Key Facts
- ✓ The House spending package proposes cutting $125 million in lead pipe replacement funding.
- ✓ The funds would be repurposed for wildland fire management.
- ✓ Illinois has the most lead pipes in the nation and received the largest share of recent EPA funding.
- ✓ The 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act promised $15 billion over five years for pipe replacement.
Quick Summary
The Senate is preparing to vote on a spending package that could significantly impact efforts to remove toxic lead pipes from the nation's water systems. Passed by the House of Representatives, the package proposes cutting $125 million in funding that was previously allocated for lead service line replacement. Instead, the legislation suggests repurposing these funds for wildland fire management.
This funding was part of the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, which promised $15 billion over five years to address the health hazards posed by lead pipes. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently distributed nearly $3 billion to states, but the current legislative proposal seeks to claw back a portion of the remaining funds. Advocates and lawmakers warn that this reduction could slow down critical public health work, particularly in states like Illinois and Michigan that have a high concentration of lead infrastructure.
Legislative Action and Funding Cuts
The House of Representatives has passed a spending package that includes three of 12 appropriations bills, funding parts of the federal government including the Environmental Protection Agency. The Senate is slated to vote on this package later this week. The legislation, totaling over 400 pages, includes a provision to repurpose funds previously obligated by the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. This bipartisan infrastructure law was advanced by the Biden administration and promised $15 billion over five years to fund the replacement of service lines containing lead.
The proposed cut of $125 million represents a reduction from an earlier draft of the bill, which proposed cutting $250 million. House Democrats fought to protect the funds, resulting in the lower figure. However, the funds remain at risk of being redirected to wildland fire management. The EPA released funding allocations in November, obligating nearly $3 billion across the country. Illinois, the state with the most lead pipes, received the largest share. Another $3 billion was slated to be disbursed this year, the final year for the funds.
"We are facing a water crisis, and I’m disappointed that money appropriated by the [Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act] for lead pipe replacement is being repurposed by this legislation."
— Debbie Dingell, Representative
Public Health Implications 🏥
Lead is a neurotoxin that can cause cognitive, developmental, reproductive, and cardiovascular harm. Because lead pipes are a public health hazard, the EPA has mandated that all states replace them within about a decade. States with many pipes, such as Illinois, have been granted some extensions. Safe drinking water advocates and some lawmakers have called for the funds to be restored, emphasizing that the money is critical for health and safety. The cost of replacing these lines is estimated to range from $45 billion to $90 billion nationwide.
Any reduction in federal funding will have a material impact on people's lives, particularly in cities with high numbers of pipes like Chicago. Mary Grant, water program director at Food & Water Watch, stated that communities burdened by lead pipes need every dollar of federal support. She noted that there is no real justification for cutting back lead service line funding, as everyone wants safe, lead-free water regardless of political affiliation. The Earthjustice organization described the smaller cut as an improvement but still 'bittersweet,' noting that any clawback of these funds is unfortunate.
Political Stance and Estimates
Political figures have taken varying stances on the funding. Representative Debbie Dingell, a Democrat from Michigan, expressed disappointment that money appropriated by the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act is being repurposed. 'We are facing a water crisis, and I’m disappointed that money appropriated by the [Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act] for lead pipe replacement is being repurposed by this legislation,' Dingell said. 'Every American deserves clean water, and we will not stop fighting until we get the lead out.' Dingell and Representative Rashida Tlaib coordinated a letter to Senate leaders signed by 43 other members of Congress arguing the funding is critical.
In contrast, an EPA spokesperson wrote that the Trump EPA’s work on drinking water is 'unmatched' and that funding will 'accelerate progress in finding and removing lead pipes.' The agency also addressed controversy regarding the number of lead pipes in the US. The EPA estimated in 2024 that there were about 9 million lead service lines, but revised this estimate to 4 million late last year. This revised methodology, which assumes the vast majority of lines with unknown material do not contain lead, has been criticized by drinking water advocates. The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) suggested the reduced number might be a precursor to justifying future funding cuts, calling it 'penny-wise and pound-foolish.'
"Every American deserves clean water, and we will not stop fighting until we get the lead out."
— Debbie Dingell, Representative
"It’s great that they were able to save $125 million from one version of the appropriations bill to the next, and it’s obviously really unfortunate and disappointing that there’s any clawback at all of these funds."
— Julian Gonzalez, Senior Legislative Counsel at Earthjustice
"I don’t think there is a real justification for cutting back lead service line funding. At the end of the day, no matter where you live, no matter which party you vote for, everyone wants safe, lead-free water."
— Mary Grant, Water Program Director at Food & Water Watch
"The EPA’s reduced number of presumed lead service lines may also be a precursor to future efforts to justify cuts in funding for replacement of these lead pipes."
— Erik D. Olson, Natural Resources Defense Council
