To amend sections 6109.01 and 6109.22 and to enact sections 504.201, 735.291, 743.041, 6101.531, 6103.021, 6109.41, 6109.42, 6109.43, 6109.44, 6109.45, 6109.46, 6109.47, 6109.48, 6109.49, 6109.50, 6109.51, 6115.531, and 6119.062 of the Revised Code to establish a program regarding lead service line replacement and to name this act the Lead Line Replacement Act.
HB307, the Lead Line Replacement Act, creates a statewide program to identify, prioritize, and replace lead service lines in Ohio public water systems. The bill directs the Ohio EPA director to establish rules, oversee local replacement plans, provide customer support, and coordinate funding sources so that all lead service lines in the state are replaced within 15 years of the act’s effective date. It also requires public water systems to inventory service lines, submit replacement plans, update those plans annually, and provide public access to replacement data through an EPA database.
The bill also expands the state drinking water assistance framework to explicitly fund lead service line replacement and related planning through the water supply revolving loan account. It authorizes financial assistance, including low- or no-interest loans, subsidies for disadvantaged communities, and reimbursement mechanisms for customers who replace lines on their property. In addition, the bill allows townships, villages, municipal corporations, counties, conservancy districts, sanitary districts, and regional water and sewer districts to use the new replacement and cost-recovery provisions, while also setting rules for cost recovery through rates, rents, charges, or other customer assessments.
HB307 would significantly amend Ohio’s public water and drinking water statutes, especially Chapter 6109, by creating a new lead service line replacement program and adding detailed compliance, planning, enforcement, and funding provisions. It would require public water systems to inventory service lines, submit and implement replacement plans, and comply with EPA-approved prioritization and replacement standards. The bill also changes the state’s drinking water assistance fund to expressly support lead line replacement and related planning, and it authorizes cost recovery and reimbursement mechanisms for both lead and certain non-lead lines that are legally required to be replaced.
The bill appears generally supportive and public-health oriented, with its structure focused on accelerating lead pipe removal, protecting drinking water, and helping systems finance the work. Because the bill was only introduced and no committee testimony or votes are available, there is no recorded formal debate or vote-based sentiment in the provided materials. The overall tone of the legislation is proactive and regulatory, emphasizing statewide coordination, deadlines, and consumer protections.
The main potential points of contention are likely to be the cost, the mandatory 15-year replacement timeline, and the extent of state authority over local water systems and private property. The bill allows water systems to recover costs from customers and, in some cases, to enter property without consent after notice, which could raise concerns about property rights and affordability. It also requires low- and moderate-income protections and prohibits service disconnection for inability to pay, suggesting that affordability and equitable cost allocation are central issues that may draw debate from utilities, local governments, and consumer advocates.