Lead Service Lines (LSLs) Replacement: Funding Developments

Lead Service Lines (LSLs) Replacement: Funding Developments

Lead Service Lines (LSLs) Replacement: Funding November 6, 2023
Developments
Elena H. Humphreys
Lead’s adverse health effects, particularly on children’s development, have continued to generate
Analyst in Environmental
interest in reducing exposures to lead through drinking water. Various efforts, such as the
Policy
regulation of lead in tap water and lead content in any “pipe, or any pipe or plumbing fitting or

fixture,” combined with the phaseout of leaded gasoline and lead-based paint, and other actions,
have reduced exposures to lead in the United States. Since the late 1970s, overall U.S. blood lead

levels have declined an estimated 94%.
Unlike other drinking water contaminants, lead primarily enters drinking water after treated water leaves a treatment plant.
When water is corrosive, lead can leach into the water from certain pipes and plumbing materials. One study estimated that,
under laboratory conditions, lead pipes, known as lead service lines (LSLs), contributed an average of 50%-75% of the lead
measured in water. Removing LSLs may help reduce potential exposures to lead from tap water.
Over time, detections of elevated lead levels in tap water in some older cities have continued to draw attention to LSLs,
leading to efforts to facilitate LSL replacement. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA; P.L. 117-58), Division J,
provides five fiscal years of emergency supplemental appropriations, beginning in FY2022, for the primary federal financial
assistance program for drinking water infrastructure, the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF). Authorized in
1996, the DWSRF is the primary federal program to help water systems finance improvements needed to comply with the
Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. §300j-12 added by P.L. 104-182). EPA makes grants to states to capitalize revolving
loan funds, and states (including Puerto Rico) are authorized to use their DWSRFs to provide primarily low-interest loans to
eligible public water systems. The Safe Drinking Water Act directs EPA to distribute DWSRF funds among the states based
on the results of the most recent quadrennial needs survey, with no state receiving less than 1% of available funds. DWSRF
financial assistance is available for statutorily specified expenditures and those that EPA has determined, through guidance,
will facilitate compliance with the Safe Drinking Water Act or significantly further the act’s health protection objectives.
LSL replacement projects are eligible for DWSRF financial assistance.
IIJA provides $3.0 billion for each of FY2022 through FY2026 (totaling $15.0 billion) through the DWSRF specifically for
“lead service line replacement projects and associated activities directly connected to the identification, planning, design, and
replacement of lead service lines.” IIJA was silent on the specific approach that EPA should take when allotting the
supplemental appropriations for the DWSRF. EPA used different formulas to distribute the FY2022 IIJA DWSRF LSL
replacement appropriation and the FY2023 appropriation.
In December 2021, EPA published state allotments of the IIJA FY2022 DWSRF LSL replacement appropriation, using the
latest, at the time (i.e., the sixth), drinking water infrastructure needs survey and assessment (DWINSA) to determine the
allotments. EPA’s sixth DWINSA estimated overall drinking water capital infrastructure costs, which may have included
some estimates of LSL replacement costs, but EPA did not specifically request that states include such costs. Accordingly,
EPA calculated state allotments of the FY2022 IIJA DWSRF LSL replacement appropriation based on each state’s share of
overall drinking water infrastructure need. Prior to allotting the FY2023 IIJA DWSRF LSL appropriation, EPA published
data from the seventh DWINSA, which included estimates of LSLs by state. For FY2023, EPA used those LSL estimates to
calculate a new allotment formula for the IIJA LSL replacement appropriation based on each state’s proportional share of
LSLs, with no state receiving less than 1% of available funds.
The difference between the FY2022 and FY2023 state allotments of the IIJA DWSRF LSL replacement appropriations has
raised questions. In particular, certain stakeholders and Members have questioned how well the distribution of FY2022 LSL
replacement funding aligns with potential LSL replacement projects in each state. Other questions may involve the
robustness of the LSL data and estimates used to determine state allotments of these funds. Given the distribution of LSLs
among states, questions involve whether some states are able to identify enough eligible projects to use their entire allotments
or whether the overall number of LSL replacement projects in each state would outpace each state’s allotment of funds.
Congressional interest in and oversight of state use of the IIJA DWSRF LSL replacement allotments is likely to continue.
Further, the LSL replacement appropriations also highlight several tradeoffs that policymakers may consider during future
deliberations on how to or whether to address specific objectives, such as LSL replacement, independently via
appropriations.
Congressional Research Service

link to page 4 link to page 5 link to page 7 link to page 8 link to page 9 link to page 9 link to page 10 link to page 14 link to page 14 link to page 15 link to page 15 link to page 16 link to page 6 link to page 12 link to page 13 link to page 13 link to page 18 link to page 18 link to page 20 link to page 18 link to page 20 link to page 20 link to page 22 Lead Service Lines (LSLs) Replacement: Funding Developments

Contents
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1
Identifying Service Line Material ................................................................................................... 2
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) ........................................................................... 4
Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey and Assessment .................................................. 5
DWSRF LSL Replacement Appropriations..................................................................................... 6
Allotting the IIJA DWSRF LSL Replacement Appropriations ................................................. 6
Effect of LSL-Specific Allotment Formula ..................................................................................... 7
Variability of LSL Replacement Costs ........................................................................................... 11
EPA Estimates of LSL Replacement Costs .............................................................................. 11
Estimated Sufficiency of IIJA DWSRF LSL Replacement Funding ................................ 12
Potential Outcomes ........................................................................................................................ 12
Concluding Observations .............................................................................................................. 13

Figures
Figure 1. Typical Municipal Water Infrastructure ........................................................................... 3
Figure 2. Hypothetical Versus Actual Allotments ........................................................................... 9

Tables
Table 1. Difference Between Actual and Hypothetical FY2022 Funding for LSL
Replacement Projects ................................................................................................................. 10

Table A-1. FY2022 and FY2023 Allotments of IIJA DWSRF LSL Replacement
Appropriations ............................................................................................................................ 15
Table B-1. Actual and Hypothetical FY2022 LSL Capitalization Grant Allotments .................... 17

Appendixes
Appendix A. Allotments of IIJA DWSRF LSL Replacement Appropriations............................... 15
Appendix B. LSLs, Actual FY2022 LSL Funding, and Hypothetical FY2022 LSL
Allotments, by State ................................................................................................................... 17

Contacts
Author Information ........................................................................................................................ 19

Congressional Research Service

Lead Service Lines (LSLs) Replacement: Funding Developments

Introduction
Lead’s adverse health effects, particularly on children’s development, continue to generate
interest in reducing exposures to lead through drinking water. Drinking water may be a source of
exposure to lead, though lead-based paint, dust from deteriorated lead-based paint, and soil
contaminated by lead continue to be the primary sources of lead exposure overall for children in
most places.1 Various efforts, such as the regulation of lead in tap water and lead content in any
“pipe, or any pipe or plumbing fitting or fixture,”2 the phaseout of leaded gasoline and lead-based
paint, and other actions, have reduced exposures to lead in the United States. Since the late 1970s,
overall U.S. blood lead levels have declined nearly 94%.3
Unlike other drinking water contaminants, lead primarily enters drinking water after treated water
leaves a treatment plant. When water is corrosive, lead can leach into the water from certain pipes
and plumbing materials. One study estimated that, under laboratory conditions, lead pipes, known
as lead service lines (LSLs), contributed an average of 50%-75% of the lead measured in water.4
Given this finding, removing LSLs may help reduce potential exposures to lead in tap water.
Over time, detections of elevated lead levels in tap water in some older cities have drawn
attention to LSLs, leading to efforts to facilitate LSL replacement. In 2021, the Infrastructure
Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA; P.L. 117-58) provided supplemental appropriations to fund LSL
replacement. IIJA provides $3.0 billion for each of FY2022 through FY2026, for the Drinking
Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) specifically dedicated to LSL replacement projects and
related activities.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) allotment formulas for distributing the first
two fiscal years of the IIJA DWSRF LSL replacement appropriations have garnered attention.
IIJA was silent on a specific approach for allotting the DWSRF LSL replacement supplemental
appropriations among the states. For FY2022 and FY2023, EPA used two different allotment
formulas. EPA allotted the FY2022 LSL replacement appropriation to states based on each state’s
share of overall drinking water infrastructure need. For the FY2023 LSL replacement
appropriation, EPA allotted the funds among the states based on each state’s proportional share of

1 Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Draft Toxicological Profile for Lead, Atlanta, GA, May 2019, pp.
2 and 330, at https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp13.pdf. Lead in the environment is particularly accessible to
children due to their hand-to-mouth behavior and the proximity of their breathing zone to leaded dust. Other sources of
lead exposure may include lead smelting and battery recycling.
2 In 1986 and several times since, Congress amended the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) to address lead exposures
through drinking water. These included (1) limiting lead in plumbing materials and fixtures (SDWA §1417; 42 U.S.C.
§300g-6) and (2) authorizing the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate contaminants, such as lead,
in public water systems through national primary drinking water regulations (SDWA §1412; 42 U.S.C. §300g-1).
Further, Congress amended SDWA to address lead in child care programs and schools and establish a program to
remove lead-lined drinking water coolers (SDWA Part F; 42 U.S.C. §300j-21 et seq.). For more information about the
national primary drinking water regulation for lead (and copper), see CRS Report R46794, Addressing Lead in
Drinking Water: The Lead and Copper Rule Revisions (LCRR).
3 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), “National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES):
Blood Lead Levels in the U.S. Population,” at https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/lead/data/nhanes.htm. The CDC reports that,
from the late 1970s through 2018, the overall estimated geometric mean blood lead level (BLL) of the U.S. population
aged 1 to 74 years decreased from 12.8 to 0.855 ug/dL, representing a decline of 93.6%.
4 American Water Works Association (AWWA) Research Foundation and EPA, Contribution of Service Line and
Plumbing Fixtures to Lead and Copper Rule Compliance Issues, July 2008, at https://archive.epa.gov/region03/dclead/
web/pdf/91229.pdf.
Congressional Research Service

1

link to page 6 Lead Service Lines (LSLs) Replacement: Funding Developments

estimated LSLs, estimates that EPA developed and released in April 2023 as part of a subsequent
needs survey.5
EPA’s allotment formulas for the FY2022 and FY2023 IIJA DWSRF LSL replacement
appropriations have raised questions. In particular, certain stakeholders and Members have
questioned how well the distribution of FY2022 LSL replacement funding aligns with potential
LSL replacement projects in each state.6 Other questions might involve the robustness of the LSL
estimates that EPA used to determine FY2023 state allotments of these funds. Given the
concentration of LSLs in a subset of states, questions might involve whether some states are able
to identify enough eligible projects to use their entire allotments or whether the overall number of
LSL replacement projects in each state might outpace each state’s allotment of LSL replacement
funds.
To assess the effect of the different formulas, this report analyzes how using EPA’s FY2023 LSL-
specific formula, as opposed to the FY2022 formula based on overall drinking water
infrastructure needs, changes state’ allotments of IIJA DWSRF LSL replacement appropriations.
It also calculates theoretical cost to replace LSLs by state based on EPA’s estimates to compare to
state allotments of IIJA DWSRF LSL replacement appropriations.
This report first provides an overview of service lines, the DWSRF program, and the IIJA
DWSRF supplemental appropriations dedicated to LSL replacement projects. In addition, this
report discusses the various other factors that may contribute to the cost to replace LSLs. This
report does not discuss EPA’s drinking water regulation to control lead in tap water. See CRS
Report R46794, Addressing Lead in Drinking Water: The Lead and Copper Rule Revisions
(LCRR), for information about that drinking water regulation.
Identifying Service Line Material
Identifying which service lines, or portion thereof, are lead is a necessary step to replacing them.
A service line connects the water main, under the street, to a residence or a building. As shown in
Figure 1, ownership of service lines is generally divided between the water system and the
property owner. Typically, the water system owns the segment from the water main to the
property line, and the property owner owns the segment from the property line to the inlet to the
residence or building. In circumstances where the LSL is partially owned by a property owner, a
water system cannot compel the owner to replace the owner’s portion of the LSL. Therefore, if
the property owner is unable or unwilling to pay for their portion of the LSL replacement, then a
portion of the service line would remain lead until the property owner replaced it.

5 EPA, 7th Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey and Assessment: Frequently Asked Questions, April 2023, at
https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2023-04/Final_FAQ_DWINSA_4.4.23.v1.pdf.
6 EPA, Implementation of the Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Provisions of the Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law, March 8, 2022, at https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022-03/combined_srf-
implementation-memo_final_03.2022.pdf.
Congressional Research Service

2

Lead Service Lines (LSLs) Replacement: Funding Developments

Figure 1. Typical Municipal Water Infrastructure

Source: U.S. Government Accountability Office, Drinking Water: EPA Could Use Available Data to Better Identify
Neighborhoods at Risk of Lead Exposure, 21-78, December 18, 2020, at https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-21-78.
As service lines are buried underground, challenges exist for water systems when attempting to
identify which, if any, or which side (i.e., public or private) of lines are made from lead.7
Identifying service line material (e.g., lead, galvanized steel, copper, or plastic) may be
particularly challenging for systems that lack detailed maps and records from the time of their
construction. The distribution of LSLs among the states depends in part on water system age, as
well as state initiatives to replace LSLs.8
For systems constructed before 1930, LSLs were commonly used in water systems; from about
1930 to about 1950, fewer LSLs were installed due to growing concerns about lead’s health
effects, though certain localities still used LSLs.9 In 1986, Congress prohibited the use of any
pipe or plumbing fitting or fixture that was not “lead-free.”10 Accordingly, LSLs are likely to be
concentrated in localities with housing and buildings constructed primarily pre-1930s to 1950s
rather than in localities with newer housing.11

7 See the EPA website “EPA Researchers Share Approaches to Identify Lead Service Lines” at https://www.epa.gov/
sciencematters/epa-researchers-share-approaches-identify-lead-service-lines.
8 For example, Michigan’s 2018 Lead and Copper Rule requires Michigan communities to replace an average of 5% of
their total LSLs each year, resulting in 100% replacement in 20 years. More information at Michigan Department of
Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy, “Lead Service Line Replacement,” at https://www.michigan.gov/egle/about/
featured/benton-harbor/lsl-replacement.
9 David A. Cornwall, Richard A. Brown, and Steve H. Via, “National Survey of Lead Service Line Occurrence,”
Journal AWWA, vol. 108, no. 4 (April 1, 2016), p. E190.
10 P.L. 99-339 amended the Safe Drinking Water Act and defined lead-free as solder and flux with no more than 0.2%
lead and pipes with no more than 8% lead. Congress expanded the lead prohibition to include fixtures in 1996 (P.L.
104-182) and reduced the allowable lead content in “lead-free” plumbing materials in 2011 (P.L. 111-380). Lead-free is
now defined as no more than 0.25% lead across wetted surfaces of plumbing materials. Many communities and homes
may still have pipes and plumbing that contains more lead than is allowed for newer materials.
11 EPA, Addressing Lead in Drinking Water with the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund, EPA 816-F-18-005, June
2022, at https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2021-09/addressing-lead-in-drinking-water-with-the-dwsrf-1.pdf.
Congressional Research Service

3

Lead Service Lines (LSLs) Replacement: Funding Developments

In part due to these difficulties in identifying LSLs, estimates of the number of LSLs vary. In
2019, EPA estimated that the number of LSLs nationwide could range from 6.3 million to 9.3
million.12 In 2023, EPA stated that the best available national data estimates that almost 9.2
million of the 99.9 million service lines in the nation’s water systems are LSLs.13
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF)
Authorized in 1996, the DWSRF is the primary federal program helping water systems finance
improvements needed to comply with the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA).14 DWSRF financial
assistance is available for statutorily specified expenditures and those that EPA has determined,
through guidance, will facilitate SDWA compliance or significantly further the act’s health
protection objectives. LSL replacement projects are eligible for DWSRF financial assistance.
Further, in 2016, EPA clarified that replacement of the privately owned portion of a service line is
an eligible project under the DWSRF.15
Using DWSRF appropriations, EPA makes grants to states to capitalize revolving loan funds.
Each state is required to provide a 20% match of its annual capitalization grant.16 From these
revolving funds, states make primarily low-interest-rate loans to publicly or privately owned
community water systems.17 To be awarded a capitalization grant, states are required to develop
lists called Intended Use Plans (IUPs) that identify the projects that are to receive DWSRF
assistance in that year.
SDWA either directs or authorizes EPA to set aside certain amounts of the DWSRF appropriation
for various program purposes before allotting the remaining funds among the states. Among other
set-asides, EPA reserves 2% of the appropriated amounts for grants to Indian tribes and Alaska
Native villages for drinking water infrastructure projects.18
Using the remaining DWSRF appropriation, EPA makes grants to states to capitalize each state’s
revolving loan fund. All 50 states and Puerto Rico implement their own DWSRF programs.19
SDWA directs EPA to distribute DWSRF funds among the states based on the results of the most
recent quadrennial drinking water infrastructure needs survey and assessment, with each state

12 EPA, “National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Proposed Lead and Copper Rule Revisions,” 84 Federal
Register 61684-61774, November 13, 2019.
13 EPA, 7th Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey and Assessment: Frequently Asked Questions, April 2023, at
https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2023-04/Final_FAQ_DWINSA_4.4.23.v1.pdf.
14 SDWA §1452; 42 U.S.C. §300j-12, added by the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996 (P.L. 104-182).
15 Anita Maria Thompkins, Director of the Division of Drinking Water Protection, Memorandum on the Clarification of
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Eligibility of Service Line Replacement on Private Property, May 9, 2016.
16 SDWA §1452(e); 42 U.S.C. §300j-12(e).
17 The DWSRF also can provide financial assistance to nonprofit, nontransient noncommunity water systems. A
community water system is a system that regularly serves 25 or more individuals year-round. Nontransient
noncommunity water systems, such as those serving schools or factories, have their own water system and generally
serve the same individuals for more than six months but not year-round. SDWA authorizes states to provide additional
subsidization (including forgiveness of principal) to disadvantaged communities. 42 U.S.C. §300j-12(d) authorizes
states to provide additional subsidization to disadvantaged communities. Disadvantaged community is defined as the
service area of a public water system that meets affordability criteria developed by the state.
18 Under SDWA Section 1452(i) [42 U.S.C. §300j-12(i)], EPA may use 1.5% of the amounts appropriated annually to
make grants to Indian Tribes and Alaska Native villages. Since FY2010 (Department of the Interior, Environment, and
Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010 [P.L. 111-88]), Congress has authorized EPA to reserve up to 2.0% of the
appropriated funds for Indian Tribes and Alaska Native villages. This authority was included in P.L. 112-74 and has
continued through the terms and conditions of subsequent appropriations.
19 SDWA Section 1401(13) defines the term state to include Puerto Rico for purposes of the act (42 U.S.C. §300f(14)).
Congressional Research Service

4

Lead Service Lines (LSLs) Replacement: Funding Developments

receiving a minimum 1% of available funds.20 Accordingly, EPA calculates state allotments of the
DWSRF appropriations based on each state’s proportional share of overall drinking water
infrastructure need, with no state receiving less than 1%.
Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey and Assessment
In addition to establishing the DWSRF, the SDWA Amendments of 1996 (P.L. 104-182) added a
requirement for EPA to perform a survey every four years of drinking water system capital
improvement needs.21 SDWA requires EPA to use the results of this survey, called the Drinking
Water Infrastructure Needs Survey and Assessment (DWINSA), to determine state allotments of
DWSRF capitalization grants.22 America’s Water Infrastructure Act of 2018 (AWIA; P.L. 115-
270) amended SDWA to require EPA to evaluate and include the cost to replace LSLs in the
DWINSA. Prior to AWIA, EPA had finalized six surveys, none of which requested that water
systems report the cost to replace these lines when conducting the needs survey. Some systems
voluntarily included such costs in the sixth survey, estimating that approximately 1.4 million
LSLs would need to be replaced over a 20-year period at a cost of $4.2 billion in 2015 dollars.23
In April 2023, EPA announced the results of the seventh DWINSA, which included, as required,
state and national estimates of the number of LSLs.24 EPA reported that the nation has roughly 9.2
million LSLs.25 These 9.2 million LSL comprise roughly 9.2% of the total national number of
service lines (i.e., 99.9 million).26 In addition, EPA’s seventh survey identifies that the cost to
replace these LSLs ranges from $50 billion to $80 billion in 2021 dollars.27
Understanding how EPA developed state LSL estimates illustrates some potential uncertainties
involved in using these data to distribute the IIJA DWSRF LSL replacement appropriations. To
develop the seventh DWINSA, EPA solicited responses from 3,629 water systems and received
responses from 3,526 systems—a response rate of 97%.28 Roughly 75% of responding systems
reported on service line materials, specifically whether the service lines were composed of lead,
galvanized service lines, or unknown material.29 As not all water systems have a completed
service line material inventory, EPA extrapolated using existing service line material data to
estimate the number of LSLs in water systems without service line material data.30 Specifically,
EPA calculated the ratio of LSLs to total service lines of all known material types, and then used

20 SDWA §1452(a)(1)(D);42 U.S.C. §300j-12(a)(1)(D).
21 SDWA §1452(h); 42 U.S.C. §300j-12(h). EPA must report each needs assessment to Congress. Concurrently, and in
consultation with the Indian Health Service and Indian Tribes, EPA must assess needs for drinking water treatment
facilities to serve Indian Tribes and Alaska Native villages (SDWA §1452(i); 42 U.S.C. §300j-12(i)).
22 SDWA §1452(a)(1)(D); 42 U.S.C. §300j-12(a)(1)(D).
23 EPA, Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey and Assessment: Sixth Report to Congress, March 2018, at
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-10/documents/
corrected_sixth_drinking_water_infrastructure_needs_survey_and_assessment.pdf.
24 EPA, 7th Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey and Assessment: Frequently Asked Questions, April 2023, at
https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2023-04/Final_FAQ_DWINSA_4.4.23.v1.pdf.
25 EPA, Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey and Assessment: 7th Report to Congress, September 6, 2023, at
https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2023-09/Seventh%20DWINSA_September2023_Final.pdf.
26 Ibid.
27 Ibid.
28 EPA, 7th Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey and Assessment: Fact Sheet, April 2023, at
https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2023-04/Final_DWINSA%20Public%20Factsheet%204.4.23.pdf.
29 Ibid.
30 EPA, 7th Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey and Assessment: Frequently Asked Questions, April 2023, at
https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2023-04/Final_FAQ_DWINSA_4.4.23.v1.pdf.
Congressional Research Service

5

link to page 20 Lead Service Lines (LSLs) Replacement: Funding Developments

this ratio to estimate the number of LSLs in systems in which the service line materials are
unknown.31
EPA’s seventh survey estimates that LSLs are concentrated in a subset of states. For example, the
seventh DWINSA estimates that nearly 24% (2.2 million) of the 9.2 million LSLs are found in
Florida and Illinois.32 The survey’s findings raised questions over the robustness of EPA’s LSL
estimates. Some Members of Congress identified potential data reporting issues that may have
affected EPA’s projections of state LSL estimates.33 Although, EPA reports that these LSL
estimates are the best available data, and states that the agency intends to provide an opportunity
for states to update LSL information.34 The first column of Table B-1 includes LSL estimates by
state from the seventh DWINSA.
DWSRF LSL Replacement Appropriations
IIJA, Division J, includes three emergency supplemental appropriations for the DWSRF.35 Among
the three appropriations, IIJA provides $3.0 billion for each of FY2022 through FY2026, totaling
$15.0 billion, for the DWSRF dedicated to “lead service line replacement projects and associated
activities directly connected to the identification, planning, design, and replacement of lead
service lines.”36 In addition, IIJA provides a total of $11.73 billion for FY2022 through FY2026
for the DWSRF for the full scope of eligible projects, which, as stated previously, includes LSL
replacement projects.37
Allotting the IIJA DWSRF LSL Replacement Appropriations
The two different formulas by which EPA allotted the first two fiscal years of IIJA DWSRF LSL
replacement appropriations have generated attention. After the agency announced the FY2022
state allotments based on overall infrastructure need, some Members of Congress questioned
whether allotting the funds in this manner reflected the distribution of LSLs among the states.38
For FY2023, EPA used LSL estimates that were generated in the latest needs survey and
assessment to allot these funds. EPA used this LSL-specific allotment formula only for the IIJA
DWSRF appropriation dedicated to LSL replacement activities. For the other IIJA DWSRF
appropriations, EPA used each state’s proportional share of overall drinking water infrastructure
need to determine state allotments. The difference in the two formulas for the IIJA LSL

31 EPA, 7th Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey and Assessment: Frequently Asked Questions, April 2023, at
https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2023-04/Final_FAQ_DWINSA_4.4.23.v1.pdf.
32 EPA, 7th Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey and Assessment: Fact Sheet, April 2023, at
https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2023-04/Final_DWINSA%20Public%20Factsheet%204.4.23.pdf.
33 See, for example, Rep. Pressley, “Letter to Michael Regan Regarding Reduction in Lead Service Line Funding,”
September 11, 2023, at https://pressley.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/2023-09-11-Letter-to-EPA-re-Lead-
Service-Line-Funding.pdf.
34 EPA, Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey and Assessment: 7th Report to Congress, September 6, 2023, at
https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2023-09/Seventh%20DWINSA_September2023_Final.pdf.
35 See CRS Report R46892, Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA): Drinking Water and Wastewater
Infrastructure, by Elena H. Humphreys and Jonathan L. Ramseur, for more details.
36 P.L. 117-58, Division J.
37 IIJA, Division J, provides $800 million for each of FY2022 through FY2026, totaling $4.0 billion for the DWSRF
dedicated to grants for projects to address emerging contaminants.
38 See, for example, Rep. Schneider, “Schneider Leads 50 Bipartisan Members in Letter to EPA Advocating for Fair
Lead Service Line Replacement Funding,” press release, August 22, 2022, at https://schneider.house.gov/media/press-
releases/schneider-leads-50-bipartisan-members-letter-epa-advocating-fair-lead-service.
Congressional Research Service

6

link to page 18 Lead Service Lines (LSLs) Replacement: Funding Developments

replacement appropriations generated interest in states’ use of these funds for LSL replacement
projects due to distributing the funds based on different criteria of “need.”
IIJA was silent on the approach that EPA should take when allotting the supplemental
appropriations for the DWSRF. The act provides $15.0 billion over five fiscal years “under
section 1452 of the Safe Drinking Water Act” for LSL replacement projects and related activities.
SDWA Section 1452(a)(2)(D) requires EPA to use the latest DWINSA to determine state
allotments of the DWSRF appropriation. Both in FY2022 and FY2023, EPA used the latest
DWINSA available at the time to calculate state allotments, though for FY2023, EPA used a
subset of data (i.e., LSL estimates) generated from the seventh DWINSA to calculate state
allotments. Table A-1 compares state capitalization grants provided from the FY2022 and
FY2023 IIJA DWSRF LSL replacement appropriations.
For FY2022, EPA used the latest DWINSA at the time (i.e., the sixth) to calculate state allotments
of the LSL replacement appropriation.39 EPA’s sixth DWINSA estimated overall cost of drinking
water capital infrastructure needs.40 In accordance with SDWA, EPA then calculated state
allotments based on each state’s proportional share of overall drinking water capital infrastructure
need with no state receiving less than 1% of available funds.
For FY2023, EPA used its LSL estimates generated as a part of the seventh DWINSA, released
April 3, 2023, to calculate state allotments of the IIJA DWSRF LSL replacement appropriation
based on each state’s proportional share of LSLs.41 EPA’s LSL-specific state allotments for
FY2023 maintained the statutory minimum percentage of no state receiving less than 1% of
available funds. The state allotments of the remaining fiscal years of the IIJA DWSRF
appropriations are likely to be calculated based on the seventh DWINSA, as needs surveys are
required to be completed every four years.
While EPA stated that the agency would use the LSL-specific allotment formula for distributing
the IIJA LSL replacement appropriations in future fiscal years,42 state allotments may change
based on revised information. In September 2023, EPA announced that the agency would provide
an opportunity for states to adjust their reported service line data in fall 2023.43 EPA states that it
would use any updated information to inform the allotment formula of the remaining fiscal years
of IIJA DWSRF LSL replacement appropriation.44
Effect of LSL-Specific Allotment Formula
Comments on EPA’s allotment formulas for the IIJA DWSRF LSL replacement appropriations
have generally involved whether the allotments align to the distribution of LSLs among the

39 EPA, Implementation of the Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Provisions of the Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law, March 8, 2022, at https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022-03/combined_srf-
implementation-memo_final_03.2022.pdf.
40 EPA, Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey and Assessment: Sixth Report to Congress, March 2018, at
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-10/documents/
corrected_sixth_drinking_water_infrastructure_needs_survey_and_assessment.pdf.
41 EPA, 7th Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey and Assessment: Fact Sheet, April 2023, at
https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2023-04/Final_DWINSA%20Public%20Factsheet%204.4.23.pdf.
42 Ibid.
43 EPA, Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey and Assessment: 7th Report to Congress, September 6, 2023, at
https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2023-09/Seventh%20DWINSA_September2023_Final.pdf.
44 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service

7

link to page 18 link to page 12 Lead Service Lines (LSLs) Replacement: Funding Developments

states.45 Comparing each state’s proportional share of FY2022 and FY2023 LSL replacement
appropriations is a way to evaluate how the FY2022 allotments relate to the distribution of LSLs
among the states. This comparison demonstrates how using the full range of drinking water
infrastructure needs as compared to a targeted subset—estimates of the number of LSLs—
changes the distribution of funds among states. As discussed, EPA reserved less for administrative
expenses in FY2023 compared to FY2022, meaning that EPA made $30 million more available
for states in FY2023. Even with the change in amount available, the difference between states’
FY2022 and FY2023 allotments provides information regarding the distribution among the state
of overall infrastructure need compared to the distribution of LSLs among the states. Table A-1
provides the FY2022 and FY2023 allotments of LSL replacement funds, as well as the difference
between the two, by state.
Another way to quantify this effect is to calculate hypothetical FY2022 LSL replacement
allotments using the FY2023 LSL-specific allotment formula, and compare these hypothetical
allotments to the actual state allotments of the FY2022 IIJA DWSRF LSL replacement
appropriation that EPA calculated before LSL estimates were available. The difference between
the hypothetical and actual allotments of FY2022 LSL replacement funds shows how each state’s
proportional share of LSLs differs from each state’s share of overall drinking water infrastructure
needs. Figure 2 shows the actual FY2022 allotments of LSL replacement funds as compared to
hypothetical allotments of FY2022 LSL replacement funds using the LSL-specific allotment
formula.

45 See, for example, Rep. Schneider, “Schneider Leads 50 Bipartisan Members in Letter to EPA Advocating for Fair
Lead Service Line Replacement Funding,” press release, August 22, 2022, at https://schneider.house.gov/media/press-
releases/schneider-leads-50-bipartisan-members-letter-epa-advocating-fair-lead-service.
Congressional Research Service

8

link to page 20
Lead Service Lines (LSLs) Replacement: Funding Developments

Figure 2. Hypothetical Versus Actual Allotments
Figure is interactive in the HTML version of this report

Source: CRS, from EPA, Bipartisan Infrastructure Law: Environmental Protection Agency 2022 State Revolving
Fund (SRF) Grants to States, Tribes and Territories by Program, December 2021; EPA, FY 2023 Allotments for
the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Based on the Seventh Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey and
Assessment, April 2023.
Notes: This graphic denotes the difference between hypothetical FY2022 state allotments of the Infrastructure
Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA; P.L. 117-58) Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) lead service line
(LSL) replacement appropriation calculated using the LSL-specific al otment formula as compared to actual state
FY2022 allotments of IIJA DWSRF appropriation for LSL replacement. Figure is based on rounded values. Due to
rounding, some states’ “Difference” is different by one decimal place when compared to Table B-1 and
previous versions of this figure.
Congressional Research Service

9

link to page 13 link to page 20 Lead Service Lines (LSLs) Replacement: Funding Developments

Based on this analysis, 20 states received more in actual FY2022 funding for LSL replacement
projects than those states would have received in the hypothetical situation allocating the funds
based on the LSL-specific allotment formula used in FY2023. This result means that, according
to EPA’s estimates, these 20 states have a relatively smaller share of LSLs as compared to those
same states’ share of overall drinking water infrastructure need. These 20 states collectively
received nearly $590 million more in FY2022 LSL replacement funds (i.e., $2.84 billion total)
than these states would have if the FY2023 LSL-specific allotment formula had been used.
Under the FY2022 hypothetical, this nearly $590 million in funding would have shifted to 14
states that have a greater share of LSLs as compared to their share of overall drinking water
infrastructure need. These 14 states received less in FY2022 LSL replacement funding than if the
funding were distributed using the LSL-specific allotment formula.
For states that have no difference in allotment, this appears to reflect that under both approaches
the state received the minimum allotment of 1%.
Table 1 provides the average and median change for states that received more or less in actual
FY2022 LSL replacement funding than a hypothetical where the FY2022 funding was distributed
based on FY2023 LSL-specific allotment formula.46 For context, the average FY2022 LSL
replacement state capitalization grant amount was $53.5 million, and the median was $42.5
million.
Table 1. Difference Between Actual and Hypothetical FY2022 Funding for LSL
Replacement Projects
Actual vs.
Hypothetical (i.e.,
Distributed Using LSL-
Average
Median
Specific Formula)
States
Change
Change
Received More in Actual
California, Texas, Georgia, Washington,
+$29.5 mil ion
+$17.1 mil ion
Allotment:
Alabama, Massachusetts, Colorado, Maryland,
20 States
Arizona, Kentucky, Iowa, Oklahoma, Oregon,
Minnesota, South Carolina, Kansas, Nevada,
New York, Mississippi, North Carolina
Received Less in Actual
Florida, Il inois, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee,
-$42.1 mil ion
-$27.2 mil ion
Allotment:
New Jersey, Wisconsin, Louisiana, Indiana,
14 States
Connecticut, Michigan, Arkansas, Virginia,
Missouri
Source: Calculated by CRS from EPA, Bipartisan Infrastructure Law: Environmental Protection Agency 2022 State
Revolving Fund (SRF) Grants to States, Tribes and Territories by Program, December 2021; EPA, FY 2023 Allotments for
the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund based on the Seventh Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey and
Assessment, April 2023.
Notes: LSL denotes lead service line. The fol owing states’ capitalization grant amounts would not change using
the FY2023 LSL-specific allotment percentages to distribute the FY2022 LSL replacement funding: Alaska,
Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Maine, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Puerto Rico,
Rhode Island, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming. These states would receive the
minimum percentage of available funds under both the actual and hypothetical scenarios.

46 Table B-1 shows actual FY2022 funding for LSL replacement and counterfactual FY2022 funding for LSL
replacement calculated using the FY2023 LSL-specific formula by state. It also includes LSL estimates from EPA’s
seventh drinking water infrastructure needs survey and assessment.
Congressional Research Service

10

Lead Service Lines (LSLs) Replacement: Funding Developments

Variability of LSL Replacement Costs
The cost of LSL replacement projects may affect a state’s ability to fully use its allotment. When
estimating the state-level costs of these projects, the number of LSLs is one of multiple cost
inputs. Some other LSL replacement cost inputs include the cost of labor, materials, hard-surface
removal (e.g., excavation), as well as post-replacement repaving.
State estimates of the number of LSLs may not be the only relevant input for estimating LSL
replacement project costs. These costs may vary depending where a replacement project takes
place. One example of the regional variability of certain costs is construction labor. The Bureau
of Labor Statistics reports that construction laborers in Texas earned roughly 42.7% (i.e., $13)
less an hour, on average, than construction laborers in New Jersey in 2022.47 The number of LSLs
being replaced within a system also may affect the project cost. Generally, more LSLs in a system
equates to higher overall costs for their replacement, but potential economies of scale may result
in lower replacement costs per line.
EPA Estimates of LSL Replacement Costs
EPA’s estimates of the cost to replace LSLs have varied. In 2020, EPA estimated that the per-line
cost of full LSL replacement ranges from $2,352 to $7,056, with an average of $4,704.48 If a
water system planned an LSL replacement project in conjunction with other projects, EPA
assumed that the project costs would reduce to $1,882 to $5,645 per line, with an average of
$3,763 per line, due to ability to coordinate with other projects that require hard-surface removal,
and other efficiencies.49 In its analysis, EPA noted that the survey data available to the agency
from which to estimate LSL replacement costs were “highly uncertain” due to the limited number
of observations and lack of a standardized procedure for calculating costs.50
In September 2023, EPA provided updated per-line replacement costs that the agency states are,
in part, based on data collected during the seventh DWINSA.51 EPA’s 2023 per-line replacement
cost estimates appear to be an increase compared to EPA’s 2020 cost estimates. EPA identifies a
“low estimate” of $5,328 per line, noting that 25% of costs were below this value, and a “high
estimate” of $9,015 per service line with 25% of costs above this value.52 EPA did not provide
additional details (e.g., planned versus unplanned per-line costs) regarding these cost estimates in
the seventh survey. In addition, the agency did not provide state-specific estimates of LSL
replacement projects.53

47 Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics: 47-2061 Construction Laborers, May
2022, at https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes472061.htm#st.
48 EPA, Derivation of LSLR Costs_Final Rule.xlsx, December 2020, at https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EPA-
HQ-OW-2017-0300.
49 Ibid.
50 EPA, National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Lead and Copper Rule Revisions EPA-HQ-OW-2017-0300-
0001, November 2019, at https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OW-2017-0300-0001.
51 EPA, Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey and Assessment: 7th Report to Congress, September 6, 2023, at
https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2023-09/Seventh%20DWINSA_September2023_Final.pdf.
52 Ibid.
53 EPA, Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey and Assessment: 7th Report to Congress, September 6, 2023, at
https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2023-09/Seventh%20DWINSA_September2023_Final.pdf.
Congressional Research Service

11

Lead Service Lines (LSLs) Replacement: Funding Developments

Estimated Sufficiency of IIJA DWSRF LSL Replacement Funding
Though the cost of such projects remains uncertain, EPA’s estimates demonstrate the extent to
which LSL replacement costs could vary. This variability creates challenges in making
determinations regarding whether LSL replacement funding at the state level would cover or
exceed the costs to carry out these projects. Further, given EPA’s LSL estimates rely on projected
data, determining the adequacy of IIJA DWSRF LSL replacement funding at the state level using
these data involves a high level of uncertainty.
EPA’s estimates of LSL replacement costs allow for consideration of the extent to which available
funding meets estimated LSL replacement needs, provided remaining IIJA DWSRF LSL
replacement funding remains constant through FY2026 using the FY2023 formula. One approach
would be to estimate the sufficiency of funding using the EPA low estimated cost of $5,328 per
line.54 Using this value and the above allotments, 19 states appear to receive sufficient funds to
replace the estimated LSLs within their state.55
EPA’s higher cost estimate yields a smaller number of states appearing to receive sufficient funds
to replace the estimated LSLs within their state. Using the EPA high estimated cost of $9,015 per
line and the above allotments,56 14 states appear to receive sufficient funds to replace the
estimated LSLs within their state.57
As noted above, the actual sufficiency of funds depends on multiple factors, including the
accuracy of the estimates of LSLs by EPA and states, actual replacement costs, economies of
scale, and reallotment of unused allotted funds among states. Accordingly, this rough assessment
of the sufficiency of the IIJA LSL replacement funding to carry out these projects is illustrative
and is unlikely to materialize as specifically outlined in this section.
Potential Outcomes
The difference between state allotments of FY2022 and FY2023 IIJA DWSRF LSL replacement
appropriations may result in several potential outcomes for states. Certain states may be unable to
use their entire allotted capitalization grant due to an insufficient number of eligible projects on
the states’ IUPs. Under this situation, SDWA authorizes EPA to reserve up to 10% for Indian
Tribes, and then directs EPA to reallot the unspent capitalization grant to states that have spent
their full capitalization grants.58 Other states may be able to use their entire LSL replacement
allotments for eligible projects, leaving no funds for reallotment, and still have eligible projects
on their IUPs after using their allotments.
As discussed above, predicting whether a particular state will have sufficient eligible projects to
fund from its grant is challenging, and depends on the number of eligible projects, the costs to
complete those projects, and the number of projects that seek funding, among other factors. EPA’s
estimates of the number of LSLs, and the cost to replace them, provide some data that can be used

54 EPA estimates that LSL replacement costs are higher than this value for 75% of such projects.
55 These states would be Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Maine, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire,
New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, and
Wyoming. Calculations available upon request.
56 EPA estimates that LSL replacement costs are higher than this value for 25% of such projects.
57 These states would be Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New
Mexico, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, and Wyoming. Calculations available upon request.
58 SDWA §1452(a)(1)(C); 42 U.S.C. §300j-12(a)(1)(C).
Congressional Research Service

12

Lead Service Lines (LSLs) Replacement: Funding Developments

for assessing which states are likely to have sufficient projects to fund from their LSL
replacement allotments.
The number of LSL replacement projects is not the only determinant of whether a state may or
may not be able to use its entire capitalization grant. For the LSL replacement appropriations,
IIJA specifies that, in addition to LSL replacement projects, these funds can be used for activities
“associated” with LSL replacement projects. EPA guidance lists other projects that would be
eligible for funding from the IIJA DWSRF LSL replacement appropriation, including
development or updating of LSL inventories.59 While a state may have a smaller number of
estimated LSLs to replace, that state may use its entire capitalization grant amount for those
projects related to LSL replacement, such as inventorying lines, meaning that no amount would
need reallotting.
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) Capitalization Grants:
Period of Availability and Reallotment
Under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), capitalization grants are available for the states’ use in the fiscal year
in which they were provided and the fol owing fiscal year. EPA is authorized to reallot unspent capitalization grants
to states that have obligated all of their own capitalization grant after this initial period of availability until the
appropriation expires. The DWSRF regulations further define how EPA reallots DWSRF capitalization grants. EPA
is authorized to reserve up to 10% of the amount of unspent capitalization grants for assistance to Indian Tribes
before directing EPA to reallot the remaining amount to eligible states based on the formula originally used to allot
these funds. Accordingly, under SDWA, EPA reallots unspent capitalization grants based on the drinking water
infrastructure needs survey and assessment. For example, Wyoming declined its capitalization grant from DWSRF
appropriations provided by the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2019 (P.L. 116-6). In 2020, EPA announced that
the agency would reallot Wyoming’s capitalization grant amount of $11.1 mil ion among other states after
reserving 10% for tribal grants, and EPA gave states until September 30, 2021, to apply for their allotment.
Source: SDWA §1452(a)(1)(C); 42 U.S.C. §300j-12(a)(1)(C); 40 C.F.R. § 35.3515(3); Anita Maria Thompkins,
Director of the Division of Drinking Water Protection, Memorandum on Reallotment of FY 2019 DWSRF
Funds, December 9, 2020, at https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2021-01/documents/
reallotment_of_fy_2019_dwsrf_funds.pdf.
Under SDWA, the FY2022 LSL replacement appropriation’s period of availability ends after
FY2023. EPA states that, consistent with SDWA, unspent state capitalization grants from the IIJA
DWSRF supplemental appropriations would be reallotted in instances when states are unable to
obligate their grants within the period of availability.60 In that case, EPA would have to determine
how to reallot the funds among the states that have already expended their grants. EPA DWSRF
regulations require that unspent capitalization grants be reallotted among the states using the
formula initially used, meaning that EPA would use the FY2022 allotment percentages to
reallocate unspent FY2022 capitalization grants.61
Concluding Observations
Congressional interest in and oversight of states’ use of the allotments of the IIJA DWSRF LSL
replacement appropriations is likely to continue. In terms of dollar value, the difference between
the FY2022 and FY2023 LSL replacement funds for certain states is sizable, though whether

59 EPA, Implementation of the Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Provisions of the Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law, March 8, 2022, at https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022-03/combined_srf-
implementation-memo_final_03.2022.pdf.
60 EPA, Implementation of the Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Provisions of the Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law, March 8, 2022, at https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022-03/combined_srf-
implementation-memo_final_03.2022.pdf.
61 40 C.F.R. § 35.3515(3).
Congressional Research Service

13

Lead Service Lines (LSLs) Replacement: Funding Developments

states would be challenged to use these funds, or experience a shortfall against their LSL
replacement needs, remains to be seen. Policymakers may be also interested in oversight of any
future allotment formulas that EPA may use for these appropriations.
Further, policymakers may use this to inform future deliberations on how to or whether to address
specific objectives, such as LSL replacement, in appropriations or authorizing legislation. EPA’s
allotment formulas for FY2022 and FY2023 IIJA DWSRF LSL replacement appropriations
highlight several tradeoffs for consideration when addressing specific infrastructure projects or
issues.
One is the tradeoff between providing funding more quickly versus providing funding with
greater specification. Waiting to provide appropriations until LSL estimates were available may
have allowed for initial state allocations of IIJA LSL replacement funds to be aligned to the
distribution of EPA’s state-by-state LSL estimates, which were not initially available. Allotments
aligned to the distribution of LSL estimates could reduce the potential that EPA would have to
reallot unspent funds. Although, states may have sufficient eligible LSL replacement and/or
related projects to use the available funds. Accordingly, waiting to provide appropriations until
the LSL estimates were available would have delayed providing funds to states with defined
needs that were able to use the funds immediately. EPA has fully awarded the FY2022 DWSRF
LSL Replacement grants to 22 states as of August 2023.
Deliberations over providing funds more quickly versus with greater specification are
complicated by other factors. In this case, these involve questions over the robustness of LSL
estimates, as well as the variability of the costs of projects. As the actual number of LSLs is
unknown and states’ per-line replacement costs are likely to vary, states’ ability to use their full
allotments and the sufficiency of that funding remain unclear.
In addition, states’ ability to use their full allotments depends in part on factors beyond specific
LSL estimates or the cost of such projects. States may be able to identify eligible projects for this
funding that are not specifically LSL replacement projects, such as projects to develop service
line inventories. Conversely, states may be unable to identify sufficient eligible projects to fund
from their capitalization grant, as communities may be challenged in applying for DWSRF
assistance or may lack the capacity to do so. Whether or how these factors may affect any
potential reallotments of the IIJA DWSRF LSL replacement appropriations remains to be seen.
Another tradeoff is between providing appropriations through an existing program for a narrower
set of eligible projects versus establishing a new program dedicated to that narrower set of
eligibilities. Providing funding for a narrower set of eligibilities through existing programs may
be more efficient or timely and require additional agency direction or flexibility. This may
involve providing agencies with additional direction in how to allot funds or discretion in how to
reallot funds, to allow agencies to administer the funding to meet legislative objectives.
If the funding were to be delivered through a new program, Congress would face consideration of
various aspects of establishing a new program, such as program structure, development time
frames, rulemakings, or other related implementation considerations. As such, the development
and implementation of a new program may not align with other legislative objectives, such as
timeliness. How those tradeoffs are considered may inform congressional deliberations on
whether or how to address LSL replacement or other issues.
Congressional Research Service

14

Lead Service Lines (LSLs) Replacement: Funding Developments

Appendix A. Allotments of IIJA DWSRF LSL
Replacement Appropriations
Table A-1. FY2022 and FY2023 Allotments of IIJA DWSRF
LSL Replacement Appropriations
dollars in thousands
Difference
FY2022 LSL
FY2023 LSL
Between FY2023
Allotment
Allotment
and FY2022

Alabama
$61,114
$28,650
-$32,464
Alaska
$28,350
$28,650
$300
Arizona
$50,986
$28,650
-$22,336
Arkansas
$42,653
$45,299
$2,646
California
$250,107
$28,650
-$221,457
Colorado
$56,015
$32,600
-$23,415
Connecticut
$28,350
$39,954
$11,604
Delaware
$28,350
$28,650
$300
District of Columbia
$28,350
$28,650
$300
Florida
$111,601
$254,788
$143,187
Georgia
$66,808
$28,650
-$38,158
Hawaii
$28,350
$28,650
$300
Idaho
$28,350
$28,650
$300
Il inois
$106,964
$230,177
$123,213
Indiana
$43,334
$65,161
$21,827
Iowa
$44,913
$29,319
-$15,594
Kansas
$32,891
$28,650
-$4,241
Kentucky
$46,717
$28,650
-$18,067
Louisiana
$42,433
$65,497
$23,064
Maine
$28,350
$28,650
$300
Maryland
$51,934
$28,650
-$23,284
Massachusetts
$65,783
$33,700
-$32,083
Michigan
$69,593
$72,881
$3,288
Minnesota
$43,276
$37,896
-$5,380
Mississippi
$30,518
$28,650
-$1,868
Missouri
$49,980
$51,736
$1,756
Montana
$28,350
$28,650
$300
Nebraska
$28,350
$28,650
$300
Nevada
$32,864
$28,650
-$4,214
Congressional Research Service

15

link to page 19 Lead Service Lines (LSLs) Replacement: Funding Developments

Difference
FY2022 LSL
FY2023 LSL
Between FY2023
Allotment
Allotment
and FY2022

New Hampshire
$28,350
$28,650
$300
New Jersey
$48,385
$82,971
$34,586
New Mexico
$28,350
$28,650
$300
New York
$115,781
$113,656
-$2,125
North Carolina
$87,062
$87,290
$228
North Dakota
$28,350
$28,650
$300
Ohio
$71,300
$166,913
$95,613
Oklahoma
$40,192
$28,650
-$11,542
Oregon
$37,300
$28,650
-$8,650
Pennsylvania
$87,296
$154,956
$67,660
Puerto Rico
$28,350
$28,650
$300
Rhode Island
$28,350
$28,650
$300
South Carolina
$36,716
$31,809
-$4,907
South Dakota
$28,350
$28,650
$300
Tennessee
$49,243
$89,756
$40,513
Territoriesa
$42,525
$42,975
$450
Texas
$222,155
$146,246
-$75,909
Utah
$28,350
$28,650
$300
Vermont
$28,350
$28,650
$300
Virginia
$46,256
$48,717
$2,461
Washington
$63,336
$28,650
-$34,686
West Virginia
$28,350
$28,650
$300
Wisconsin
$48,319
$81,203
$32,884
Wyoming
$28,350
$28,650
$300
Total for States and Territories
$2,835,000
$2,865,000
$30,000
Indian Tribes
$60,000
$60,000
—
EPA Administration
$90,000
$60,000
-$30,000
Office of the Inspector General
$15,000
$15,000
—
Total LSL Appropriation
$3,000,000
$3,000,000
—
Source: EPA, Bipartisan Infrastructure Law: Environmental Protection Agency 2022 State Revolving Fund (SRF) Grants to
States, Tribes and Territories by Program, December 2021; EPA, FY 2023 Allotments for the Drinking Water State
Revolving Fund based on the Seventh Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey and Assessment, April 2023.
Notes: IIJA denotes the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (P.L. 117-58); LSL denotes lead service lines; and
DWSRF denotes Drinking Water State Revolving Fund.
a. The Safe Drinking Water Act directs EPA to provide grants to the Virgin Islands, the Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa, and Guam, using not more than 0.33% of the DWSRF
appropriation available for state capitalization grants (SDWA §1452(k); 42 U.S.C. §300j-12(j)). Congress has
regularly increased this amount to 1.5% in appropriations acts.
Congressional Research Service

16

Lead Service Lines (LSLs) Replacement: Funding Developments

Appendix B. LSLs, Actual FY2022 LSL Funding, and
Hypothetical FY2022 LSL Allotments, by State
Table B-1. Actual and Hypothetical FY2022 LSL Capitalization Grant Allotments
Hypothetical
Allotment
Difference
Based on FY23
Between
2023 LSL
Actual
Allotment
Hypothetical &
Estimates
% LSLs
Allotment
Formula
Actual

Alabama
91,544
1.00%
$61,114,000
$28,350,000
-$32,764,000
Alaska
1,454
0.02%
$28,350,000
$28,350,000
$0
Arizona
11,429
0.12%
$50,986,000
$28,350,000
-$22,636,000
Arkansas
171,771
1.87%
$42,653,000
$44,824,665
$2,171,665
California
13,476
0.15%
$250,107,000
$28,350,000
-$221,757,000
Colorado
111,907
1.22%
$56,015,000
$32,258,639
-$23,756,361
Connecticut
146,574
1.60%
$28,350,000
$39,535,634
$11,185,634
Delaware
42,479
0.46%
$28,350,000
$28,350,000
$0
District of Columbia
27,058
0.29%
$28,350,000
$28,350,000
$0
Florida
1,159,300
12.62%
$111,601,000
$252,120,063
$140,519,063
Georgia
45,985
0.50%
$66,808,000
$28,350,000
-$38,458,000
Hawaii
9,589
0.10%
$28,350,000
$28,350,000
$0
Idaho
49,434
0.54%
$28,350,000
$28,350,000
$0
Il inois
1,043,294
11.35%
$106,964,000
$227,766,770
$120,802,770
Indiana
265,400
2.89%
$43,334,000
$64,478,686
$21,144,686
Iowa
96,436
1.05%
$44,913,000
$29,011,995
-$15,901,005
Kansas
54,107
0.59%
$32,891,000
$28,350,000
-$4,541,000
Kentucky
40,207
0.44%
$46,717,000
$28,350,000
-$18,367,000
Louisiana
266,984
2.91%
$42,433,000
$64,811,168
$22,378,168
Maine
18,057
0.20%
$28,350,000
$28,350,000
$0
Maryland
71,166
0.77%
$51,934,000
$28,350,000
-$23,584,000
Massachusetts
117,090
1.27%
$65,783,000
$33,347,120
-$32,435,880
Michigan
301,790
3.28%
$69,593,000
$72,117,848
$2,524,848
Minnesota
136,873
1.49%
$43,276,000
$37,499,183
-$5,776,817
Mississippi
11,098
0.12%
$30,518,000
$28,350,000
-$2,168,000
Missouri
202,112
2.20%
$49,980,000
$51,194,262
$1,214,262
Montana
14,125
0.15%
$28,350,000
$28,350,000
$0
Nebraska
53,230
0.52%
$28,350,000
$28,350,000
$0
Nevada
9,048
0.10%
$32,864,000
$28,350,000
-$4,514,000
New Hampshire
14,819
0.16%
$28,350,000
$28,350,000
$0
Congressional Research Service

17

Lead Service Lines (LSLs) Replacement: Funding Developments

Hypothetical
Allotment
Difference
Based on FY23
Between
2023 LSL
Actual
Allotment
Hypothetical &
Estimates
% LSLs
Allotment
Formula
Actual

New Jersey
349,357
3.80%
$48,385,000
$82,102,194
$33,717,194
New Mexico
15,453
0.17%
$28,350,000
$28,350,000
$0
New York
494,007
5.38%
$115,781,000
$112,465,885
-$3,315,115
North Carolina
369,715
4.02%
$87,062,000
$86,375,969
-$686,031
North Dakota
26,443
0.29%
$28,350,000
$28,350,000
$0
Ohio
745,061
8.11%
$71,300,000
$165,165,220
$93,865,220
Oklahoma
28,679
0.31%
$40,192,000
$28,350,000
-$11,842,000
Oregon
3,530
0.04%
$37,300,000
$28,350,000
-$8,950,000
Pennsylvania
688,697
7.50%
$87,296,000
$153,333,424
$66,037,424
Puerto Rico
51,490
0.56%
$28,350,000
$28,350,000
$0
Rhode Island
75,749
0.82%
$28,350,000
$28,350,000
$0
South Carolina
108,177
1.18%
$36,716,000
$31,475,921
-$5,240,079
South Dakota
4,141
0.05%
$28,350,000
$28,350,000
$0
Tennessee
381,342
4.15%
$49,243,000
$88,816,147
$39,573,147
Texas
647,640
7.05%
$222,155,000
$144,714,628
-$77,440,372
Utah
14,293
0.16%
$28,350,000
$28,350,000
$0
Vermont
5,263
0.06%
$28,350,000
$28,350,000
$0
Virginia
187,883
2.04%
$46,256,000
$48,206,874
$1,950,874
Washington
22,030
0.24%
$63,336,000
$28,350,000
-$34,986,000
West Virginia
20,259
0.22%
$28,350,000
$28,350,000
$0
Wisconsin
341,023
3.71%
$48,319,000
$80,352,707
$32,033,707
Wyoming
10,477
0.11%
$28,350,000
$28,350,000
$0
Total for States
9,188,545
100.00% $2,792,475,000
$2,792,475,000
—
Source: Calculated by CRS from EPA, Bipartisan Infrastructure Law: Environmental Protection Agency 2022 State
Revolving Fund (SRF) Grants to States, Tribes and Territories by Program, December 2021; EPA, FY 2023 Allotments for
the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund based on the Seventh Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey and
Assessment, April 2023.
Notes: LSL denotes lead service lines. The “Difference Between Hypothetical and Actual” column denotes the
difference between hypothetical FY2022 state allotments of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA; P.L.
117-58) Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) lead service line (LSL) replacement appropriation
calculated using the LSL-specific al otment formula presented in the fourth column as compared to actual state
FY2022 allotments of IIJA DWSRF appropriation for LSL replacement, as presented in the third column.

Congressional Research Service

18

Lead Service Lines (LSLs) Replacement: Funding Developments

Author Information

Elena H. Humphreys

Analyst in Environmental Policy

Acknowledgments
Amber Hope Wilhelm, CRS Visual Information Specialist, provided graphics support for this report.
Michael M. McCarthy, CRS Office of Publishing Editor, provided formatting and editorial support.

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan
shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and
under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other
than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in
connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not
subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or
material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to
copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

Congressional Research Service
R47717 · VERSION 3 · UPDATED
19