Some rural South Dakotans struggle to get good drinking water but the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation has awarded two local communities with grants to help change it.

Nearly $13 million in WaterSMART Drought Resiliency grants are slated for projects in Eagle Butte and Day County. The Mni Wašté Water Company, run by the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, will receive $2.8 million to pipe water 10 miles northwest of the community to supply 17 existing residences and 20 being constructed.

Leo Fischer, executive director, Mni Wašté Water Company and enrolled member of Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, said the water company started planning this project in 1993 and in the meantime, the people living there have had to haul their water.

"It's more of a pain than it is anything, because you haul it in the back of a vehicle," Fischer pointed out. "In the wintertime, everything freezes up."

Piped water is important in the region, because area groundwater wells are of poor quality, must run deep into the ground and have proven unreliable.

To the east, the WEB Water Development Association is slated to receive nearly $10 million to build about 40 miles of pipeline, supplying more than 700 people with drinking water in the city of Waubay and in rural Day County.

Shane Phillips, general manager of the association, said it feels ironic to be doing a project in Day County, which is known for having ample water.

"It's the true quality of the water that's not great in Day County," Phillips observed. "There's total dissolved solids. It's really high in minerals."

Phillips added the company hopes to break ground in 2025 on its project piping and treating potable water from the Missouri River. The Bureau of Reclamation has made WaterSMART grants in 11 states this year.


get more stories like this via email

A New York City bill is a catch-22 for removing lead pipes. The so-called "Rotten Apple Bill" makes city property owners remove their home's lead service lines and threatens financial penalties if they fail to comply.

Up to 41% of water service lines have or may have lead in them.

Valerie Baron, senior attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council, applauded the bill's intent but argued there are better ways to address lead service lines. She said problems can arise when property owners organize line replacement work.

"You might be digging up the street six, seven, eight different times for example," Baron pointed out. "It's also confusing. It makes it difficult to get the proper health safeguards in place, and it's not cost-effective."

Baron contended an effective program requires a mandate for lead pipe removal with the city conducting the work at no cost to homeowners. The state has received funds from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law to replace pipes. But she noted if New York City passes the buck to homeowners, they run the risk of being ineligible for the large pot of money. State dollars have been set aside for this purpose but they do not match federal funds.

Other concerns are the health hazards of removing lead pipes. Disturbing a lead pipe can dislodge little bits of lead and further contaminate the area. Baron noted creating a centralized program ensures a home's pipes are flushed properly and the water is filtered for six months. She stressed the bill's penalties could harm the wrong people.

"It would be a $1,000 fine if you don't get that pipe out," Baron emphasized. "We're concerned that either some landlords might choose to take that fine as the cost of doing business, or other families that couldn't afford the pipe replacement won't be able to afford that $1,000 either."

The push comes as the Environmental Protection Agency is finalizing a new Lead and Copper Rule, which is expected to give municipalities nationwide 10 years to replace all existing lead pipes. There are some exceptions. The EPA's new rule could take effect in 2027.


get more stories like this via email

A Michigan nonprofit dedicated to keeping oil out of the Great Lakes is celebrating a major victory.

A federal Appellate Court has ruled that Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel's 2019 lawsuit against Canadian oil company Enbridge belongs back in state court.

Nessel's lawsuit aims to shut down part of the Line 5 petroleum pipeline beneath the Straits of Mackinac over concerns of a potential oil spill.

The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals discovered that Enbridge moved the case from state court to federal court more than two years past the deadline for changing jurisdictions.

Sean McBrearty is campaign coordinator for the group Oil and Water Don't Mix, and the Michigan director for Clean Water Action. He said the appellate court's ruling is justified, because Nessel sued Enbridge under the State Public Trust Doctrine and the State Environmental Policy Act.

"Essentially what the doctrine says is that the waters and bottom lands of the state are owned by the people," said McBrearty, "and it's the duty of the state government to care for them in perpetuity."

In response, Enbridge issued a statement that says in part that they are disappointed in the Appellate court's decision, and they believe "the case should remain in federal court given the clear and substantial questions of federal law raised by the attorney general's complaint."

Line 5 transports petroleum products from northwestern Wisconsin through Michigan into Ontario, threading through the Straits of Mackinac.

McBrearty underscored that his organization's concerns about the pipeline and the potential for a catastrophic oil spill are rooted in scientific evidence.

"We have a now 71-year-old pipeline, that was made to last 50 years," said McBrearty, "running every day through what scientists call the most dangerous spot in the Great Lakes for an oil spill."

Enbridge maintains that Line 5's safety is exclusively regulated by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.

The case will return to Michigan's 30th Circuit Court in Ingham County.

Recent reports are calling on Virginia and the U.S. to invest in water infrastructure. The U.S. Water Alliance's Bridging the Gap report reviews two scenarios - continuing investments under the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and if funding returns to previous levels.

Virginia received a C+ in the American Society of Civil Engineers' latest infrastructure report card.

Christy Harowski, Value of Water campaign director with the U.S. Water Alliance, said going back to previous spending rates isn't a viable option.

"We're going to have a $2.6 trillion investment gap for water in 2043, which is a huge number. But, if we continue to invest over that same period of time at IIJA spending levels, then that gap would be reduced by $125 billion," Harowski said.

This is based on the Environmental Protection Agency's Needs Survey showing the national water infrastructure investment gap is $91 billion and will only balloon if the bill's levels don't remain. She noted this continued investment at IIJA's rates creates long-term impacts such as keeping 200,000 jobs and households saving almost $7,000 over 20 years.

One challenge with water infrastructure investments for most is that it's out of sight, out of mind. Given local and state funds pay for a majority of water infrastructure, being proactive at a federal level means renewing the IIJA beyond its 2026 expiration. Harowski said past disinvestment has degraded existing infrastructure.

"America's water infrastructure is largely about 100 years old," she said. "In some places, it's even older than that. It is well past its useful life and, as a result of that, more water mains are breaking, more pipes are leaking, and the need to repair and replace a lot of this infrastructure is greatly outpacing the investment in it."

Investing in water infrastructure remains a key issue for voters. The Value of Water Index poll shows there is strong bipartisan support for maintaining the IIJA's investments. Most voters surveyed would pay moderate rate increases supporting local utility projects improving water accessibility and community health.


get more stories like this via email