Pressure needed to banish lead pipes

President Joe Biden’s goal to eliminate the scourge of lead pipes in the United States is within his grasp, and if he succeeds, it could be one of his greatest legacies. He secured in the infrastructure law more than $15 billion to address the problem, and the Environmental Protection Agency under his administration unveiled a proposal in November to compel cities to get the work done.

The problem is that the EPA’s mandate is littered with loopholes. Failing to close them could thwart the president’s efforts to fix this pressing health threat.

The potential impact here is no exaggeration. A 2018 Lancet study estimated that, every year, more than 400,000 people in the United States die prematurely of cardiovascular and heart disease because of lead exposure. That’s on par with the health outcomes of cigarette smoking.

Then there are the effects the toxin has on young brains. When lead enters a person’s bloodstream, body cells often mistake it for calcium and put it where that essential mineral is supposed to go, such as in the neurotransmitters that send signals between brain cells. But lead doesn’t act like calcium, so a buildup of lead in the brain fundamentally changes how it develops.

Children exposed to lead grow up with smaller prefrontal cortexes, the portion of the brain responsible for maintaining attention spans and regulating behavior. As a result, they tend to have lower IQs and more aggressive behavior. In fact, researchers believe the phaseout of lead from gasoline and paints in the 1970s contributed substantially to the drop in violent crime in the 1990s.

This is why it is so important for the EPA to get this right. Among other changes, the agency has proposed requiring most water utilities to replace all lead service lines within a decade, as well as lowering the threshold at which utilities must address lead contamination. Combined with federal funding to replace lead pipes, its proposed rule is a giant step forward.

But as Erik Olson of the Natural Resources Defense Council points out, the rule would grant extensions of the mandate to a handful of large cities with large amounts of lead pipes. Chicago, for example, which has among the worst lead-pipe problems, could have 40 to 50 years. Hundreds of smaller cities with high percentages of lead pipes in their systems could also get years of extensions.

The EPA’s rule would force utilities to locate and create inventories of their lead pipes, but it fails to strengthen reporting requirements for violations. Though states are already required to disclose such violations to the EPA, audits have found they fail to do so 9 out of 10 times.

Closing these loopholes is essential to getting local governments to act on a timely basis. Cities have dragged their feet on the lead problem for decades — and they will likely continue doing so if allowed.

To some extent, this is understandable. Local officials are often reluctant to take on the costs of removing lead pipes and the logistical nightmare of coordinating with property owners. Overall, it would take an estimated

$45 billion to replace the more than 9 million lead service lines in the U.S. With cities facing so many other challenges, ripping out pipes that might not pose an immediate health threat rarely rises to the top of people’s priority lists.

Here’s why that’s shortsighted: Every lead pipe is a ticking time bomb. A lead service line might not be leaching dangerous particles into a home’s drinking water now, but it will eventually as it degrades over time.

Moreover, although eliminating lead pipes is expensive, not doing so would be far more so. The Natural Resources Defense Council estimates that every dollar invested in removing lead pipes saves more than $10 down the road in health care expenditures.

A few cities have shown Biden’s goal is no fantasy. Newark resisted addressing high lead levels in its water for years. But thanks to pressure from community activists and — more potently — a court settlement requiring the city to act, things turned around. With the help of $120 million in bonds from Essex County, N.J., it managed to replace nearly all its 23,000 lead pipes in just two years.

Two crucial reasons for Newark’s success: It replaced lead service lines free of charge for most homeowners, and it passed an ordinance requiring their removal even without the consent of residents. Local officials in other areas might flinch at such an intrusion, but that sort of commitment is what’s needed nationally.

How can the Biden administration replicate Newark’s experience? Not with its timid approach. The money Congress provided should unlock further state and local money to address the problem. But without serious pressure from the federal government, lead-contaminated water will persist.

It would be a tragedy for Biden to fall short in his fight against lead simply for lack of fortitude. Why shy away now?