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 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.

  • danekrae@lemmy.world
    851·
    7 months ago

    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…

  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    519·
    7 months ago

    That sounds like a lot. It isn’t. It’s a drop in the bucket. So is the $15 billion.

    After conducting a survey of these lead pipes in the United States, NRDC estimates that there is a range of 9.7 million to 12.8 million pipes that are, or may be, lead, spread across all 50 states, including those that claim to have none.

    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.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        238·
        7 months ago

        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.

        • stembolts@programming.dev
          14·
          7 months ago

          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.

        • ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works
          3·
          6 months ago

          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.

    • bluGill@kbin.social
      10·
      7 months ago

      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.

      • fine_sandy_bottom@discuss.tchncs.de
        3·
        6 months ago

        I hate this.

        • “This shit is terrible. Fixing it is going to cost an astronomical amount but it’s just got to get done.”
        • “Woah woah woah. Why don’t we investigate a range of potential options that will mitigate the harm caused by the problem.”

        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.

      • Pulptastic@midwest.socialEnglish
        2·
        7 months ago

        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.

    • catch22@programming.dev
      8·
      6 months ago

      https://www.brookings.edu/articles/what-would-it-cost-to-replace-all-the-nations-lead-water-pipes/

      From the article:

      How much would it cost to get lead out of the U.S.’s drinking water? A back-of-the-envelope calculation based on EPA’s estimate of average replacement cost per line ($4,700) and assumption of 6 to 10 million lead service lines across the country suggests the cost could range from $28 billion to $47 billion, putting Biden’s originally-proposed $45 billion near the top of that range—but the $15 billion legislated well below it.

      Seems like just a drop in the bucket! HAHAHA, ha… ehh…

    • fine_sandy_bottom@discuss.tchncs.de
      7·
      6 months ago

      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?

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        3·
        6 months ago

        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.

  • NoFuckingWaynado@lemmy.world
    302·
    7 months ago

    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!

  • rusticus@lemm.ee
    223·
    6 months ago

    Thank. You. Joe. Biden.

    If the US votes Trump they deserve the shitshow they get. FFS.

  • Varyk@sh.itjust.works
    133·
    6 months ago

    Welcome to the Future.

    2024 .

    The year the USA finally decided to stop using poisonous infrastructure to carry their water.

    • derf82@lemmy.worldEnglish
      5·
      6 months ago

      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.

        • derf82@lemmy.worldEnglish
          1·
          6 months ago

          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.

          • Varyk@sh.itjust.works
            1·
            6 months ago

            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.

            • derf82@lemmy.worldEnglish
              1·
              6 months ago

              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.

              • Varyk@sh.itjust.works
                1·
                6 months ago

                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.

                • derf82@lemmy.worldEnglish
                  1·
                  6 months ago

                  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.

    • ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works
      1·
      6 months ago

      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.

      • KredeSeraf@lemmy.world
        31·
        6 months ago

        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.

    • derf82@lemmy.worldEnglish
      2·
      6 months ago

      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.