EPA earmarks $3 billion to replace lead pipes nationwide
medicalxpress.com
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) said it will spend $3 billion to help states and territories identify and replace lead water pipes.
"The science is clear, there is no safe level of lead exposure, and the primary source of harmful exposure in drinking water is through lead pipes," EPA Administrator Michael Regan said, announcing the funding Thursday in an agency news release.
Lead poses serious health risks and can cause irreversible brain damage in children.
The funding announced Thursday is part of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, which President Joe Biden signed into law in 2021. It sets aside $15 billion overall to identify and replace lead pipes.
That is some of the best news for america in a very long time. Many people won't realize this though, you know, because of the lead...
What are they replacing them with?
Asbestos of course...
Bestos
checks out
I'm guessing either copper, PVC, or CPVC. The worry about PVC and CPVC is micro plastics, but I think that lead is probably more harmful then micro plastics anyway.
For sure. Copper is expensive. I imagine they’ll go with plastics.
There's always the possibility that they'll do a mix of everything depending on environment, though I'm not sure if there are environments where plastics pipes may potentially degrade faster than copper or vice versa.
That’s true. I guess time to invest in copper and plastic? Haha
Unleaded Supreme
Damn. I was hoping e85.
That sounds like a lot. It isn't. It's a drop in the bucket. So is the $15 billion.
https://www.nrdc.org/resources/lead-pipes-are-widespread-and-used-every-state
No way is $15 billion going to be enough to dig up and replace that much lead piping.
Probably not, but it sure beats $0.
I'm not trying to let the perfect be the enemy of the good, but this is being sold as a cure when it's a band-aid.
True, wish they'd add, "This will fix approximately x% of pipes across the nation!"
But I know why they can't do that, "politics", because there is a considerable amount of people who would say, 5/10/15%! That's awful, I'm voting for the guy who founded the lead pacifier company! He's tall!
But.. when you consider :
1, We consider cave people to be stupid
2, Not enough time has passed for the brain to evolve since we were cave people
It makes a bit more sense, we truly are standing on the shoulders of giants. Or in other words, humans are real ducking dumb. We're all cave people.
Cave people didn't have lead poisoning either
The main thing it is not a federal task force or anything, so it will be funding given to state and local governments that have already failed or even outright refused to replace lead pipes.
Like for example: DeSantis will replace pipes in certain areas but will undoubtedly only identify them in others.
Guess which areas won't be getting them replaced first if at all in terms of demographics...
They don't have to be dug up. The first step is chemistry - Flint was fine with lead pipes until they switch water sources to something with a different composition (ph I think - but there are other factors and we should get expert chemists to speak here not laypeople like us). Anywhere that lead pipes exist we need monitoring to ensure that the water doesn't dissolve lead, once we have that in place the pipes don't leach much lead and we can do a slower replacement when the pipes need to be replaced anyway.
We also have technology to put a plastic liner in existing pipes for much less than digging the pipes up. It doesn't work for all situations, but when it does is a lot cheaper and should be investigated for any pipe that is expected to last a long time.
I hate this.
You already know just from the tone that fuck all is going to happen.
The answer is... do both. Fix the problem while finding ways to mitigate costs while ensuring the problem gets fixed.
Even with that there is still a nonzero amount of lead in the water. Source: my city that does exactly that and the test results they publish.
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/what-would-it-cost-to-replace-all-the-nations-lead-water-pipes/
From the article:
Seems like just a drop in the bucket! HAHAHA, ha... ehh...
I know you're saying the $15b is a drop in the bucket compared to the cost of fixing the problem, but it's also a drop in the bucket compared to tax revenues right?
Like how much is bezos worth, can't you guys just guillotine him and use the money to fix the pipes?
I'd rather just tax him a whole lot than continue our proud tradition of state murder. We already do it to possibly innocent death row prisoners.
That kind of money is reserved for a month of bombing, sorry
That's a lot of cash, wouldn't you rather carpet bomb brown people for a minute?
Now now now. We can do both thank you very much.
Not according to the GOP sadly
Seems like the simplest solution would be to flood the existing pipes with liquid protons. The lead will be converted to gold. Any leftover protons will just combine with oxygen in the air and become water. Really pure water!
Can you imagine how much a government alchemist contract costs though?
Just enough to cover a single dude, his daughter, and the dog for a few years
You can stretch that budget a bit if you fuse the daughter and dog into a chimera.
Really hot water too, that reaction is just a tad exothermic.
Thank. You. Joe. Biden.
If the US votes Trump they deserve the shitshow they get. FFS.
bUt gENociDE
ah yes the magical pipes that create more boomers
Welcome to the Future.
2024 .
The year the USA finally decided to stop using poisonous infrastructure to carry their water.
With the exception of some moronic fiscal managers in Flint, it has been solved since the 90s. The Lead and Copper rule dates to the early 90s and required regular testing and action. Most utilities started adjusting PH and adding a lead corrosion inhibitor called orthophosphate. That dropped lead levels to zero most places.
Flint didn’t do that, so here we are. Also worth noting it was banned for new connections in 1986, though many cities banned it decades earlier. My own city banned lead in 1954, but because we’re an old city, we have 140,000 still out there. That’s over $1 billion (probably twice that by the time we’re done) for just my one city alone. Getting rid of lead will take even more money than this.
The problem is a little more widespread than just Flint. 9% of American water pipes still have lead in them.
Florida is leading the charge.
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/articles/states-with-the-most-lead-pipes
But what I am saying is with proper treatment, the lead pipes are not a problem. Lead paint is a far larger issue for lead poisoning, but little is being done about that.
There's been multiple laws passed about lead paint. One is like called the lead paint act or something, hang on.
Here it is, from 1992: https://www.epa.gov/lead/residential-lead-based-paint-hazard-reduction-act-1992-title-x
To reduce the hazard of lead-base paint.
The issue is not that if the UD had different pipes then they have, then lead pipes wouod not be a problem.
The issue is that almost 10% of the pipes in the US are still lead and no amount of lead is safe for human consumption, especially youth physiological development.
And there has been laws and regulations passed on lead pipe, too. Lead levels have been monitored and action taken for decades. And considering there is still a ton of lead paint out there, your law didn’t do much.
The issue is, there is not the contractors or materials to get it done. It costs ~$8,000 each now, and will only go up as utilities compete for those resources. We have an estimated 9.2 million lead pipes. The cost is likely to be over $100 billion. Even with $15b from the infrastructure law and this $3b, this is massively underfunded.
It’s also a stupid way of funding. Most of these lead pipes are attached to old water mains. When you replace the main, you also replace the connections. For a small marginal cost, you could also replace the old water main. But the EPA doesn’t allow these funds to be spent that way, and as I said, they are not providing enough money anyway. So we will be left with new connections on old, failing water mains. Stupid.
And in 15 years and lead pipe is gone, people will still blame water while ignoring the lead paint homeowners and landlords STILL have not removed.
You are confused.
This lead paint, hazard reduction law was not my law. It was passed by the 102nd Congress.
Your further complaint is that this measure will not solve all of the problem?
Is your implication that we should not fix any lead pipes because there is a potential that not all lead pipes can be fixed simultaneously?
I don't know if this is going to blow your mind, but even if Congress provided as much money as you personally want to devote to this problem that you said doesn't matter, there would still be a timeline between the first pipe being replaced or refitted versus the last pipe being replaced or refitted.
Even if they went with your plan, which I'm unaware has been considered, it still wouldn't happen instantaneously.
You may have to manage your expectations and base your complaints on what is actually happening rather than what could possibly go wrong if something that is not happening does happen.
This is the same conservative argument against Green energy and replacing the infrastructure in the United States, or the funds Biden has provided for lgbtq legal allocation.
Yes, biden haven't provided a gazillion dollars for civil rights movements to access, but Biden is providing significant funding for civil rights movements.
Perfect is the enemy of good, especially if your definition of perfect is based on your individual guesstimates.
No, my thought is we need to do it at a reasonable deliberate pace that also replaces the failing cast iron water mains. 10 years is far too tight a timeline without massive costs and major employee stress. This simply isn’t even a good plan, it’s knee jerk reaction.
And I can tell you, I am a longtime engineer for a water company. I am getting thrown a ton of extra work for no additional compensation. We’ve seen massive departures to other sectors from my fellow fed up employees.
And frankly I’m upset that lead paint is off the hook. No mandate to completely remove it. No massive fines for failing to get rid of that. And in my city, that’s the actual cause of lead poisoning.
Your tree is more important to you personally than the forest, but that isn't a a valid reason to argue against positive and necessary infrastructure refurbishment.
Of course you are right to be angry that there hasn't been a comparable current funding measure passed for lead paint for your city yet, but that doesn't take anything away from the good that replacing lead pipes will do.
And you ignore all the negatives of this plan because there are positives, so long as someone else does the work and someone else pays for it (at least until you get pissed your water bill went up 200% because federal funding ran out). And I’m betting people will be mad when their 120 year old water main starts breaking constantly because we didn’t bother to replace it when we were digging up the street anyway.
I'm not ignoring the negatives, I'm disregarding possible scenarios that you're anecdotally hypothesizing could go wrong during a necessary investment in public health and safety that now has funding where it didn't before.
I'm suggesting you save your ire for the time something goes wrong instead of uselessly condemning an obviously positive step forward in necessary infrastructure refurbishment.
You're complaining about a necessary positive public measure because it doesn't conform to what specifically you want.
"Funding has been passed for new textbooks in schools!"
"This is garbage, I want new protractors in schools! I like protractors!"
"Okay Jerry fine, but it's still nice that we have new textbooks. The old ones were riddled with mold and poisoning our children".
Maybe you should run for higher office, if you prefer to influence those decisions rather than implement the decisions made by the electorate and their representatives.
No, it’s more like “we’re mandating you buy new textbooks to replace the moldy ones. Here is a check that only covers 20% of the costs. Oh, the ceiling of the school is also collapsing, but we won’t do anything about that. Nor will we fix the mold in the classroom that are also making the kids sick. But celebrate, new textbooks!”
Can't wait to see the 'Pubs speak and vote out against this. "We like 'em fine"
I think Republicans will accept the money just fine. Since it is for identifying and replacing lead pipes: they can easily do one and not the other. And they'll certainly be selective over which communities get addressed.
Start with Flint.
They have been. For years now. Do cities where it hasnt turned into a disaster before it does.
Need to do both tbh
The vast majority of Flint pipes have been replaced and they've been well below federal requirements for years now. Pretty much all that's left are a ton of criminal and civil proceedings, roughly 3% of residential pipelines that require the approval of the owner to replace, and earning back the trust of the residents.
https://www.cityofflint.com/progress-report-on-flint-water
I wonder which politician's pocket that lands in, while they actually do nothing about lead pipes?
you're so depressing
History kinda speaks for itself. Just look at Flint, MI. The only reason they have somewhat improved is overpaying for other water sources. But a decade later and their pipes are still lead garbage.
Ukraine really needs to recycle these pipes. They want to make holes too.
replaced with… PVC.
PVC is a horrid material to make small pressure pipes with. Too brittle, so it cracks easily under any bending stress. Most utilities still use type k copper, but some might use HDPE or PEX.
Now, lots of 4 inch and larger pipe is replaced with PVC, but that is generally replacing cast iron or asbestos cement. Lead pipes are in the smaller diameters going to individual homes and businesses.
Nice but not enough