Alternative 3: Private Lead Service Line Replacement Program
The final policy alternative is the creation of a private LSL replacement program. Lead service lines are common in housing built before the 1986 Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments that banned the use of lead-containing pipes. Municipalities are responsible for the portion of the water service line running from the water main to the curb stop, and private property owners are responsible for the portion running from the curb stop to the home (See Appendix E). Currently, water utilities in Wisconsin are not allowed to use ratepayer funds for use on private property, meaning utilities cannot use revenue to offer LSL replacement grants or loans to residents. The Wisconsin legislature is considering legislation that would reverse this policy, but powerful interest groups have lobbied against the bills. Cities should not depend on the legislation passing. Thus, the most appropriate source of funding would be the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Private Lead Service Line Replacement Program. …show more content…
Funds can only be used for private service lines, but all replacements must result in the “full replacement of the lead service line for that property.” Cities must either offer the money to houses whose public side has already been replaced or replace the public side at the same time (with other funds). Research shows that partial line replacements are not enough to reduce lead contamination and can even increase the amount of lead in the water. Watertown replaces LSL “when [they] do a street reconstruct, but only to the curb stop.” It is likely that the city would offer the funds to houses that have already had their public service line replaced. Which lines the city has replaced is not easily accessible public information, so this analysis cannot determine if a LSL replacement program would target low-income
The final policy alternative is the creation of a private LSL replacement program. Lead service lines are common in housing built before the 1986 Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments that banned the use of lead-containing pipes. Municipalities are responsible for the portion of the water service line running from the water main to the curb stop, and private property owners are responsible for the portion running from the curb stop to the home (See Appendix E). Currently, water utilities in Wisconsin are not allowed to use ratepayer funds for use on private property, meaning utilities cannot use revenue to offer LSL replacement grants or loans to residents. The Wisconsin legislature is considering legislation that would reverse this policy, but powerful interest groups have lobbied against the bills. Cities should not depend on the legislation passing. Thus, the most appropriate source of funding would be the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Private Lead Service Line Replacement Program. …show more content…
Funds can only be used for private service lines, but all replacements must result in the “full replacement of the lead service line for that property.” Cities must either offer the money to houses whose public side has already been replaced or replace the public side at the same time (with other funds). Research shows that partial line replacements are not enough to reduce lead contamination and can even increase the amount of lead in the water. Watertown replaces LSL “when [they] do a street reconstruct, but only to the curb stop.” It is likely that the city would offer the funds to houses that have already had their public service line replaced. Which lines the city has replaced is not easily accessible public information, so this analysis cannot determine if a LSL replacement program would target low-income