On Advancing Public Health, Justice, and Jobs

• Author: Tom Neltner
• Position: Chemicals policy director at the Environmental Defense Fund
• Pages: 57-57

NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2021 | 57

Reprinted by permission from The Environmental Forum®, November/December 2021.

Copyright © 2021, Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, D.C. www.eli.org.

THE DEBATE

On Advancing

Public Health,

Justice, and Jobs

By Tom Neltner

IN its American Jobs Plan, the

Biden administration set an ag-

gressive goal of replacing all of the

nation’s lead service lines in 10

years. By achieving this important

target, we can protect both children’s

brains and adults’ hearts from the

harm caused by lead in drinking

water. Using estimates from the

Environmental Protection Agency,

we calculate that the socioeconomic

benets exceed $22,000 per replaced

LSL.

e Environmental Defense

Fund has extensive experience advo-

cating for LSL replacement, includ-

ing serving as a founding member

of the Lead Service Line Replace-

ment Collaborative, a group of 28

national public health, water utility,

environmental, labor, consumer,

housing, and state and local gov-

ernmental organizations. Based on

our experience, I believe success will

involve ve actions.

First, the administration says that

based on EPA estimates, it will take

$45 billion to achieve 100 percent

LSL replacement. e American

Water Works Association indicates

it will cost 33 percent more. e

bipartisan Infrastructure Investment

and Jobs Act that passed the Senate

and awaits approval in the House

provides $15 billion in dedicated

funding through State Revolving

Funds, with about half as grants and

the balance as loans. LSL replace-

ment projects may also apply for

traditional SRF opportunities, but

they will be less competitive without

mandates under the Lead and Cop-

per Rule, a regulation published by

EPA that protects consumers from

these substances.

Clearly, more funds are needed.

Congress must not only nalize

pending legislation but also increase

the amount, including providing

EPA with funds so the agency can

directly support important lead pipe

replacement projects where a state

SRF is unwilling or unable. If com-

munities do not receive the needed

funding, they will have to raise rates

to cover the shortfall, making it es-

pecially dicult for the many cities

that struggle with aordability.

Second, EPA must move quickly

to distribute the new dedicated

funds to states, using a revised allo-

cation formula based on the number

of LSLs in a state. e agency must

also help states achieve the twin

goals of driving down the average

cost to fully replace the lines and

prioritizing environmental justice

communities that are dispropor-

tionately burdened by lead risks.

We need to emulate leaders like the

investor-owned utility American

Water and utilities in Cincinnati,

Newark, Lansing, Denver, Green

Bay, and Pittsburgh that have fo-

cused on both goals with signicant

success. And we need to question

inated cost estimates by utilities

that lack a successful track record of

fully replacing LSLs.

ird, EPA must follow the ex-

ample set by Illinois, Michigan, and

New Jersey, states with 25 percent

of the nation’s LSLs, and strengthen

the Lead and Copper Rule to set

a timeline to eliminate the lines

and ban partial LSL replacements.

Partial replacements unfairly force

families to choose between paying

to replace the portion of the pipe on

their property, or risk increased ex-

posure to lead. With federal funding

available, the deadline should be 10

years, with a mechanism to handle

utilities that need more time on a

case-by-case basis.

Fourth, utilities need to immedi-

ately set a goal of fully eliminating

LSLs and manage their distribution

systems with that goal in mind.

ere is no need to wait for a revised

Lead and Copper Rule to force the

issue. ey know enough about

which neighborhoods have LSLs to

get started right away to train crews

from those communities to replace

the lead pipes and drive costs down

safely and eciently. ese eorts

can take place while simultaneously

developing a comprehensive service

line materials inventory. To support

the eort, they must recognize that

full LSL replacement serves a public

good and, where necessary, use rates

paid by customers to replace lead

pipes without cost to individual

property owners or residents.

Finally, community leaders, es-

pecially elected ocials and public

health agencies, need to support

programs to eliminate both lead

pipes and lead-based paint hazards

so we can truly have lead-safe hous-

ing for all — without income, racial,

or ethnic disparities. Key opportuni-

ties include engaging community-

based organizations — Denver Wa-

ter is a model here — and integrat-

ing online maps that show the likeli-

hood of a home having either lead

pipes or lead-based paint. Other

eective strategies include tailoring

communications so folks understand

the risk from all sources of lead

that threatens children’s brains and

adults’ hearts.

For thirty years, the country has

tried to manage LSLs through cor-

rosion control, replacing lead pipes

only as a last resort. Proactive LSL

replacement needs to be an integral

part of any program, with optimized

corrosion control managing other

sources of lead in drinking water,

such as solder and brass.

No one buys or rents a home

because they wanted a lead pipe. No

water system wants lead pipes either.

LSLs are a legacy from decades ago

that the nation needs to eliminate.

Rather than assign blame and waste

limited resources, it’s time to get

LSLs out as eciently, safely, equita-

bly, and quickly as possible.

Tom Neltner is chemicals policy director at the

Environmental Defense Fund.