State decision makers
Principle 3
Break Down Barriers and Streamline Processes
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Allow use of municipal resources for private-side LSLR
Real or perceived legal constraints can prevent water utilities from replacing lead service lines on private property, slowing or stalling full replacement efforts. State legislators can accelerate lead pipe removal by enacting legislation that explicitly authorizes the use of public funds and municipal staff for private-side replacements. Clarifying utility authority and eliminating legal ambiguities ensures utilities can plan and execute comprehensive, street-by-street upgrades—protecting public health and making full use of available funding.
Authorize the use of public funds to cover private-side replacement
Statutory or constitutional restrictions on the use of utility and municipal funds, such as water rates or municipal bonds, for work on private property remain a barrier to full lead service line replacement (LSLR). Even when not explicitly prohibited, a lack of legal clarity can create hesitation among utilities and slow down replacement efforts. State lawmakers can remove these real and perceived obstacles by adopting legislation that clearly authorizes the use of utility and municipal funds to cover private-side costs, including restoration. Doing so empowers water utilities to access and deploy the primary sources of funding needed to achieve comprehensive lead pipe removal. Note that investor-owned utilities (IOUs) are often subject to different regulations than municipally-owned water systems, requiring different legislative solutions to overcome their own set of barriers.
Some ways state lawmakers can remove these statutory barriers include:
Establishing a “public health benefit” or “public health nuisance”
Establishing a “public health benefit” or “public health nuisance” as a basis for authorizing the use of public funds to replace private-side lead service lines.
Authorizing the use of municipal funds
Authorizing the use of municipal funds—such as water rates, bonds, and capital improvement funds—for private-side replacements, and allowing utility revenues to repay the loan portion of State Revolving Funds (SRF).
Allowing utilities to recover private-side replacement costs
Allowing utilities to recover private-side replacement costs through mechanisms like special tax assessments, loans, or mortgages.
Dedicating state funds
Dedicating state funds to cover the costs of private-side replacements (see Principle 2, Key Action 2).
Streamline the rate approval process for water utilities
Streamline the rate approval process for water utilities by allowing automatic inclusion of LSLR costs in water rates. Public and investor-owned utilities may require approval of a water rate case (or rate study) from a Board to raise rates to cover LSLR. Legislation can eliminate the need for separate rate cases or board approvals, expediting project funding.
Allow municipal staff to conduct private-side LSLR
Remove limitations on the use of municipal staff to replace pipes on private property. Leveraging in-house staff to carry out replacements can increase cost-efficiencies and time-savings, especially if paired with other utility work such as water main replacements and meter replacements. States can adopt legislation to enable utilities to use municipal staff and reduce risk and liability when conducting.
In some states, restrictions on the use of municipal or utility staff for work on private property can limit the efficiency and affordability of lead service line replacement programs. Allowing in-house crews to perform private-side inspections and replacements—particularly when coordinated with other planned utility work, such as water main or meter replacements—can significantly reduce costs and speed up project timelines. Employing in-house staff to conduct private-side replacements also reduces water utilities’ risk and liability. State legislators can support more streamlined and cost-effective replacements by adopting legislation that explicitly authorizes the use of municipal staff for this work on private property.
Toolbox
Use of municipal resources for private-side LSLR
Key Action 2
Enable utility access to private property
The Lead and Copper Rule Improvements (LCRI) requires water systems to fully replace the lead service lines and discourages risky partial replacements. However, gaining access to private property to inspect and replace the customer-owned proportion of the line remains challenging for many water utilities. State legislators can enact legislation to remove barriers that may preclude the utility from gaining access to replace the customer-owned portion of the service line, both in-ground and within the building. Pairing this with measures that eliminate financial obstacles for private-side replacements can help utilities accelerate lead service line replacement (see Principle 2, Key Action 1).
Authorize utility access to inspect and replace the customer-owned portion
The Lead and Copper Rule Improvements (LCRI) require water utilities to identify and replace the entire lead pipe as long as it is under their “control”, meaning they can legally and physically access it. This barrier to access can often be a matter of perception. In fact, various public entities are authorized to enter and conduct work on private property already, including sidewalk improvements, work on storm drainages, and fighting fires. State legislators can enact legislation that explicitly removes barriers that may preclude water utilities from gaining access to private property or using municipal staff to inspect and replace the lead service line in its entirety.
Allow renters to facilitate access to replace lead service lines
Water utilities often seek property owners’ consent before replacing the privately owned portion through a formal access form. Obtaining consent can prove challenging for water utilities when landlords are unresponsive or absent, unjustly placing the burden and risk of lead exposure on renters.
Empower utilities to implement automatic enrollment for LSLR
Automatic enrollment streamlines lead pipe replacement efforts by shifting the default from opt-in to opt-out—saving time, reducing costs, and increasing project success rates. Rather than waiting for property owners to enroll and return consent forms—a process that is often slow, resource-intensive, and prone to low participation—utilities can move forward with replacement plans more efficiently and predictably.
With automatic enrollment, utilities can plan work more effectively, contractors can schedule projects with confidence, and administrative delays are minimized. While robust community outreach and education remain essential, this approach accelerates the pace of replacement, protects public health, and maximizes the impact of available funding.
State lawmakers can help enable automatic enrollment by enacting legislation that enables:
Mandatory lead pipe replacement.
Requiring property owners to replace LSLs facilitates faster replacement.
Default enrollment.
Enrolling customers in lead pipe replacement programs by default eliminates the need for unnecessary paperwork, enabling utilities to proceed with replacements more quickly. Though it may be beneficial for utilities to seek access forms, they should be able to proceed even without them under a default enrollment policy.
Opt-out via customer-initiated replacement.
Requiring property owners to prove that they do not have a lead service line or that they’ve replaced their portion of the lead pipes within a set timeframe in order to opt out of the program prevents delays and scattered replacements.
Occupant-permitted access.
To prevent delays in neighborhood-scale lead pipe replacement projects, states should authorize renters or current occupants to grant access to utilities or contractors for private-side replacements. Requiring landlord approval can introduce significant delays, particularly when property owners are unresponsive or absent. By enabling occupant-approved access, utilities can maintain project momentum, improve scheduling efficiency, and reduce administrative burdens—while still delivering necessary protections for both tenants and property owners.
Restoration of service after replacement.
Tying service restoration to customer enrollment for lead service line replacement—or completing the replacement itself—can help streamline projects, reduce administrative burdens, and speed up full neighborhood upgrades. Temporary water shutoffs are often necessary during infrastructure work or to prevent unsafe water from flowing through lead pipes. In either case, service should be restored once the line is replaced or the customer agrees to the work.
If state law prohibits service shut-offs in these situations, alternative enforcement options may include monetary fines, water surcharges, requiring landlord license renewals to be contingent on program enrollment, or mandating lead pipe disclosures. These potential consequences should be clearly communicated early in the outreach process so residents are fully informed.
Toolbox
Mandatory LSLR
Default enrollment
LSLR customer opt-out
Occupant-permitted access for LSLR
Restoration of service upon LSLR
Key Action 3
Accelerate technology innovations through strategic partnerships
Creating strong partnerships between SRF administrators, primacy agencies, and the federal government can help streamline administrative processes and drive innovations.
Promote regional collaboration to accelerate the evaluation of innovative LSLR technologies
Lead service line replacement (LSLR) technologies, including lead identification and location solutions, can reduce the LSLR program costs. The current state-by-state framework for evaluating new LSLR technologies is inefficient and creates inconsistency in how tools are approved and deployed. This fragmented approach can delay the adoption of innovative solutions and create challenges for contractors operating across multiple jurisdictions.
To streamline this process, states—particularly those within the same geographic region—should form regional consortia in partnership with other primacy agencies and the U.S. EPA Office of Research and Development (ORD). These consortia can collaboratively evaluate and validate emerging LSLR technologies, creating shared criteria or mutual recognition agreements that allow for more consistent approvals across states. A regional approach would enable faster deployment of proven tools, reduce duplication of effort, and expand contractor access to the most effective and up-to-date replacement methods—ultimately accelerating full lead pipe replacement. In addition to reviewing new technology solutions, these consortia can all play a role in collecting and disseminating LSLR lessons learned and best practices across the geographic region.
Encourage transparency and communication between departments
When departments communicate and share plans, they can avoid redundant work, minimize disruptions, and maximize resources. For example, replacing lead service lines at the same time as road repairs reduces costs and prevents streets from being torn up twice. State legislators can pass laws to require that any construction project likely to disrupt lead pipes coordinate with water utilities so they may be replaced simultaneously. Doing so would ensure a more efficient, cost-effective, and coordinated approach to infrastructure projects while protecting public health.
Key Action 4
Align LSLR with other infrastructure upgrades
States and utilities can significantly reduce administrative and construction costs by aligning lead service line replacement (LSLR) efforts with other planned infrastructure projects that involve excavation. This is especially effective when coordinating LSLR with large-scale construction projects. Examples include water main upgrades, roadwork, or sidewalk improvements. Coordinating these efforts creates synergies that stretch limited funding, streamline construction timelines, and reduce repeated disruptions for residents and businesses. By planning LSLR as part of broader public works projects, utilities can increase efficiency, improve community satisfaction, and make the most of available resources.
Consider exceptions to road moratoriums for LSLR
Road moratoriums, which restrict excavation or repaving for a set period after street resurfacing, can unintentionally delay or complicate lead pipe replacement efforts. These restrictions may conflict with utility prioritization plans, limit the ability to complete urgent one-off replacements, and hinder block-by-block strategies that are essential for efficient, full-scale lead service line replacement (LSLR). Additionally, moratoriums often require full-width street repaving rather than localized patching, significantly increasing project costs and labor demands.
To avoid these unintended barriers, state lawmakers should consider establishing exceptions for LSLR projects, particularly on state-maintained roads. Doing so can help utilities accelerate replacements, reduce unnecessary costs, and ensure that public health priorities are not delayed by rigid infrastructure policies.
