Bureaucrats and bad policy (lead water pipes)

1,283 Views | 6 Replies | Last: 1 yr ago by OnlyForNow
Burdizzo
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Got this email today from American Water Works Association. Basically they are trying to stop EPA from overreach and burdensome regulation which was an overreaction to the Flint water crisis. It will be interesting to see if Trump steps in...

Quote:


Dear American Water Works Association members,

As a water community, it is both our mission and solemn obligation to protect the people we serve. That is why AWWA is committed to helping communities replace all lead service lines in their entirety. We are proud of and encouraged by the tremendous progress water utilities are making to identify lead service lines, share that information with households, and overcome the legal and financial barriers to replacement.

We look forward to a future when lead service lines are no longer a concern, even knowing that today's water professionals carefully monitor and diligently control corrosion to limit the possibility of lead getting into drinking water.

With this context, I want to clearly explain why AWWA is today filing a Petition for Review of the Lead and Copper Rule Improvements (LCRI) in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. We believe the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had the best intentions when it formulated the LCRI, but that implementation of the rule, in its current form, is not feasible.

First, we are deeply concerned about the LCRI's approach to lead service lines on private property. The rule requires water systems to replace lead service lines (and galvanized lines requiring replacement under the rule) when the water system controls those lines. However, the rule presumes that a water system "controls" a lead service line when it has "access" to that line. Under the Safe Drinking Water Act, access does not equal control. By attempting to define access and control as one and the same, the LCRI effectively expands the definition of a public water system to include private property and makes water utilities responsible for issues on private property they cannot necessarily address. This interpretation sets a precedent that deserves careful examination.

Second, the LCRI's requirement to replace all lead service lines (and galvanized lines requiring replacement) by 2037 is not realistic. It bears repeating: AWWA strongly supports EPA's objective to replace every lead service line regardless of what regulation is in effect. In fact, AWWA intervened in court to support the previous (2021) Lead and Copper Rule Revisions (LCRR) rule, defending its requirement for development and implementation of complete lead service line replacement strategies. However, under the LCRI, many communities will face significant financial, logistical and personnel challenges and will be unable to meet EPA's timeline for replacement. Nationwide lead service line replacement is an achievable goal, but only within a timeframe that recognizes local circumstances and a framework of shared responsibility among utilities, customers, government, and other stakeholders.

Third, AWWA is concerned about the impact of the LCRI on water affordability, particularly for households that struggle to pay for essential needs. Utilities are already actively identifying and replacing lead service lines, and their real-world experience tells us that the costs of replacement are far higher than EPA's estimates. An AWWA-sponsored study shows the actual cost of replacing each lead service line could average more than $12,000, and EPA estimates there are approximately 9.2 million lead service lines nationwide. That means the aggregate cost of replacement could exceed $100 billion. With federal funding from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law due to expire in 2026 and enormous costs from a new PFAS regulation looming, consumer water bills will rise significantly under the LCRI and affordability challenges will grow.

AWWA has other concerns about the feasibility of LCRI compliance, and you can find them in 138 pages of comments we submitted in February 2024 on the proposed rule. Additional materials related to the petition are available at awwa.org/lead.

AWWA is committed to building on decades of progress in reducing lead exposure in the United States. Our recent actions have included AWWA's leadership as a founding member of the Lead Service Line Replacement Collaborative, which in January 2017 released an online toolkit to help communities voluntarily develop and implement lead service line removal programs; the publication of the first standard for Replacement and Flushing of Lead Service Lines; assistance in developing lead service line inventories; an online Lead Resource Community; countless presentations, webcasts and articles about reducing lead exposure, a Lead Communications Guide and Toolkit, and many other efforts.

We look forward to working in good faith alongside EPA, AWWA members, environmental advocates, and many other partners to develop a lead rule that protects every community and is feasible and affordable to implement.

Sincerely,

David B. LaFrance
CEO, American Water Works Association
techno-ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Tell them to pipe down.

Hopefully things will get much better in January.
Trump will fix it.
Burdizzo
How long do you want to ignore this user?
techno-ag said:

Tell them to pipe down.

Hopefully things will get much better in January.



I suppose they should just solder on? You're all wet.
Old May Banker
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Career bureaucrats are worse for this country than career politicians (who can at least be voted out).

Bureaucracy is out of control.
USAFAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Its a lead-pipe cinch that this'll get reviewed next year...

12thFan/Websider Since 2003
techno-ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
USA*** said:

Its a lead-pipe cinch that this'll get reviewed next year...

Don't faucet though. Just let it drip.
Trump will fix it.
OnlyForNow
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I'll add an actual comment.

I work in an adjacent field, and this was a good idea for safety but terribly implemented for the beginning.

Interestingly enough, in Texas the operators or water suppliers are investigating their service lines AND the connecting line from the meter to the house, but not what's in the house. However, in colder areas the meter is in the house/basement/crawl space, and the operators have to get access to those areas to inspect the lines… let alone potentially replace the lines.

Just investigating whether or not the service lines are lead can be ridiculously expensive.
Refresh
Page 1 of 1
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.