ST. LOUIS — The Environmental Protection Agency distributed about $3 billion to states last year to replace harmful lead pipes based on unverified data, according to a memo from the agency’s inspector general, likely meaning some states received too much money and others very little.
Investigators found that two states submitted inaccurate data, the memo dated Wednesday said. It did not name the states. The EPA has since made changes, but the inspector general said the agency could do more.
“Insufficient internal controls to verify data led to assignments that did not represent the needs of each state, and if not met, the Agency risks using unreliable data for future” infrastructure spending, said the Inspector General of EPA, Sean W. O’Donnell.
The agency said it disagrees with several aspects of the inspector general’s memo, saying its lead pipe estimate is the best available and the correct way to allocate funding to states. The agency also said it has security guards to ensure the money is spent correctly.
The Bipartisan Infrastructure Act provided $15 billion to find and replace lead pipes over five years. These pipes are especially common in the Midwest and Northeast and typically found in older homes. Lead can reduce IQ scores in children and harm their development. It is also linked to increased blood pressure in adults.
To distribute funds based on the number of lead pipes states had, the EPA requested estimates from states and utility companies. Then, in April 2023, the agency announced the results – there are about 9.2 million lead pipes across the country – and adjusted its funding formula.
Tom Neltner, national director of Unleaded Kids, said two states — Texas and Florida — had much higher totals than expected from those estimates. Florida ultimately received the most funding of any state in 2023: $254.8 million after an initial estimate of nearly 1.2 million lead pipes.
“By submitting inflated information, you take money away from states that really need it,” he said.
Texas and Florida did not immediately respond to messages left with their governors’ offices and the Florida Department of Environmental Quality.
The Biden administration has prioritized providing safe drinking water for everyone. Earlier this year, the EPA proposed a rule that would require most cities to replace all of their lead pipes within a decade. It also imposed limits on so-called “forever chemicals” in drinking water.
Republicans have repeatedly attacked the Biden administration’s spending on climate and environmental priorities as a handout to left-wing causes without sufficient accountability.
The EPA inspector general’s office is evaluating federal funding for lead pipe replacement and had previously contacted agency officials about some of its concerns. The inspector general expects to release a final report in the fall, when he will identify each state’s inaccuracies.
The inspector general found that a water supplier in one state sent incorrect information to the agency and “adjustments made by another state” were also presented.
The agency said it “has done a tremendous amount of quality assurance work,” disagreeing with the inspector general’s assertions that its efforts were insufficient. Federal officials reviewed local lead pipe estimates, rejecting some they found inadequate.
Even before the release of the inspector general’s memo, some states had already complained to the EPA that its funding decisions were not fair.
“We have serious concerns about the quality of the data on which the EPA relied,” said a February letter to the EPA from Massachusetts officials.
In early May, the EPA adjusted its funding allocation for 2024 based on some new information received from utilities. President Biden announced the funding at a stop in Wilmington, North Carolina. Funding for Texas has fallen the most; its $146.2 million was reduced by about $117.6 million. Florida had the second largest reduction, cut by $26.1 million. Eight other states or territories recorded smaller reductions.
Nineteen states received more money, led by Minnesota with $48.7 million more and New Jersey with $40.1 million more.
Neltner said the EPA deserves credit for collecting additional information to improve the accuracy of grant funding.
The $15 billion is just a fraction of the total amount needed to replace all of the country’s lead pipes. Erik Olson, a health and food expert with the environmental group the Natural Resources Defense Council, said inflated estimates from some states could direct a lot of money to the wrong place.
“I’ll just say it’s suspicious,” he said.
Olson said it is the obligation of water utilities and states to submit accurate information. But the EPA also deserves some blame “for not checking some of these numbers,” he said.
When the agency began distributing money, some states like Michigan had a long list of projects they wanted to fund. Others are not as far along and must first spend the money on inventory to find their lead pipes. A small number of states even declined funding the first year it was offered.
If states don’t spend all of their money, it will be reallocated to states that need it most.
Neltner worries that if states receive more money than they need, they will spend it on expensive lead pipe stockpiles rather than replacement efforts.
John Rumpler, clean water director for the environmental group Environment America, said the important question is to what extent states are using the money they receive to replace lead pipes.
“Even if all this money was perfectly allocated,” he said. “It wouldn’t remove all the lead pipes.”
___
Associated Press data journalist Mary Katherine Wildeman contributed reporting from Hartford, Connecticut.
___
The Associated Press receives support from the Walton Family Foundation for coverage of water and environmental policy. AP is solely responsible for all content. For all of AP’s environmental coverage, visit
This story originally appeared on ABCNews.go.com read the full story
