Minnesota Lead Line Replacement Funding Falls Short of Need

DULUTH — Going into the legislative session, the Coalition of Greater Minnesota Cities sought $250 million for lead service line replacements throughout the state, enough to replenish a similar amount passed by lawmakers in 2023. But toward the end of the session, Bradley Peterson, the coalition's executive director, lowered that ask to $100 million. That'd be enough to get through the 2027 construction season and keep the momentum going, he said. Then, the bonding bill came out, and it included only $15 million for lead line replacement. For the entire state. That amount wouldn't get very far in Duluth, where each water line replacement costs about $20,000, let alone all of Minnesota. "It's not good news for Duluth," said Duluth Mayor Roger Reinert. "It's not good news for our local folks that still have lead service lines that need replacing." There are nearly 90,000 confirmed lead or galvanized service lines in need of replacement by 2033 across the state, and the material of another 200,000 lines is still unknown, according to the Minnesota Department of Health's lead line inventory. Ahead of this construction session, Duluth had addressed nearly a quarter of its almost 11,000 estimated lead service lines, the vast majority of which serve homes and are being replaced, though some are cut off from the system if they are no longer in use. And its annual replacement program, which began with just a few dozen lines in 2021, has gained momentum, replacing more than 900 lines in 2025. It is in the midst of replacing another 1,250 or so lines this year. Reinert said it's too early to tell what that will mean for the number of lines replaced next year and beyond, but without additional funding, it will almost certainly mean fewer lines. "We don't want to have to ask homeowners to shoulder that burden … $15 million is not going to go very far," Reinert said. Because the ownership of a service line is split, federal funding covers all of the privately owned portion and half of the publicly owned portion. State funding covers the rest, ensuring homeowners don't foot the bill. The low amount from the state comes as federal funding for replacing lead lines also is running out. "We're expecting, essentially, the federal money to be drying up," Peterson said. "At this point, based on what we now know, going into the future, it's really going to be the state that's going to have to figure out how to pay for it." Peterson is hopeful that when lawmakers reconvene next year, they'll find a solution. That could come in the form of a dedicated fund that, unlike a bonding bill, would provide a predictable, consistent funding source for lead line replacement and not compete with other infrastructure projects. "This is very unsexy work, but it's also definitely very important," Peterson said. "All the priorities were jostling for dollars in the bonding bill, this was one that got the short end of the stick."