91视频

By Michael Phillis
The Associated Press

ST. LOUIS 鈥� The Environmental Protection Agency distributed about $3 billion to states last year to replace harmful lead pipes based on unverified data, according to an agency inspector general鈥檚 memo, likely meaning some states got too much money and others got too little.

Investigators found two states had submitted inaccurate data, the May 15 memo stated. Those states were not identified. The EPA has since made changes, but the inspector general said the agency could do more.

鈥淚nsufficient internal controls for verifying data led to allotments that did not represent the needs of each state, and if left unaddressed, the agency runs the risk of using unreliable data for future鈥� infrastructure spending, EPA Inspector General Sean W. O鈥橠onnell said.

The agency said it disagrees with several aspects of the inspector general鈥檚 memo, saying its estimate of lead pipes is the best available and the right way to allocate funding to states. The agency also said it has safeguards in place to ensure money is spent correctly.

The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act provided $15 billion over five years for efforts to find and replace lead pipes. These pipes are especially common in the Midwest and Northeast and are typically found in older homes. Children who are exposed to lead can have lower IQ scores and suffer stunted development. In adults, lead is linked to higher blood pressure.

To distribute funds based on how many lead pipes states had, the EPA asked for estimates from states and utilities. Then, in April 2023, the agency announced the results 鈥斅爐here are about 9.2 million lead pipes nationwide聽鈥� and adjusted its funding formula.

Tom Neltner, national director with Unleaded Kids, said two states 鈥� Texas and Florida 鈥� had much higher totals than expected in those estimates. Florida ultimately received the most funding of any state in 2023: $254.8 million after an聽.

鈥淏y submitting inflated information, it takes money away from states that really need it,鈥� he said.

Neither Texas nor Florida immediately responded to messages left with their governor鈥檚 offices and Florida鈥檚 Department of Environmental Quality.

The Biden administration has prioritized delivering safe drinking water to everyone. Earlier this year, the EPA proposed a rule that would require most cities and towns to replace all their lead pipes within a decade. It has also聽put limits on so-called 鈥渇orever chemicals鈥� in drinking water.

Republicans have repeatedly attacked the Biden administration鈥檚 spending on climate and environmental priorities as a handout to left-wing causes without enough accountability.

The EPA鈥檚 office of inspector general is in the middle of evaluating federal funding for lead pipe replacements. The office had been in contact with agency officials earlier about some of their concerns. The inspector general expects to release a final report in the fall when it will identify each states鈥� inaccuracies.

The inspector general found a water provider in one state sent bad information to the agency and 鈥渁djustments made by another state鈥� were also submitted.

The agency said it 鈥減erformed a tremendous amount of quality assurance鈥� work, disagreeing with the inspector general鈥檚 assertions that their efforts fell short. Federal officials reviewed local lead pipe estimates, rejecting some they found inadequate.

EPA received funding decision complaints

Even before the inspector general鈥檚 memo was released, some states had already complained to the EPA that its funding decisions weren鈥檛 fair.

鈥淲e have serious concerns about the quality of the data upon which EPA relied,鈥� a February letter to the EPA from Massachusetts officials said.

In early May, the EPA adjusted its allocation of funds for 2024, which is based on some new information it received from utilities. Funding for Texas dropped the most; its $146.2 million was cut by about $117.6 million. Florida had the second-biggest reduction, by $26.1 million. Eight other states or territories saw smaller reductions.

Nineteen states got more money, led by Minnesota with $48.7 million more and New Jersey with $40.1 million more.

The EPA deserves credit for collecting additional information to improve the accuracy of the funding granted, Neltner said.

Inflated estimates by some states can direct a lot of money to the wrong place, said Erik Olson, a health and food expert at the Natural Resources Defense Council.

鈥淚鈥檒l just say it is suspicious,鈥� he said.

It鈥檚 the obligation of water utilities and states to submit accurate information, Olson said. But the EPA deserves some blame, too, 鈥渇or not verifying some of these numbers,鈥� he added.

When the agency started distributing money, some states like Michigan had a long list of projects they wanted to fund.聽Others aren鈥檛 so far along聽and must first spend the money on inventories to find their lead pipes.

A small number of states 鈥� Oregon, Washington, Alaska, and Maine 鈥� even聽declined funding in the first year it was offered. If states don鈥檛 spend all their money, it gets reallocated to states that need it more.

Neltner worries that if states receive more money than they need, they鈥檒l spend it on expensive lead pipe inventories and not replacement efforts.

John Rumpler, clean water director with environmental group Environment America, said the important question is how well states are using the money they are given to replace lead pipes.

鈥淓ven if all of this money was perfectly allocated,鈥� he said, 鈥渋t would not remove all the lead pipes.鈥�

Editor鈥檚 note: Associated Press data journalist Mary Katherine Wildeman contributed from Hartford, Connecticut.