Letting Go Of Lead Pipes & Those Who Deny Lead Problems
The U.S. EPA Issues Updated Rule To Finally Replace All Lead Pipes In This Country.
Pop open a bottle of bubbly. We finally have some progress to report when it comes to lead in our drinking water.
Yesterday, the U.S. EPA announced new, final regulations, requiring drinking water systems across the country to identify and replace lead service lines (LSL) within the next 10 years.
LSLs are the most significant source of lead in drinking water and can negatively impact our health. Lead is a known neurotoxin that can cause serious damage to the brain and nervous system. For more of the science go here, here, and here.
And yes, drinking water can be a significant source for exposure. The EPA estimates that up to 9 million homes across the country receive water through these legacy lead pipes, and many are in low-income and minority communities.
Dr. Mona Hanna, Flint pediatrician and associate dean for public health at Michigan State University College of Human Medicine called this finalized rule “a game changer for kids and communities that will ensure that we will never again see the preventable tragedy of a city, or a child, poisoned by their lead pipes.”
The Lead and Copper Rule Improvements (LCRI) also require more rigorous testing of drinking water and a lower threshold requiring communities to take action to protect people from lead exposure in water. The lead action level in drinking water will be reduced from 15 ppb to 10 ppb.
Knowing where lead pipes are is critical to replacing them efficiently and equitably. Water systems are currently required to provide an initial inventory of their lead service lines by October 16. That’s soon!
Under the new LCRI, all water systems will be required to regularly update their inventories, create a publicly available service line replacement plan, and identify the materials of all service lines of unknown material.
Additionally, the final rule improves communication within communities so that families are better informed about the risk of lead in drinking water, the location of lead pipes, and plans for replacing them.
This rule will finally replace all lead pipes in the country within a decade, making sure that all communities can turn on the tap and drink clean water. These improvements establish achievable, common-sense practices.
The rule has been a long time in the making. Back in 2015 on behalf of the National Drinking Water Advisory Committee, then-EPA administrator Gina McCarthy stated in a letter that the “eventual long term revisions to the LCR will be an important opportunity for removing sources of lead in contact with drinking water and thereby reducing exposure to lead from drinking water.”
The public health and economic benefits of the final rule are estimated to be up to 13 times greater than the costs, and together with new funding announced today under the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, water systems will be able to accelerate removal of lead pipes and create good-paying local jobs in the process.
“The release of the Lead and Copper Rule Improvements (LCRI) is another important step in our nation’s efforts to reduce exposure to lead from all sources,” said American Water Works Association (AWWA) CEO David LaFrance in a statement. “AWWA is committed to the complete replacement of lead service lines nationwide—in their entirety—as quickly as feasible. We see this as an achievable goal and an opportunity for water utilities to strengthen public trust with the households they serve.”
LaFrance also commented on the challenges ahead.
“For example, in many communities, lead service lines are partly on private property and owned by the property owner rather than the utility,” he said. “The new rule requires water utilities to replace service lines under their ‘control.’ We share EPA’s desire to remove lead service lines in their entirety. However, this portion of the rule needs further explanation to assure water utilities are operating within their legal authority.”
Let’s not mince words. The LCRI poses a big money challenge. A November 2023 estimate found the initiative could cost up to $30 billion for utility companies to implement. The AWWA estimates the cost of replacing lead service lines nationwide could top $90 billion, according to LaFrance.
“Ultimately, most of these costs will fall to consumers through higher water bills,” he noted. “The LCRI comes on the heels of a recently finalized PFAS rule that will also cost billions of dollars annually. Additional assistance for consumers, particularly those with lower incomes, will be necessary to maintain water affordability.”
We can’t ignore the financial challenges of doing the right thing and getting rid of lead pipes, but we also can’t let these excuses stop this important progress for public health.
Back in 2017 on the heels of the lead water crisis in Flint, Michigan, researchers from the University of Missouri found in a nationwide survey that members of the public were willing to pay for improved water quality.
“People in different areas of the country have different priorities, and that’s hard to coordinate at a national level,” said Francisco Aguilar, associate professor of forestry in the School of Natural Resources, in a statement. “If someone lives in a flood plain, they are going to be a lot more willing to pay for flood controls. Still, people from around the nation consistently seem to be willing to pay for water quality improvements.”
Of course, we have to account for the fact that not everyone has the funds to pay for these improvements. That’s why the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law includes $15 billion dedicated to lead service line replacement and $11.7 billion of general Drinking Water State Revolving Funds that can also be used for lead service line replacement.
Additional pathways are also available for systems to receive financial support for lead service line replacement, including billions available as low- to no-cost financing through annual funding provided through the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) program and low-cost financing from the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA) program. Funding may also be available from other federal agencies, state, and local governments.
The first step in fixing a problem is admitting there is one. Communities across the country have already begun to tackle lead pipes, so we know progress is possible.
Milwaukee Water Works is on track to replace all remaining lead pipes within the EPA’s ten-year timeframe. In 2024 alone, Milwaukee received approximately $30 million in Bipartisan Infrastructure Law funding to replace 3,400 lead service lines.
In fact, President Biden announced the signing of the final rule in Milwaukee, a city with more than 70,000 LSLs—5th most in the nation.
The Detroit Water and Sewerage Department has received $90 million from the Administration and will replace more than 8,000 lead service lines this year, putting the city on track to replace all lead pipes in the next 10 years.
The Erie, Pennsylvania Water Works has received $49 million from EPA to enable the city to replace all lead pipes within 5 years instead of 25 years.
Denver Water has accelerated its efforts through $76 million from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, allowing the city to be on track to replace all lead pipes within a decade.
Wondering if you have lead service lines?
Contact your water utility or a licensed plumber to determine if the pipe that connects your home to the water main (called a service line) is made of lead. When lead service lines are present, they represent the greatest source of lead exposure in drinking water.
You can also get your water tested with a reputable company like TapScore. They have a quick survey that can help you determine which test is right for you. (Editors note: we do not receive any financial kickbacks from this company, we just know they do good work.)
The EPA’s new rule will require water systems to develop an inventory that includes the material and location of service lines and connectors in their service area. This inventory would be publicly accessible and offer you another way to find out if you have a lead service line.
Simple ways to start protecting yourself now
Run your water. Before drinking, flush your home’s pipes by running the tap, taking a shower, doing laundry, or doing a load of dishes. The amount of time to run the water will depend on whether your home has a lead service line or not, and the length of the lead service line.
Keep an eye on construction in your neighborhood. Be aware of any construction or maintenance work that could disturb your lead service line. Construction may cause more lead to be released from a lead service line.
Use cold water. Use only cold water for drinking, cooking, and making baby formula. Hot water from the tap can contain higher levels of lead. Remember, boiling water does not remove lead from water.
Clean your aerator. Regularly clean your faucet’s screen (also known as an aerator). Sediment, debris, and lead particles can collect in your aerator. If lead particles are caught in the aerator, lead can get into your water.
Use your filter properly. If you use a filter, make sure you use a filter certified to remove lead.
Addressing Lead Science Denial
Despite the overwhelming evidence for removing lead from our water systems, somehow deniers still exist.
But maybe it’s not all that surprising in the grand scheme of it all. Lead was leaching into the water supply for almost two years in Flint, Michigan, and public officials said everything was fine. Former Flint mayor Dayne Walling went as far as to drink the contaminated water on local TV to assure residents it was safe to drink. Clearly, it was not.
Sound science is the basis for all legislation and policy decisions to protect public health, but large companies can influence the scientific process and conceal their own studies to avoid or postpone regulations. We’ve seen this dynamic play out with both the tobacco and the pharmaceutical industries for decades, and it happens with chemicals that are polluting our water.
Corporations look at their bottom line first and foremost, hiring lobbyists and consultants, and contriving science to get what they want done.
Environmental pollution is not easy to detect or prove. It’s part of why regulating industry can be so difficult. It takes years to build a scientific case to prove the harmful effects certain chemicals have on our health. It’s easy to sow doubt.
Asbestos was used to insulate houses for decades before we finally banned it. Heck, we only banned the last little bit of it earlier this year.
When I was working on the case against PG&E, the energy company hired ChemRisk, a scientific consulting firm used by many companies dealing with regulatory issues. Dennis Paustenbach, a San Francisco scientist with a track record of product defense for companies like ExxonMobil and Dow Chemical, was CEO of the company at that time. Dennis, along with board-certified toxicologists Brent Finley and Brent Kerger, had the task of proving that chromium-6 didn’t harm humans when ingested or from skin exposure.
They decided to conduct original research that would add human studies to the record. The scientists sat in a hot tub filled with chromium- 6 contaminated water for hours smoking cigars and then took urine and blood samples for their study. Sounds like hard work, right?
They found increases in total chromium concentrations in both their blood and urine samples, indicating that the chemical may have penetrated their skin, but the levels were not sustained for the five-day testing period, so they concluded that the exposure “was not expected to result in systemic uptake of measurable amounts of chromium- 6.”
They also drank jugs of water contaminated with the chemical and ran more tests, coming to the same conclusion, that oral exposure was not dangerous. These studies were published in the Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health without disclosing that these scientists were paid by PG&E.
This work was not peer-reviewed or independently vetted by other scientists; it slipped through the back door into a major scientific publication. ChemRisk earned $1.5 million for consulting on the Hinkley case.
While funding is typically disclosed in scientific journals today, more than 60 percent of research and development in science is still conducted by industry, 20 percent comes from universities and 10 percent from government, according to the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).
Given this previous work, I can’t say I was too surprised to come across this post by Steve Milloy, who is claiming that the entire lead scare is classic junk science. In the spirit of fixing problems by admitting they exist, I believe we have to use his remarks as a teachable moment.
First of all, putting on a collared shirt and sitting in front of some books does not make you an expert.
Let’s dive into Steve’s bio.
On his website, he calls himself a recognized leader in the fight against junk science with more than 33 years of experience, and is credited with popularizing the term “junk science.” He also says he is an environmental and public health consultant, a biostatistician, and securities lawyer who has also been a registered securities principal, investment fund manager, non-profit executive, coal company executive, and a print/web columnist on science and business issues.
He served on the EPA transition team for the Trump administration and serves on the board of several not-for-profit organizations including the Heartland Institute and the American Energy Institute.
Last year, during an appearance on Fox News in the midst of one of the worst wildfire pollution events in U.S. history, Milloy claimed that there was no "health risk" associated with wildfire smoke. Americans, he argued, are simply succumbing to “anxiety.”
Oh yes, it’s all in our heads. If you’re coughing from smoke, that’s a “you” problem.
Milloy, who has been on the payroll of ExxonMobil and Philip Morris, likely wanted to downplay the dangers of the wildfire smoke because he knows that many people are perceiving it as a worrisome sign of a warming planet, according to a MSNBC article, which also discussed how downplaying the wildfire crisis allows Milloy to downplay the climate crisis.
As for the Heartland Institute, where Milloy has served on the board, this conservative nonprofit public policy think tank is known for denying the scientific consensus on climate change and the negative health impacts of smoking.
The institute worked with tobacco company Philip Morris throughout the ‘90s, attempting to discredit any health risks from secondhand smoke and lobby against smoking bans. Since the 2000s, the Heartland Institute has been a leading promoter of climate change denial.
Coming back to lead and the EPA’s rule improvements, Milloy said in a post on X: “It is the dose that makes the poison. That is true for all substances including lead, but lead hysterics, AKA the entire public health bureaucracy, are fond of saying that there is no safe exposure to lead.”
It’s so important to remember in these times of misinformation that public figures, consultants, bloggers and influencers do not have a fact-checking department. They are not subject to the same scrutiny as newsrooms or regulatory agencies. I wonder how a lot of them sleep at night.
You have to stay aware of where your information is coming from. Who is the source? What is their motive? Who pays them for their work?
Just because someone says something, even on a national news program, does not make it true. We have to consider where our information comes from and who is benefitting from it.
Just as I will point out flaws and missteps within the EPA or in local or state government, I’m want to bring attention to all the memes and social media posts that go up without much fact behind them. Always check your sources! One talking head does not make a fact.
I think it’s worth it to the estimated 9 million homes and all the people living in them across the country that are drinking water from lead pipes. These communities have been waiting long enough.
Let’s keep the conversation going in the comments below. What are your thoughts on the new LCRI? What do you think about all the misinformation flying about these days?
It is said that ignorance of the law is no excuse; were you or I to fail to see a sign announcing a lower speed limit and get a ticket for speeding, no court would accept our excuse. Yet disingenuous, sold-out scientists are allowed to spread their lies unimpeded. How can we claim to abide by the rule of law when there is such a double standard?
I reposted an article about lead on FB and some of my personal experiences, and they deleted it.
I got very ill with lead and mercury from a former coal yard next to a Reading Rail and Coal rail track in Philadelphia, which is now SEPTA station R7. The site’s history includes a leaking underground gas tank for the coal trucks.
I had just bought my first house and it was adjacent to this lot. I was new to Philadelphia. New to what a brownfield was and very very new to city corruption. The mix of corruption, lead, mercury, dust, vapors, and retaliation against me for trying to expose the problems. I did expose a lot, and the more I sought evidence, the more crime and corruption I discovered. So, retaliation got worse, and I ended up unable to live in my house, work, and constantly on the move trying to survive while very ill. Three doctors demanded I be removed from the house, but the city refused to help and instead spread rumors that I was crazy ( mercury does kinda make you crazy-but no- I was ill, not crazy). They sent the psyche truck a few times but never caught me. I was called a refugee because I had a home but could not live in it. I moved from place to place, trying to stay safe and try to manage the lead and mercury symptoms.
They used political abuse of psychiatry in so many ways. Now, one of the main culprits who did this to me ( and who was also the one who pitched the project to Planning) - he now wants to run for the next District Attorney. That can not happen. Over the years, I have come to know many "regular people whistleblowers,” and one of the main retaliation tactics is political abuse of psychiatry- especially of women. This is such a traumatic threat, and every whistleblower I have met has serious PTSD.
About 7 or 8 people died because the city would not listen to me. I tried everything to warn them of the dangers. The first one drowned because of a flood caused by the project next to my former house. They built on a source spring of the Wingohocking river. I found the stream maps at the start of the problems and recognized the flood danger of building on that site right away. I took the maps to city people- zoning and planning - and told them, and they said there was no problem. But then, a few years later, a retired water engineer pointed right to that site and said that was why there was that flood and the daughter of a police officer died in it.
Then 7 ( maybe 6) people died on June 5, 2013 in the Market Street demolition disaster. I had been at so many meetings - right from the start of my problems- which included demolition violations and cracks in my house- that is how the problems for me started.
So, I found out everything I could about safe demolition, including health hazards. The Baltimore Demolition Protocols—for safety and health—and John Hopkins were part of that study. That demolition protocol was first introduced to the City’s planners, zoning, and L&I in 2006 at a meeting I attended with them in the Northern Liberties neighborhood. In that study, they say that no Demolition should ever happen with people in the adjacent building. Then the same Baltimore Demolition Protocols was introduce once more by Vernice Travis Miller at an all-day workshop presented by the Public Interest Law Center in Philadelphia. October 6th, 2011 at the Arch St. Meeting House, Philadelphia. It was the same Protocols that were presented in June 2006.
The Deputy Mayor Alan Greenburger was at the meeting for the presentation on demolition by Vernice Travis Miller. Alan Greenberger was one of the main people I would contact about the problems at my house, and he would never help. He was an architect and big in City Planning. I have the court reporter transcripts of the whole day. But then on the day of June 5, 2013, I saw the news about the demo tragedy on Market Street and later that day or within days, I saw Alan Greenburger standing with Mayor Nutter telling the world on national TV that they did not know much about demolition. I went into such deep shock.
I had just moved back to my home state with the help of my father-in Feb 2013. ( he died in 2019) I am now 70 years old and still suffering from PTSD and some symptoms of lead and mercury. I had to go into day programs for severe PTSD for a couple of weeks twice while in Philadelphia. After the deaths at Market Street, I had to go into the hospital for PTSD again. My mind kept thinking I had not done enough to prevent those deaths, but I knew that was the trauma talking. I did everything I could, but these politicians refused to listen and continued their crimes. I couldn’t believe the mayor and Alan Greenburger were lying like that.
Then I found the weeks of email correspondence that Alan Greenburger had with the Salvation Army, and never once did he stop the demolition and make sure no one was in any building adjacent to active demolition. I could not believe it, but I did believe it because I had learned from the way they treated me for years that these people did not care about human life at all and did everything they could to cover up their crimes.
Simpson, the brother of one of the young women who died at Market Street, contacted me because somehow he knew I had been dealing with the city for years. But I was in such shock that I could say nothing except that I knew there was asbestos in the dust even though the city had said there wasn’t. So, the only thing I could say was to get an independent asbestos inspector and have the site tested. And within days, there was a news article that wondered why there was an independent investigation and that, yes, indeed, there was asbestos.
Then I watched City Hall have its kangaroo court and watched Councilwoman Cindy Bass of my old neighborhood pretend she did not know about the history of demolition problems. She did know. I was in her district. They all lie and send the wrong people to jail. Seth Williams - the former DA who went to jail knew. He admitted to being best friends with the 2 who set up the project, Derek Green and Vernon Price, and Seth Williams covered up all the environmental and other crimes that were done to me and destroyed my health and life.
After I left, several big articles about how lead was starting to surface in the neighborhoods. And although I tried to get attention and help for what happened to me -by sending stacks of evidence to the current DA Larry Krasner - more than once, and to the former Mayor Kenny - who was the very first person I went to for help in 2006 when he was a Council Person who was supposedly concerned about quality of life. Now Philadelphia has Mayor Cherrelle Parker, who was at the 1st public meeting where I introduced the problems, and she walked away.