AWWA Files Legal Petition Over LCRI Implementation Challenges
By Christian Bonawandt
On December 13, 2024, AWWA filed a Petition for Review of the Lead and Copper Rule Improvements (LCRI) in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The organization argues that, while it supports the goals of the LCRI, it believes the legislation, in its current form, “is not feasible.”
The filing comes just two months after the official compliance date for the Lead and Copper Rule Revisions (LCRR). In comments on the LCRI, AWWA notes that water utilities have already made many adjustments to comply with the LCRR.
The move may come as a surprise to some: in 2021, the organization filed a petition strongly supporting the LCRR. However, in a statement released the same day as the filing, AWWA cites three major obstacles as their reason for objecting to the LCRI: the logistics of the 10-year lead line replacement timeframe, the EPA’s definition of “control” as it pertains to service lines, and the rules’ overall impact on water affordability.
Challenges Of The 10-Year Lead Timeline
While AWWA is insistent that lead line replacement must be a priority, it is not confident that the 10-year timeframe is realistic, claiming that it will place significant financial, logistical, and personnel burdens on many communities. The EPA has cited numerous examples of successful LSL replacement programs, but AWWA argues that they are not representative of typical scenarios. These programs, they say, benefited from substantial external subsidies and did not face nationwide competition for resources, which would be the case under the LCRI mandate.
In the petition, AWWA makes the case that the 10-year timeframe would likely lead to deferment of other crucial water infrastructure investments, as well as substantial increases in household water rates due to insufficient federal and state funding for LSL replacement. It is also likely to cause significant disruption in neighborhoods due to the rapid pace of construction.
According to the AWWA, a more feasible approach would involve recognizing local circumstances and allowing for longer timeframes for replacement. In addition, EPA should encourage shared responsibility among utilities, government, consumers, and other stakeholders.
Complexities Of “Control”
The LCRI mandates that water utilities replace all LSL that they can control. However, AWWA objects to the definition of “control” in the LCRI. The legislation equates control of a LSL to having “access” to replace it. However, the LCRI does not specify the prerequisites for “access,” noting that there is wide variation in state and local laws, certain agreements, as well as potential for change over time.
This definition of control conflates “access” with legal authority, the AWWA claims, and effectively expands the definition of a public water system to include private property. They argue that granting a water system access to private property for replacement does not mean the system has “control” over that property. Further, complicating matters is that access can change with shifts in property ownership, local laws, and other agreements. AWWA insists that tracking these changes and adjusting their replacement plans accordingly creates an undue burden on the water utility.
Concerns Over Affordability
AWWA also expressed doubts over the financial impact of the LCRI on water utilities. EPA estimated the cost of LSL replacement at $3 to $4.9 billion. However, AWWA writes that this is a severe underestimation, projecting the cost to be more than $100 billion. This is based on an estimated cost of $12,000 per line, with 9.2 million LSL believed to be in service nationwide.
The reason for the low estimate is that EPA is not accounting for ancillary costs, such as permitting, engineering, customer outreach, and post-replacement provisions, according to the AWWA. In addition, they say EPA’s analysis does not fully account for the complex and potentially costly adjustments water systems may need to make to their corrosion control treatment in order to comply with the new requirements of the LCRI. Lastly, the EPA figures do not account for lost opportunity costs — in other words, money spent on LSL will not be spent on other areas of the water system.
To mitigate the impact of the LCRI on water affordability, the AWWA offers two suggestions:
- Provide financial assistance. This can help water systems replace lead service lines without raising water bills to unaffordable levels. This assistance could come in the form of grants, low-interest loans, or other subsidies.
- Extend the timeframe for replacement: Simply put, water systems need more time to plan and secure funding, which could help to reduce the impact on water bills.
In both its statement and the petition, the organization reiterates its strong support for the goals of the LCRI and LCRR. However, they hope to work with EPA to develop rules that are “credible, legally sound, truly feasible, and appropriate to the challenge at hand.”