City planning pilot program to begin replacing lead, copper water lines to comply with new EPA rule
City Commissioners voted during their Sept. 2 meeting to move forward with the lead service line replacement pilot project.
It’s a project that’s been in the works for awhile as staff has been working for years to prepare for a new U.S. Environmental Protection Agency rule regarding lead and copper water service lines.
The new rules are from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and city officials have said in multiple public meetings the revision for stricter compliance was triggered by the 2014 Flint, Mich. water crisis in which public water supplies were contaminated with lead.
The changes include increased water testing and the city must identify the types of water pipes throughout the city.
City staff has been preparing for the federal changes and working on the inventory for several years.
The city posted the inventory of known lead, copper and galvanized water services lines, as well as those that were unknown, with their addresses, last fall, as required by the EPA.
City staff going door-to-door of properties with unresponsive, unknown water service lines
The city used historical records to identify as many service line materials as possible, and sent 10,000 letters to property owners who might have lead service lines in the summer of 2022 asking them to do identification tests of their pipes.
The rule also requires that lead lines be replaced over the next decade.
City staff have been discussing this EPA rule and the impact to the city since 2022 and the crux of the issue is that city code states a property owner is responsible for the service line from the main to the property.
But, under the new EPA rule, the city could be penalized for the number of lead, or unknown, service lines, which if fined, would be a cost borne by all city ratepayers.
Lines that are unknown in the inventory are counted as lead and must also be replaced unless they are otherwise identified.
To prevent that, city staff are planning a $300,000 pilot program that will be funded by the city water fund, with a Department of Natural Resources and Conservation state revolving fund loan with 60 percent principal forgiveness for up to 20 property owners.
City continuing to prepare for new EPA rules on public water systems [2024]
The state’s loan fund is being funded through federal infrastructure funding.
That means the city will use the loan to cover 60 percent of the cost of replacing the known lead lines and the remaining 40 percent will be shouldered by the city water fund, or user fees.
In early 2023, staff initially planned to use the federal funds that are being funneled through the state’s revolving loan fund, coupled with federal Community Development Block Grant funds, to directly reimburse private property owners for replacing their lead lines, and contracted with AE2S to assist with the loan, homeowner coordination, design and construction management for the pilot.
City continuing to plan for new EPA rule, considering options to cover costs [2024]
But, DNRC determined that city funds were required to reimburse the remainder of the loan after forgiveness instead of CDBG or property owner funds.
So by the fall of 2023, commissioners approved a resolution allowing for water funds to be used to reimburse the costs of the project.
In September 2024 and May 2025, staff presented to commissioners that they intended to move forward with the pilot project to replace some lead lines using the city water fund, which is water utility fees.
How far will Montana’s push to remove lead from school drinking water go? [2023]
During their Sept. 2 meeting, commissioners approved an agreement that staff will use for the project with up to 20 property owners and DNRC, as well as the Department of Environmental Quality, will require the agreements for property access.
Staff will bring a construction contract to commissioners for future consideration.
Chris Gaub, city public works director, said that the city may use a similar process for mandated replacements in the future.
Commissioner Rick Tryon asked why ratepayers should cover the cost to replace someone’s line, to which Gaub said “it is a calculated pilot project,” to replace up to 20 lines to be ready for the EPA rules.
City planning pilot program to replace lead lines for upcoming EPA rule [2023]
It’s a similar conversation the city has been having since 2022.
The city has been working to inventory all existing service lines within the city limits, since the EPA will hold the city accountable for any lead lines and unknown lines are treated as though they are lead under the rules.
Gaub said that if the city ends up with 1,000 lines that need to be replaced under EPA rules, it would be the city that gets fined for violations, not the individual property owners.
“That’s a tension that we’ve talked about since almost day one,” Gaub said.
State accepting applications for lead mitigation projects in public water supplies [2022]
Tryon said he may not vote for it since it “looks to me like some people are getting a good deal and some are getting screwed.”
He asked how the city picks the properties for the pilot.
City developing plans for new federal rules on lead in drinking water [2022]
Gaub said the city had asked for volunteers for sampling, which is another increased requirement under the new EPA rules, and the city had 20 property owners who agreed to that. Of those, 13 have signed the agreement for the replacement pilot and are ready to go.
Gaub said they’re working to find another seven property owners, but if they don’t they may stop with the 13 they have.
Staff had briefed commissioners on the EPA rule and the proposed pilot program during their May 20 work session.
They were planning for the EPA to require that lead lines be replaced over 10 years and for Great Falls, staff said in May that the best case scenario was having to replace about 1,100 lines, at $15,000 each for $17 million over 10 years, equating to a roughly $7 monthly water bill increase for all city customers.
Worst case scenario, is that the city has to replace the roughly 4,900 lines that are either lead, copper or unknown, over the next decade at a cost of about $73.5 million, or an additional $28 monthly on a water bill.
That’s why staff has been working to identify service lines city wide, sending letters, making phone calls and going door to door.
Jesse Patton, city engineer, said in May that staff wanted the public to be aware of the costs.
He said if a resident tells them no four times, and staff documents it, that water line comes off the count against the city under the EPA rules.
But staff has to monitor that property and every time it changes hands, they have to go through that time-consuming process again, Patton said.
The EPA rule also requires the city to submit to DEQ and post on the city website replacement plans detailing how they’ll identify remaining unknown lines, conduct replacements, communication, prioritization of replacements, a funding strategy, citing specific city laws and have information on how to assist those who can’t afford to replace their own lines.
That plan has to be updated annually and staff said in May that the pilot program would help lay that foundation.
The EPA rule requires annual letters to nonconforming locations, and beginning in 2027, the city has to document four required replacement attempts and that resets if property ownership changes.
Mark Juras, of city public works, said that other cities have hired consultants to prepare for the new EPA rules, but Great Falls staff started early so they’re ahead but need residents to respond regarding their service line type.
During the May meeting, Tryon asked if the city was planning to spread the cost across all ratepayers to replace the nonconforming lines.
Juras said, yes, that was the plan under an EPA mandated replacement schedule.
“That’ll go over well,” Tryon said.
Juras said in May that it was “uncertain at this time,” what would happen if the city doesn’t meet the EPA requirements, but staff believes it’s very likely the city would be fined.
Nationwide, ratepayers are being asked to fund these upgrades without much federal funding to meet the requirements, Juras said.
