In the vibrant city of Providence, Rhode Island, a couple named Prandy Tavarez and his wife embarked on an exciting journey as they eagerly anticipated the arrival of their baby.
With great anticipation and careful consideration, they made the decision to purchase a charming four-bedroom house nestled in a picturesque neighborhood filled with century-old homes.
Recognizing the importance of creating a safe and nurturing environment for their growing family, they wasted no time in transforming their new abode into a place they could proudly call home. With determination and dedication, they embarked on a series of renovations, starting with the removal of outdated wallpaper, followed by upgrading the electrical system, and replacing windows that were coated with lead-based paint.
This particular choice was made with utmost caution and awareness, as they were well aware of the potential dangers posed by lead exposure, especially to their unborn child. Lead, a potent neurotoxin, has been proven to have detrimental effects on brain development in children, making it a critical concern for any responsible parent.
In addition to the aforementioned lead exposure, another significant source of concern arose from the pipe that carried water to their residence, as it was also constructed with this hazardous material.
The city of Providence had been grappling with elevated lead levels in its tap water for an extended period of time, and as such, it came as no surprise when a road crew arrived in 2008 to excavate the street and remove the pipe. However, what was unexpected was the fact that they neglected to completely extract the entirety of the pipe, leaving a portion of it buried beneath the ground.
This oversight further compounded the existing problem and posed potential health risks to the residents of the area.
In addition to the previously mentioned issue of lead exposure, another significant cause for concern emerged from the pipe that was responsible for delivering water to their residence, as it was also constructed with this hazardous material.
The city of Providence had been grappling with elevated levels of lead in its tap water for a considerable period of time, and therefore, it came as no surprise when a road crew arrived in 2008 to excavate the street and remove the pipe. However, what caught everyone off guard was the fact that they failed to completely extract the entire pipe, leaving a portion of it buried beneath the ground.
This oversight not only exacerbated the existing problem but also posed potential health risks to the residents of the area.
Yanna Lambrinidou, a medical anthropologist at Virginia Tech and co-founder of the Campaign for Lead Free Water, asserts that the abandonment of lead pipe usage should have occurred long ago.
Lambrinidou emphasizes the particular danger that this metal poses to young children, as it has been shown to lower IQ and hinder the development of problem-solving skills.
In fact, the Environmental Protection Agency firmly states that no amount of lead is safe for children. Lambrinidou criticizes utilities for their attempts to cut costs and avoid taking responsibility for the issue.
She goes on to express her moral objection to partial pipe replacements, viewing them as immoral due to the conscious decision made by government agencies to leave residents exposed to continued risk of lead exposure.
The presence of sections that are left untreated can pose a significant threat to the quality of tap water, potentially leading to contamination. This issue highlights the importance of promptly removing these sections to ensure the safety of the water supply.
Not only does the practice of leaving these sections untreated jeopardize the health and well-being of the population relying on tap water, but it also creates additional financial burdens in the long run.
By choosing to postpone the removal of these sections, it is inevitable that crews will have to return at some point to address the problem.
This results in increased costs associated with future maintenance and repair work, which could have been avoided if the issue had been tackled in a timely manner.
Therefore, it is crucial to prioritize the removal of these sections to safeguard public health and minimize the economic implications that may arise from such negligence.
Numerous cities across the United States have claimed that they can forgo the replacement of lead pipes and instead rely on chemical treatments as a means of mitigating the risks associated with lead exposure.
However, it is crucial to acknowledge that this approach is not foolproof and may not provide a comprehensive solution to the problem. In light of this, the Biden administration has expressed its intention to replace all 9.2 million lead pipes in the country, recognizing the need for a more robust and permanent resolution.
Despite the commendable commitment of certain cities to remove lead pipes from their infrastructure, they often encounter significant obstacles due to limited resources and local regulations that hinder their progress.
These challenges further underscore the urgency and complexity of the issue at hand, necessitating a coordinated effort at both the federal and local levels to ensure the successful replacement of lead pipes and safeguard the health and well-being of communities nationwide.
Buffalo, New York, Lincoln, Nebraska, and even Detroit serve as prime examples that the current state of affairs did not have to unfold in such a manner.
Despite Detroit’s recent declaration of bankruptcy, its leaders made a pivotal decision in 2018 to replace all lead pipes during water main repairs. Sam Smalley, the chief operating officer of Detroit’s water provider, emphasized the significance of this action by stating that it safeguards the intellectual potential of the city’s next generation.
Smalley further noted that if a utility fails to fully replace lead pipes, it is often due to a lack of genuine desire to do so. However, Detroit’s journey has been far from straightforward. Officials have had to diligently seek state and federal funds to ensure that water bills remain manageable. In addition, they have organized neighborhood meetings and distributed water filters to effectively communicate with residents.
As a result of these concerted efforts, officials proudly assert that residents have willingly permitted contractors to excavate their properties and access their homes to remove lead pipes. However, in cases where residents refuse consent, their water supply is ultimately shut off.
In spite of the clear dangers associated with lead, it is disheartening to observe that numerous cities across the United States have made the decision to leave lead pipes in the ground, even decades after the detrimental effects of lead exposure have been widely recognized.
This alarming trend has occurred in various locations, including but not limited to Providence, Chicago, and other municipalities.
Astonishingly, this practice persists in present times, as evidenced by its prevalence in cities such as Oklahoma City, Allentown in Pennsylvania, Nashville, Memphis in Tennessee, and St. Louis. The persistence of this issue raises concerns about the prioritization of public health and the long-term consequences it may entail.
PROVIDENCE’S LONG STRUGGLE
In 1991, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) made a significant stride towards safeguarding the quality of drinking water by imposing limits on lead concentration. These limits necessitated the replacement of entire lengths of lead pipe by utilities, with a few exceptions, when levels of lead in water surpassed the established thresholds.
However, this requirement was met with opposition from the American Water Works Association (AWWA), a representative body for utilities, which argued that the public was not given adequate opportunity to express their views on the matter. Following the AWWA’s challenge, a federal appeals court ruled in 1994 in favor of the association’s stance.
Consequently, the EPA chose not to reintroduce the provision, leading Erik Olson, a Natural Resources Defense Council attorney involved in the case, to claim that the agency had essentially capitulated.
As a result, only partial replacements of lead pipes are currently compelled when levels of lead in water are deemed excessive.
The decision made by Providence Water in 2005 to alter its chemical treatment had unforeseen consequences that would prove to be fateful. This change resulted in a significant increase in lead levels, surpassing the limits set by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
The implications of this alteration were far-reaching and had detrimental effects on the community and its residents. The elevated levels of lead in the water supply posed serious health risks, particularly to vulnerable populations such as children and pregnant women.
Lead exposure is known to have severe and long-lasting effects on neurological development, leading to cognitive impairments and behavioral issues.
The failure to meet EPA regulations not only compromised the health and well-being of the residents but also raised concerns about the competence and accountability of Providence Water.
This incident highlighted the importance of rigorous monitoring and compliance with safety standards in ensuring the provision of clean and safe drinking water to the public. The repercussions of this decision were significant and necessitated immediate action to rectify the situation and prevent further harm.
The initiation of the removal requirement was spurred by a specific trigger, albeit not for the entirety of the pipes. This particular issue highlights an ongoing problem that afflicts the entire country, namely the fragmented ownership of lead pipes.
Numerous cities, such as Providence, grapple with a system wherein the utility company possesses a portion of the pipe that stretches to each residence, while the homeowner owns the remaining section.
Providence authorities adopted the standpoint that solely the city-owned segment would be eliminated, placing the financial burden of removing the remaining portion on homeowners.
Regrettably, given the exorbitant costs amounting to thousands of dollars, the majority of homeowners found this proposition unfeasible.
Nonetheless, by 2011, the Environmental Protection Agency’s scientific experts weighed in, contending that this approach fails to effectively reduce lead levels.
To put it into context, during these years, lead contamination in Providence’s water supply reached crisis levels. It egregiously exceeded EPA limits for the majority of the seventeen-year period, making it an astonishingly dire situation for a major city.
Despite the evident ineffectiveness of partial pipe replacement, which could potentially even elevate lead concentrations in drinking water, local authorities persistently adhered to this practice whenever work on water mains was conducted, opting to remove all pipes solely if homeowners were willing to foot the bill.
According to activists, Providence Water has been accused of creating a two-tiered system, differentiating between those who can afford access to safe water and those who cannot.
The issue came to light when Colleen Colarusso, who purchased a house overlooking a bustling Providence street in 2019, discovered that the lead levels in her water exceeded the federal limit by more than double. Consequently, she made the decision to no longer consume the water.
To mitigate this problem, she resorted to purchasing deliveries of five-gallon jugs of water and further paid $3,500 to install a copper line connecting her home to a higher elevation on the slope.
Stating her reasons for taking this action, she expressed her concerns about the detrimental effects of lead on her health, stating, “I don’t want that in my body.”
In the same neighborhood, comprised of closely situated two- and three-story apartments interspersed with modest single-family houses, city data suggests that there is likely a lead pipe located beneath Richard Charlton’s home.
Charlton, on the other hand, finds himself unable to bear the financial burden of replacing any pipe and believes that the responsibility should lie with the city, funded by taxpayer money.
His concerns extend beyond the water issue, as he worries about the possibility of further damages to his already frail heating system as well as the need for a new roof.
Charlton emphasizes his ongoing struggle to make ends meet, highlighting the difficulties he faces in his day-to-day life. These examples paint a stark picture of the disparities in access to safe water and the challenges faced by those who are financially unable to address the issue on their own.
THE WATER UTILITIES
The issue of removing lead pipes is not solely the responsibility of the utility, but also individuals and the government, according to Steve Via, the director of government relations at the AWWA.
Via emphasizes that the divided ownership of lead pipes remains a significant obstacle to achieving full lead service line replacement. He points out that in many communities, local regulations prohibit the expenditure of funds to upgrade private property, thus impeding the necessary work.
Ricky Caruolo, the General Manager of Providence Water, supports this viewpoint, stating that lead pipe replacements would require rate hikes and that it would be unfair to burden ratepayers with the cost of replacing privately owned lead pipes, which only a minority of people actually possess.
Caruolo believes that this decision should be made at the state or federal level. Moreover, he highlights the greater concern of lead paint compared to lead in water, and warns that even after removing the lead pipe, homes may still have lead fittings that can contaminate the water supply.
In the year 2021, there was some positive news for the city of Providence. Officials took a proactive approach to tackle the issue of lead, implementing various measures to address this concern.
They focused on improving water treatment methods, raising awareness among the public about the dangers of lead, and offering no-interest loans to facilitate the removal of lead pipes.
As a result of these efforts, the city’s water quality has significantly improved, now falling within the federal limits and ensuring a safer environment for the newest generation of children. The mayor expressed satisfaction with the progress made, emphasizing that the city is now in compliance with the regulations and highlighting the effectiveness of their actions.
In addition to these local initiatives, Providence Water’s policy underwent a transformation last year, primarily due to the infusion of federal funds. As part of their water main work, officials now replace the entire pipe free of charge in most cases.
Furthermore, the state legislature recently passed a bill mandating the removal of all lead pipes within a decade, demonstrating a commitment to long-term solutions.
This positive trend is not limited to Providence alone; cities across the nation have also benefited from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, which allocated $15 billion for the detection and replacement of lead pipes.
While lead in drinking water remains a concern, these funds will undoubtedly make water safer for a significant portion of the population. It is important to note that the allocated funds are only accessible to those municipalities that opt for the complete replacement of lead lines.
Moreover, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is currently working on drafting stricter regulations pertaining to lead, further reinforcing the commitment to ensuring the safety of drinking water across the country.
For a span of at least a decade, health and environmental groups in Providence have been engaged in a relentless battle to ensure access to lead-free drinking water.
Devra Levy, a community organizer in Providence and formerly associated with the Childhood Lead Action Project, firmly believes that the elimination of lead pipes is the ultimate solution.
She expresses her frustration at the fact that it has taken numerous years of tireless advocacy, the crisis in Flint, and the subsequent national awakening to finally address an issue that should have had an obvious solution from the very beginning.