483
EPA earmarks $3 billion to replace lead pipes nationwide
(medicalxpress.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 03 May 2024
483 points (99.2% liked)
News
23301 readers
1159 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
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!”
That's completely inaccurate with what we've already covered:
There's been literally hundreds of billions devoted to the other infrastructure, the "ceiling" in your scenario you are incorrectly pretending is not funded, and multiple funding measures have already passed for decades about fixing "the mold" you're talking about, lead paint.
Also, if we assume at our peril that your guesstimate 20% is accurate, that is 20% fewer lead pipes poisoning people.
You are still arguing against fixing 20% of the nation's lead pipes in favor of...not doing anything.
"You can only replace one out of five books? Then let's not replace any of them".
Not a great argument.
You are completely misrepresenting me. I’m done
I'm directly responding to your inaccuracies with quotes from your comments in context and responding to them with facts.
That is not misrepresentation.