483
submitted 6 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

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.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] danekrae@lemmy.world 83 points 6 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...

[-] venusaur@lemmy.world 4 points 6 months ago

What are they replacing them with?

[-] danekrae@lemmy.world 17 points 6 months ago
[-] venusaur@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago
[-] Jakeroxs@sh.itjust.works 2 points 6 months ago
[-] Gigasser@lemmy.world 10 points 6 months ago

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.

[-] venusaur@lemmy.world 5 points 6 months ago

For sure. Copper is expensive. I imagine they’ll go with plastics.

[-] Gigasser@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago

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.

[-] venusaur@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago

That’s true. I guess time to invest in copper and plastic? Haha

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 41 points 6 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.

[-] xhieron@lemmy.world 47 points 6 months ago

Probably not, but it sure beats $0.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 15 points 6 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 13 points 6 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.

[-] Buckshot@programming.dev 4 points 6 months ago

Cave people didn't have lead poisoning either

[-] ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works 2 points 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.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago

Guess which areas won't be getting them replaced first if at all in terms of demographics...

[-] bluGill@kbin.social 10 points 6 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.

[-] Pulptastic@midwest.social 2 points 6 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.

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.

[-] catch22@programming.dev 7 points 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...

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?

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 3 points 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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] BruceTwarzen@kbin.social 31 points 6 months ago

That's a lot of cash, wouldn't you rather carpet bomb brown people for a minute?

[-] cybersandwich@lemmy.world 4 points 6 months ago

Now now now. We can do both thank you very much.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] TotalFat@lemmy.world 27 points 6 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!

[-] Cqrd@lemmy.dbzer0.com 16 points 6 months ago

Can you imagine how much a government alchemist contract costs though?

[-] SkybreakerEngineer@lemmy.world 14 points 6 months ago

Just enough to cover a single dude, his daughter, and the dog for a few years

[-] DrDominate@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago

You can stretch that budget a bit if you fuse the daughter and dog into a chimera.

[-] sushibowl@feddit.nl 14 points 6 months ago

Any leftover protons will just combine with oxygen in the air and become water. Really pure water!

Really hot water too, that reaction is just a tad exothermic.

[-] rusticus@lemm.ee 18 points 6 months ago

Thank. You. Joe. Biden.

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

[-] Shadowq8@lemmy.world 12 points 6 months ago

ah yes the magical pipes that create more boomers

[-] Varyk@sh.itjust.works 9 points 6 months ago* (last edited 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.world 4 points 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.

[-] Varyk@sh.itjust.works 3 points 6 months ago

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

[-] derf82@lemmy.world 1 points 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 points 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.world 1 points 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.

load more comments (9 replies)
[-] apfelwoiSchoppen@lemmy.world 7 points 6 months ago
[-] Igloojoe@lemm.ee 5 points 6 months ago

They have been. For years now. Do cities where it hasnt turned into a disaster before it does.

[-] Pulptastic@midwest.social 1 points 6 months ago
[-] spamfajitas@lemmy.world 8 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

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

[-] fender_symphonic584@lemmy.world 6 points 6 months ago

I wonder which politician's pocket that lands in, while they actually do nothing about lead pipes?

[-] kattenluik@feddit.nl 4 points 6 months ago
[-] KredeSeraf@lemmy.world 2 points 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.

[-] cheese_greater@lemmy.world 6 points 6 months ago

Can't wait to see the 'Pubs speak and vote out against this. "We like 'em fine"

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] JoYo@lemmy.ml 1 points 6 months ago
[-] derf82@lemmy.world 2 points 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.

[-] werefreeatlast@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago

Ukraine really needs to recycle these pipes. They want to make holes too.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 03 May 2024
483 points (99.2% liked)

News

23265 readers
3034 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