EPA confirmed in Appendix D of its March 2022 Memorandum on the Implementation of BIL funding for SRFs that LSLR set aside funds can be used to fund state staff and contractors to work on LSLR education and outreach.
Non-routine monitoring of lead in tap water
Although DWSRF set-asides cannot be used for routine water sampling, DWSRF set-asides for State Program Management can be used for special-purpose sampling efforts, including monitoring to establish a baseline understanding of a contaminant of concern. With increased public attention on the hazards posed by LSLs, and the opportunity to replace them using LSLR funds from IIJA, drinking water systems may be fielding more questions from customers about the safety of their tap water. Helping concerned customers to properly sample and test their tap water for lead could be an important way to build trust, particularly when coupled with information about safety measures pending LSL replacement such as the proper use of lead-safe water filters, and if homes where lead levels are higher than generally seen in the water system are identified (for example, above 5μg/L) are scheduled for expedited LSLR as emergency replacements. EPA confirmed in Appendix D of its March 2022 Memorandum on the Implementation of BIL funding for SRFs that LSLR set aside funds can be used for non-routine lead sampling (if not for compliance purposes).
Technical assistance to help eliminate private cost shares
Some states and cities have policies in place to charge all or part of the cost of replacing the LSL to the property owner. Such cost shares are inequitable because low-income homeowners may not be able to afford the cost-share. Moreover, cost shares can cause project delays when property owners resist authorizing LSL replacement to avoid the cost share. Such delays in lower-income communities, which are more likely to have a higher portion of rental properties, make LSLR projects more costly in the very same neighborhoods that need to be prioritized because residents in these neighborhoods are more likely to experience severe impacts from lead poisoning due to compounding social vulnerability factors.
Cities that have had the greatest success in systematically removing LSLs from their systems, such as Newark, report that eliminating cost shares coupled with the adoption of local ordinances allowing tenants, rather than landlords, to provide permission and meter access for LSLR, has been instrumental in reducing the cost-per-LSL for LSLR replacement, with cost savings of around 20 percent. The savings can be attributed not only to reduced administrative costs to secure authorizations from resistant property owners but also to the avoidance of project delays resulting from failure to obtain authorizations on a timely basis.
States could provide technical assistance to municipalities to help them identify and apply for other sources of funds to offset the need to charge LSLR costs to property owners. Technical assistance could help municipalities estimate the cost-per-LSL if they eliminate cost-share requirements, taking anticipated administrative and project savings into consideration, compared to keeping them. Finally, states could share examples and provide other technical assistance on the design and implementation of local ordinances allowing LSLR projects to move forward with the permission of building residents, without the need to obtain legal permission from the property owners.
Optimizing region-wide workforce development and joint procurement efforts
The promotion of regional collaboration across drinking water systems for capacity building and cost efficiencies is a priority for DWSRF programs in many states. Often this entails consolidation of failing water systems into neighboring systems with stronger technical, managerial, and/or financial capacities. It can also include other kinds of more issue-specific capacity sharing and cost-savings, however, and states have used various categories of DWSRF set aside funds to support such efforts.
In the LSLR context, regional efforts to understand local workforce capacities and constraints and to combine LSLR needs across several small- and medium-sized drinking water systems in a county or region could achieve significant cost savings and help to expedite LSLR. Regional efforts could include joint procurement of LSLR supplies and/or contractors as well as information and lesson sharing.
States could use set-aside funds to support regional roundtables convening relevant drinking water utility staff, community stakeholders and elected officials together with local water infrastructure contractors and workforce development agencies. These roundtables could ascertain the readiness and capacity needs of area contractors. With this information, water systems could self-aggregate to coordinate their procurement contracts for LSLR projects, perhaps larger, multi-year projects to bid out to regional contractors through joint procurement. This could encourage local contractors to build their workforce and other capacities in anticipation of more substantial work opportunities over a series of years. Joint procurement for larger LSLR projects could yield cost-efficiencies, too.
Similarly, neighboring small- and medium-sized municipalities might realize further cost-efficiencies if they coordinate the purchase and delivery of supplies needed for LSLR projects, particularly in light of global supply chain challenges and IIJA’s Build America-Buy America requirements.
Facilitating the coordinated replacement of LSLs and leaky sewer laterals
Another kind of cross-system collaboration states could promote and facilitate to achieve substantial cost savings for LSLR projects is collaboration across drinking water and sewerage systems serving the same service area. The homes in older neighborhoods served by LSLs are likely to also have sewer laterals that are 50 - 100 years old. These old pipes are likely to be leaky and subject to infiltration and inflow problems that overwhelm combined sewer systems and contribute to the pollution of local waterways. To address this problem, some sewerage systems have Private Property Infiltration and Inflow Reduction Programs to coordinate with local property owners to replace leaky sewer laterals. Because the replacement of LSLs and sewer laterals involve the same kind of work and the same kinds of contractors working on the same kinds of properties, coordination across sewer lateral replacement programs and LSLR programs should be encouraged to achieve substantial cost savings across both programs. Contractors engaged to replace both LSLRs and leaky sewer laterals in the same targeted neighborhoods will also be better positioned to utilize apprentices on these larger combined contracts.
Wage supports for apprentice laborers on LSLR projects
Equity requires that underserved communities that have been most severely impacted by the risk of exposure to lead poisoning through drinking water should also share in the economic benefits of drinking water infrastructure investments, including through access to the quality jobs generated by LSLR projects. One of the main mechanisms for building career pathways is through registered apprenticeship and pre-apprenticeship training programs. While apprentices add to the labor capacity of LSLR construction teams, by virtue of their relative inexperience they will be less efficient than fully qualified journeymen workers in fulfilling LSLR project tasks. One way to balance the added cost of apprentices on construction projects with the general desire to procure lower-cost contracts for construction needs, is to provide wage subsidies for apprentices engaged on LSLR construction contracts from a separate pool of funds.
States have used DWSRF set-asides to provide wage support for pre-apprenticeship and apprenticeship programs, but these have been for workers training to become Certified Operators of water treatment systems. For example, Indiana’s DWSRF program uses set-asides to support an Apprenticeship Program to support training for workers from disadvantaged communities for employment as Certified Operators for water systems, including wage subsidies during the training period. State and federal funds have also been deployed to provide wage subsidies for apprentices working on construction projects fulfilled by private contractors in other construction sectors, such as transportation. For example, the Wisconsin Department of Transportation’s Transportation Alliance for New Solutions (TrANS) program supports entry-level laborer positions for construction contractors, providing wage subsidies for apprentices employed by participating contractors to reimburse a portion of the extra cost incurred to take on apprentices for qualifying projects. Whether DWSRF set-asides could be used for a program like TrANS, which supports apprentices training to be employed by private water infrastructure contractors is an open question.
There is no question that a sufficient number of sufficiently qualified workers to construct LSLR projects is crucial to dramatically ramp up the replacement of LSLs. Although states are prohibited from using DWSRF set-asides for project construction costs, if wage subsidies are carefully crafted to fill the gap between the cost of a LSLR project with apprentices and the same project without apprentices, it could be argued that the set-asides are not being used to cover construction costs, but rather to develop the workforce needed to ramp up the pace and scale of LSL replacement and fulfill one of the core aims of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act’s funding for LSLR.
States – and EPA – should explore using LSLR set-asides to provide wage subsidies for apprentices on SDWLP-funded LSLR projects, in a manner similar to Wisconsin’s TrANS program. The EPA has generally encouraged innovation in using set-asides to meet a wide range of identified needs. Given the jobs and equity objectives of the IIJA funds, the necessity of a sufficient and well-trained workforce to upgrade water infrastructure, and the broader equity benefits of maximizing the use of LSLR set-asides, the use of LSLR funds to subsidize apprentices on DWSRF-projects should be given careful consideration.
Categories of Set-Aside Funds that Can be Used for Various LSLR-related Activities
| Supported Activity | Administration & Technical Assistance (4%) | Small Systems Technical Assistance (2%) | State Program Management (10%) | Local Capacity Building (10%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| LSLR program administration | ✓ | |||
| LSL inventories | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| LSLR dashboards | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Prioritization plans for LSLR | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |
| Helping small water systems (<10,000) develop LSLR projects and apply for SRF assistance | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |
| Helping medium and large water systems (>10,000) develop LSLR projects and apply for SRF assistance | ✓ | ✓ | ||
| State implementation of Lead & Copper Rule | ✓ | |||
| Non-routine monitoring of lead in tap water | ? | ? | ? | |
| Public outreach and education | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Technical assistance to eliminate cost shares | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |
| Optimizing region-wide workforce development and procurement | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |
| Facilitating coordinated replacement of LSLs and leaky sewer laterals | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |
| Wage supports for apprentice laborers on LSLR projects | ? |
A check mark (✓) indicates that using LSLR set-asides to support the activity listed is clearly in line with well-established uses of DWSRF set-asides.
A question mark (?) indicates that EPA clarification regarding whether or not the proposed use would be permissible would provide helpful guidance to state SRF administrators. States interested in using set aside funds to support these activities could propose this use and seek approval from EPA.
Footnotes:
* EPIC has supported frontline communities and environmental advocates working on lead service line replacement and other water infrastructure issues to advise SRF policymakers on strategies for equitable and cost-efficient use SRF assistance by drafting and submitting comments on state Intended Use Plans (IUPs). To access the federal grants allotted for state SRFs, states must develop an IUP explaining the policies that determine how the state will use the funds. See this table linking IUP comments submitted by EPIC in six Great Lakes states. See in particular EPIC’s comments on Wisconsin’s IUP amendments for its LSLR program for state-specific recommendations aligned with the strategies outlined in this blog.
** The Safe Drinking Water Act and IIJA allow states to set aside up to 31% from DWSRF federal capitalization grants. 42 U.S.C. §300j-12(g),(k). This includes up to 15% for Local Assistance and other State Programs, provided that not more than 10% be set aside for any one of six subcategories. Although there are ample opportunities to deploy LSLR funds under the subcategory of general local capacity development, the other five subcategories pertain to watershed and source water protection, which is not relevant to LSLR projects. 42 U.S.C. §300j-12(k). Therefore, States can set aside a maximum of 26% from their federal LSLR grants.