The Washington Post published this editorial on Oct. 26. It was distributed by the òòò½ÊÓƵsociated Press.
It is almost impossible to be against a rule announced by the Environmental Protection Agency this month requiring utilities to replace all lead pipes within a decade. After all, who opposes the swift removal of a deadly toxin from drinking water? But thereòòò½ÊÓƵ™s a tricky road ahead, and itòòò½ÊÓƵ™s an expensive one to travel.
The 9 million or so service lines across the United States pumping poison through our homes and into our bodies cause all manner of maladies, such as high blood pressure, kidney malfunction, cognitive disability and hyperactivity. The EPA estimates that, in a country without lead pipes, 1,500 fewer people every year would die early of heart disease and about 900,000 fewer infants would suffer from low birth weight. The shift could even prevent 200,000 lost IQ points in children annually.
The nation has known for 40 years of these grave risks to public health. Now, finally, the EPA is not only mandating that drinking water systems everywhere locate and eliminate lead pipes within 10 years. Itòòò½ÊÓƵ™s also lowering the acceptable level of contamination and tightening rules on testing òòò½ÊÓƵ” including, crucially, in child-care facilities and schools.
Tearing up the infrastructure that has undergirded much of urban America for nearly a century is vital. But itòòò½ÊÓƵ™s also difficult work. The woes afflicting Flint, Michigan, were far from unique. Other cities, such as Chicago, Baltimore and Syracuse, New York, have seen similar problems. Some, after public-relations disasters, have taken pains to improve their situations: D.C., happens to be a fine example; so are Newark and Denver. Others, however, havenòòò½ÊÓƵ™t acted as swiftly òòò½ÊÓƵ” and they might struggle to catch up.
Years of inaction shouldnòòò½ÊÓƵ™t be an excuse for lateness now. But the reality is that the federal government will have to play a substantial role for the country to meet its timeline. Smaller municipalities in particular lack the know-how and workforce to do this job on their own. Theyòòò½ÊÓƵ™ll require technical assistance, which, thankfully, the EPA already provides òòò½ÊÓƵ” and must furnish as proactively as possible.
Even unlimited help with the nuts and bolts of pipe replacement canòòò½ÊÓƵ™t solve the problem of cost. The EPA estimates that the tab for 100 percent lead pipe removal will come in somewhere between $28 billion and $47 billion. The federal government has chipped in substantially, with $15 billion in dedicated funding through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and just shy of $12 billion in drinking water revolving funds that states can use to replace lead service lines if they choose. The Biden administration pledged an additional $2.6 billion when it announced the new rule. Lawmakers should keep in mind that ridding the country of lead pipes will be a financial win in the end: The EPA initially indicated the health benefits would offset the cost of the bill more than twice over, but researchers at Harvard Universityòòò½ÊÓƵ™s public health school crunched the numbers and found that the benefit-cost ratio could be as high as 35 to 1.
Still, at the moment, the gap between what has been allocated and whatòòò½ÊÓƵ™s needed is wide, and much of the difference will fall to the utilities òòò½ÊÓƵ” and probably, in the end, ratepayers. Thatòòò½ÊÓƵ™s particularly worrying, given that water systems donòòò½ÊÓƵ™t have to pay for replacing the portion of lead lines that are on private property (though they do have to take more aggressive action to replace them). The exception is understandable, considering the legal constraints on the EPA, but the neighborhoods struggling the most with contaminated water tend also to be the poorest. That means residents might be unable to afford to replace the pipes on their property.
The only good answer is for the water systems to do everything they can to replace low-income consumersòòò½ÊÓƵ™ lead pipes for free. But the government òòò½ÊÓƵ” federal, state and local òòò½ÊÓƵ” will probably need to chip in to persuade providers to perform gratis replacements. The District, for instance, has given D.C. Water funding to cover replacements on private property when the utility replaces the portion in nearby public space. This kind of collaboration is crucial: Utilities encounter enough trouble persuading residents to allow them to dig up their lawns even when itòòò½ÊÓƵ™s free.
This struggle stems, in large part, from a lack of trust. That shouldnòòò½ÊÓƵ™t come as a surprise: Lead pipes have been harming Americans for about a century now òòò½ÊÓƵ” installed sometimes by city mandate, then ignored and even dismissed as inconsequential while residents became sick and the science pointed plainly to their problems. Replacing the pipes is only part of the solution to lead poisoning: Many plumbing fixtures still contain contaminants; source water too often remains improperly treated. But itòòò½ÊÓƵ™s an essential step for governments at all levels to regain the faith of those theyòòò½ÊÓƵ™re supposed to serve.
