Concerns about DC Water's $1.8 billion cost estimate for Lead service line replacement
iStock: stellalevi
3.5.25
Dear Councilmember Allen, Kate, Kevin, Anthony, and Connor,
I hope this message finds you all well.
Thank you, Councilmember, for making the markup of the combined lead-in-water bill a priority.
Paul Schwartz and I are circling back after the Committee on Transportation and the Environment's Feb. 20 DC Water oversight hearing with an update and a couple of time-sensitive questions (below).
As you know from our testimony at the hearing, the Campaign for Lead Free Water is concerned that DC Water's latest (and ever-increasing) cost estimate for the replacement of DC's remaining lead service lines is excessive.
We believe that a thorough, reliable, and transparent assessment of this cost estimate by a body that is knowledgeable and accountable to DC residents is now urgent.
As we mentioned at the hearing, $1.8 billion for the replacement of approximately 42,000 lead service lines breaks down to approximately $43,000 per replacement.
It is our understanding that DC Water's latest cost estimate jumped from $1.5 to $1.8 billion, in large part, to cover the cost of brass service line replacement. Although such replacement might increase the total number of service lines DC Water will need to replace, we do not understand how it can possibly justify a $300 million jump in the price tag.
DC Water's current $1.8 billion cost estimate corresponds to almost three times EPA's 2024 maximum cost estimate (i.e., $14,966) per lead service line replacement. It is also three times higher than the total cost estimate for replacing all of the District's lead, galvanized, unknown (that may turn out to be lead), and brass service lines that is presented in DC Council's 2022 commissioned, independent analysis by the consulting firm Safe Water Engineering. This analysis, which was a central element of the Council's Interagency Task Force on Lead Service Line Replacement, estimated the total cost to range from $480 and $628 million. It explained that "The low and high estimates [were] calculated using optimized street paving versus street paving as suggested by District of Columbia Department of Transportation regulations."
In short, we fear that DC Water's cost estimate might involve unaddressed inefficiencies, opportunistic charges, and, worse, corruption.
Our worry about corruption is reinforced by a 2024 Safe Water Engineering analysis, which outlines how DC Water's contractor, CDM Smith, has a history of making “flawed interpretations” of data and significantly inflating lead service line replacement cost estimates. This worry deepened further last week, when DC Water offered to meet with the Campaign for Lead Free Water and a couple of other advocates to discuss its $1.8 billion cost estimate, but declined our request to include in the meeting Safe Water Engineering's president and founder Elin Betanzo. DC Water insisted on Ms. Betanzo's exclusion (offering to meet with her separately), even after we explained that her budgetary expertise would help us participate in the conversation in a more informed and fruitful manner.
We are concerned that DC Water is trying to saddle an already victimized from lead in water population with astronomical costs that it can push through only by keeping knowledgeable experts and robust oversight at bay.
The risks of an overblown cost estimate are multiple and, in our opinion, serious.
The one that concerns us the most is this:
In the last 25 years, DC residents have been repeatedly misled by DC Water on matters pertaining to lead in our city's tap water. In two of these instances (2001-2004 and 2004-2008), DC residents suffered large-scale and unprecedented health harm as a result. In stark contrast to the residents of Flint, MI, who also experienced a serious — albeit far less severe — lead-in-water crisis, DC residents received no official acknowledgment of this harm or its potential life-long adverse consequences, and no support services for those injured. Instead, the neglected residents of our city are now facing the possibility of financial 'punishment' for the removal of a lead source that:
they did not choose to install on their properties (lead service lines in DC were mandated by the city's plumbing code),
they did not know existed (or, when they were eventually notified, they were misled about the health risk they pose), and
should have been fully removed at no direct or indirect cost to them over 20 years ago (when the DC Water, Washington Aqueduct, DC Department of Health, and EPA Region 3 cover-up of our 2001-2004 lead-in-water crisis was fully exposed).
Against this backdrop, any degree of financial burden on DC residents for lead service line replacement would be immoral. It would render our city an outlier in relation to other cities (e.g., Flint, MI; Newark, NJ; and Benton Harbor, MI) that also underwent lead-in-water crises but replaced lead service lines without saddling residents with any direct or indirect costs. And it would add yet another layer of inequity and injustice on an already victimized population.
Our questions:
1. Does the Committee on Transportation and the Environment, or any other entity in the Council, plan to review the 2022 and 2024 Safe Water Engineering analyses? Does the Committee, or any other entity in the Council, plan to consult with Safe Water Engineering to hear their assessment of DC Water's latest cost estimate? If so, who will the reviewer be and when can we expect the Council's official assessment of DC Water's $1.8 billion cost estimate?
Here, it might be helpful to point out the trajectory of DC Water's rising cost estimates for lead service line replacement over the years — namely:
a. In 2004, $350 million for the replacement of the public portion of 23,000 lead service lines by 2010 (this project was terminated early because DC WASA's 14,000+ partial replacements were eventually exposed to place residents at increased risk of exposure, since they often resulted in short- and long-term lead-in-water spikes; a few years later, a 2011 CDC study found a 3-fold increase in the risk of elevated blood lead levels among children living in those 14,000+ homes; and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) issued an urgent call for a national moratorium on partial lead service line replacement).
b. In 2008, $400 million for the replacement of the public portion of 35,000 lead service lines by 2016.
c. In 2022, $540 million for the full replacement of approximately 42,000 lead service lines by 2030, with a total of $680 million that builds in $141 million for water main replacement (WMR). According to Safe Water Engineering, “An additional $193 million for currently planned WMR, $15 million for future planned WMR, and $201 million for future estimated WMR is presented separately but included with the [Lead Free DC (LFDC)] Plan cost estimate." Safe Water Engineering further clarifies that: "While we recognize the $349 million need DC Water has included for currently identified WMRs ($141 million for poor quality main WMR, $193 million for currently planned WMR, and $15 million for future planned WMR), we recommend that these WMRs be included in the [Capital Improvement Program] budget rather than the LFDC budget. These replacements are necessary for maintaining water quality and infrastructure integrity, and [lead service line replacement] will be least expensive if completed at the same time. However, these are expenses DC Water must plan for even in the absence of a LFDC Plan. Therefore, we recommend funding the WMRs that DC Water identifies as necessary, but we do not include WMR costs in the recommended LFDC Plan cost estimates presented here.”
d. In 2023, $1.5 billion for the full replacement of approximately 42,000 lead service lines by 2030.
e. In 2025, $1.8 billion for the full replacement of approximately 42,000 lead service lines by 2037 (it is our understanding that this budget is awaiting DC Water's Board approval).
2. In light of the fact that an unfunded lead service line replacement mandate will essentially place an economic gun to the head of DC's already victimized population for the long-overdue project of lead service line remediation, will the Committee write the impending bill in a way that:
a. Rescinds the 1977 Repair Act (DC Code section 8-205(b)) on which DC Water relies to justify not using existing ratepayer funds for private-side replacement? Allowing the use of existing ratepayer funds for private-side replacement should dramatically decrease the gap between the cost of replacing all lead service lines and currently available funds. It is our understanding that although DC Water portrays the 1977 Repair Act as an unfortunate 'tying of its hands' with regards to private-side replacement, the agency has made little effort to see this Act rescinded, because it prefers to use existing ratepayer funds for other projects.
b. Maintains the language in the "Lead-Free DC Omnibus Amendment Act of 2023," which states that lead service line replacement will be provided at no cost to property owners?
c. Minimizes (if not eliminates) District Department of Transportation (DDOT) and Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs (DCRA)/Department of Buildings (DOB) charges from DC Water's lead service line replacement cost estimate?
d. Includes measures protecting DC residents from lead service line replacement charges that are rooted in inefficiencies, overblown or opportunistic calculations, and/or corruption?
We ask for answers to these questions before the Committee's combined lead-in-water bill moves to markup.
On a related note, attached is my written testimony. I haven't had luck uploading it to the Council’s hearing webpage (which is fine because I just added some new text). If it's possible to have someone upload it for me, I would appreciate it greatly.
Thank you and warm regards,
Yanna
Yanna Lambrinidou PhD
Campaign for Lead Free Water
202.997.1834