State decision makers
Principle 1
Commit to Action: Set LSLR Timelines and Goals
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Ensure full lead pipe replacement
Adopt legislative and administrative policies to ensure lead services are fully removed.
Enact mandatory LSLR
Enact mandatory lead service line replacement (LSLR) legislation or regulations applicable to all utilities in the state, developed collaboratively with key state-level partners such as the State Revolving Fund (SRF) program administrator and relevant regulatory agencies.
Prohibit partial replacements
Prohibit partial lead service line replacements to minimize the risk of elevated lead exposure in drinking water and ensure alignment with the Lead and Copper Rule Improvements (LCRI). A state-level mandate safeguards all water systems from potential federal policy shifts.
Require full replacement to access SRF funds
Only projects that plan to replace the entire LSL are eligible to receive DWSRF funding per Federal regulations. However, state SRF programs can set eligibility requirements to apply for lead service line replacement funds in the absence of such federal or state level regulations. These requirements can be part of a readiness requirement to proceed from a fundable list or low project priority to full funding.
Toolbox
LSLR mandates & timelines
Key Action 2
Set clear deadlines and goals for completion
Position your state as a national leader in lead service line replacement by setting clear goals and reducing uncertainty around federal deadlines. Defined targets provide utilities and communities with a roadmap for planning, funding, and executing replacements efficiently, while clear deadlines promote accountability and sustained progress toward safe drinking water for all residents.
Set a deadline to eliminate lead pipes
While the 2024 Lead and Copper Rule Improvements (LCRI) require all lead service lines to be removed by 2037, potential changes to federal regulations can create uncertainty for utilities already implementing replacement programs. State legislation can establish clear, realistic timelines that protect public health, account for implementation challenges, and provide long-term certainty for lead pipe replacement efforts.
Leverage lead pipe replacement to advance broader state policy goals
Lead service line replacement (LSLR) programs offer opportunities to drive workforce development (see Principle 5, Key Action 1), create quality jobs, and address the disproportionate impacts of lead exposure on low-income communities. Integrating LSLR with other infrastructure projects can enhance public works efficiency, reduce costs and disruptions, and improve service delivery. Aligning LSLR with broader state priorities allows policymakers to maximize resources and deliver lasting benefits to communities. States can do so through legislation or by attaching specific requirements to access federal funds.
Toolbox
LSLR deadlines
LSLR deadlines
Key Action 3
Minimize up-front costs to homeowners
Partial replacements – which can increase water lead levels – often happen when property owners are responsible for the costs of replacing the private portion of the service line (see What are ”full” and “partial” replacements? ), typically affecting low-income households and renters that may be reluctant or unable to pay. To prevent increased lead exposure in vulnerable communities, aim for full replacements at no direct cost to property owners.
Ensure lead pipe replacement for all at no up-front cost to homeowners
State legislation and regulatory policies can require utilities to replace lead service lines at no direct cost to property owners. States must also guarantee utilities can fully fund their programs through utility rate revenue, federal and state grants, or dedicated non-utility public funding sources, including philanthropic and individual donations (see Principle 2). Eliminating or minimizing out-of-pocket costs increases customer participation in replacement programs, as property owners are not burdened with financial barriers. This approach helps protect low-income households and communities of color from ongoing lead exposure, ensuring access to safe drinking water regardless of financial circumstances. It is important to note that though spreading costs minimizes the overall financial burden, most water utilities may need to raise individual rates to fully fund lead service line replacement programs.
Maximize cost-efficiencies with coordinated capital improvement projects
Maximize cost-efficiencies with coordinated capital improvement projects such as water main replacements (see Principle 3, Key Action 4) along with lead service line replacements (LSLR). A 2024 report estimated that excavation and roadwork can make up to 40% of LSLR costs. Coordinating lead pipe replacement with other construction activities is not only prudent but also provides incentives to reduce costs, and building a skilled workforce and contractor base (see Principle 5).
State lawmakers can require LSLR to be integrated into specific capital improvement projects. For example, legislation could mandate that LSLR be included whenever roads or sidewalks are repaved, and that roadwork permits be conditioned on addressing LSLR needs. This approach mirrors Milwaukee’s 2018 “Complete Streets” policy, which requires green stormwater infrastructure to be incorporated into street and sidewalk projects. Additionally, state administrators may consider ranking project applications or provide ranking points on state revolving fund (SRF) applications to projects that are coordinating LSLR with capital improvement projects to incentivize this approach.
