ST. LOUIS — The Environmental Protection Agency allocated about $3 billion to states last year to replace hazardous lead pipes based on unverified data, possibly in part, according to a memo from the agency inspector general. Some states may have received too much money, while others may have received too little.
Investigators found that two states submitted inaccurate data, according to a memo released Wednesday. The name of the state was not disclosed. The EPA has since made changes, but the inspector general said the agency could do more.
EPA Inspector General Sean W. O'Donnell said, “Insufficient internal controls to verify data have resulted in allocations that do not reflect states' needs, and if left unchecked, EPA will have no confidence in the future.'' “They are at risk of using low-quality data.” .
The agency announced it will release new information on forecasts for major service lines later this summer. The EPA did not respond to a request for comment Thursday.
The bipartisan infrastructure law provided $15 billion over five years in exchange for finding lead pipes. These pipes are especially common in the Midwest and Northeast, and are typically found in older homes. Lead can lower children's IQ scores and delay development. It is also associated with high blood pressure in adults.
To allocate funding based on the number of lead pipes a state owns, EPA asked states and utility companies for estimates. Then, in April 2023, the agency released its results, saying there were about 9.2 million lead pipes across the country, and adjusted the funding formula.
Tom Neltner, national director of Unleaded Kids, said the totals in two states, Texas and Florida, were much higher than expected in those estimates. Florida ultimately received more funding than any state in 2023. The original estimate for lead pipes was about 1.2 million pipes, which came to $254.8 million.
“By submitting inflated information, you are taking money away from states that really need the information,” he said.
Texas and Florida did not immediately respond to messages left with the governor's office and the Florida Department of Environmental Quality.
The Biden administration is prioritizing access to safe drinking water for all. Earlier this year, the EPA proposed a rule that would require most cities and towns to replace all lead pipes within 10 years. It also placed limits on so-called “permanent chemicals” in drinking water.
Republicans have repeatedly attacked the Biden administration's spending on climate change and environmental priorities as handouts to leftist causes without adequate accountability.
The EPA's Office of Inspector General is in the process of evaluating federal funding for lead pipe replacement and has previously communicated with EPA officials regarding some of its concerns. The inspector general is expected to release a final report in the fall identifying inaccuracies in each state.
The inspector general found that one state's water utility submitted incorrect information to the agency and that “another state adjustment” was also submitted.
Even before the inspector general's memo was released, some states had already complained to the EPA about unfair funding decisions.
A February letter from Massachusetts officials to the EPA said there were “serious concerns about the quality of the data EPA relied on.”
In early May, EPA adjusted its funding allocation for 2024 based on some new information it received from utilities. Texas saw the biggest drop in funding. $146.2 million was reduced by approximately $117.6 million. Florida had the second-largest cut, with a reduction of $26.1 million. Her eight other states or territories saw smaller declines.
Nineteen states received more funding, led by Minnesota with $48.7 million and New Jersey with $40.1 million.
Neltner said EPA deserves credit for gathering additional information to improve the accuracy of the funds awarded.
This $15 billion is just a fraction of the total amount needed to replace every lead pipe in the country. Eric Olson, a health and food expert with the environmental group Natural Resources Defense Council, said inflated estimates by some states could divert a lot of money to the wrong places.
“Let's just say it's suspicious,” he said.
Olson said it's the responsibility of water utilities and the state to submit accurate information. But he said the EPA also bears some responsibility because it “didn't verify some of these numbers.”
When the agency began distributing funds, some states, such as Michigan, had long lists of projects they wanted to fund. Other companies don't go that far and have to spend money on inventory first to find lead pipes. A few states even refused funding in the first year it was offered.
If states do not use all of the funds, they will be reallocated to states with greater need.
Neltner worries that if states receive more money than they need, they will spend the money on expensive lead pipe inventories instead of replacing them.
John Rampler, director of clean water for the environmental group Environment America, said the key question is how well states are using the money given to replace lead pipes.
“Even if all this funding were perfectly allocated,” he says. “You can’t remove all the lead pipes.”