Opinion editor’s note: Strib Voices publishes a mix of national and local commentaries online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.
It is almost impossible to be against a rule announced by the Environmental Protection Agency last 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 there’s a tricky road ahead, and it’s an expensive one to travel.
The 9 million or so service lines across the U.S. 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. It’s also lowering the acceptable level of contamination and tightening rules on testing — 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 it’s also difficult work. The woes afflicting Flint, Mich., were far from unique. Other cities, such as Chicago, Baltimore and Syracuse, N.Y., 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, N.J., and Denver. Others, however, haven’t acted as swiftly — and they might struggle to catch up. [Star Tribune opinion editor’s note: In 2023, the Minnesota Legislature authorized a $240 million grant program to find, remove and replace lead service lines.]
Years of inaction shouldn’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. They’ll require technical assistance, which, thankfully, the EPA already provides — and must furnish as proactively as possible.
Even unlimited help with the nuts and bolts of pipe replacement can’t solve the problem of cost. The EPA estimates that the tab for 100% 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 University’s public health school crunched the numbers and found that the benefit-cost ratio could be as high as 35 to 1.
