Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Lead Remediation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lawmakers Hear Why Lead‑in‑Water Grant Needs More Time; Reimbursement Model Is Barrier
Summary
Representative Paul Tuss urged extension of a 2023 appropriation to continue a reimbursement program for removing lead from school drinking water; DEQ and education groups testified that reimbursement requirements and ESSER spend‑down delayed use of funds and that about $3.7M has been spent to date with 36 schools reimbursed.
Representative Paul Tuss told the committee House Bill 234 would extend an appropriation approved in 2023 to fund remediation of lead in school drinking water systems, saying the reimbursement‑based program requires more time to reach eligible schools. "This program is reimbursement based," he said, noting that projects must be planned and local districts must front costs before seeking reimbursement. Tuss cited about $3.4 million administered through DEQ and said 31 schools had been reimbursed at the time of his remarks; DEQ later provided updated figures.
Rob Watson and other proponents described practical barriers: districts must collect samples, identify fixtures, and contract for repairs; rural districts face contractor shortages. Watson also noted districts had to spend down federal ESSER funds (final ESSER deadline was September 2024) before qualifying for the DEQ reimbursement, which delayed applications.
Lindsay Kravarichka of the Department of Environmental Quality explained DEQ’s role in tracking inventories and compliance; she told the committee that as of her accounting roughly $3.7 million of the original allocation has been spent and 36 schools have received funding, and that the program maintains a $100,000 per‑school cap while allowing larger reimbursements when justified.
Committee members asked whether the reimbursement requirement could be modified to reduce barriers; sponsors and witnesses said there was not an active statutory change in place but pointed to other bills (major maintenance funding) that could provide upfront resources. Representative Tuss closed the hearing and the committee later concurred in the bill.
