Lead Pipe Money to Ooze, Not Flow, Out of EPA

podcast from Bloomberg Law. I'm your host, David Schultz. It'll be ten years this March since officials in Michigan announced their plan to switch the water source for the town of Flint from Lake Huron to the polluted Flint River. That decision, and many many other subsequent missteps led to the Flint water crisis, in which the polluted water corroded the city system of old lead pipes and dissolved the

toxic metal into the town's drinking water system. Aside from the sheer human tragedy of the crisis, one of its takeaways was that using lead pipes to deliver drinking water poses an unavoidable risk, regardless of how much that water is or isn't treated. So that was ten years ago. What's happened since then, Well, officials across the country have realized just how hard it is to remediate an environmental hazard that's been buried underground, and it's connected to each

individual home. Maybe, as you'll hear in a bit, we don't actually know which houses get their water from lead pipes. Late last year, there was a big development on the financial side of things. Congress included fifteen billion dollars for lead pipe removal in the Infrastructure build that the presidents signed in November, and if the President's Build Back Better package passes, which is looking like a big if right now,

that would add an additional ten billion dollars. It's the largest federal allocation toward lead piper removal since well, maybe ever. But there's a big difference between allocating money and actually spending it, and that's what we're going to be discussing on today's podcast. Bloomberg Law reporters Bobby McGill and Paige Smith recently wrote stories about some of the blockages that could clog up the flow of this money. EPUN very much intended. I started off by asking page about exactly

what Congress actually did last year un lead pipes. So the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, it was signed by President Joe Biden on November fifteenth and It essentially promises fifteen billion dollars in funding to replace lead pipes over the next ten years, and so that's that's been signed into law.

The other component about this is that you know, there is there are these pending negotiations on the what is known as the Build Back Better Act, and I mean that would provide an additional ten billion dollars and funds to replace lead pipes. And then there are also some

other White House initiatives that could provide even more funding. Bobby, you know, I was really interested in your story about, you know, how this money that's already been passed and I signed by the President, how this is going to get out and it sounds like there are some real impediments to getting this out the door. Can you talk a little bit about a few of the things that might make it a little harder for EPA to actually

get this money into people's homes and pipes. Yeah. Well, part of that is that, you know, the states, for the most part, are in charge of distributing this funding, and so as of a few weeks ago, the states we're looking for guidance from the EPA, you know, with regard to how they should be distributing this funding to local water systems and cities that need to replace pipes. This goes through what they call the State Revolving Fund, and and there are some other avenues as well, but

that's the primary one. Yeah, and it seemed like one based on the people you spoke with. One of the biggest impediments here is that we still don't know where all the lead pipes are. You know, we don't have a full inventory of where these pipes are in the country. So here's a question, do you know if you have lead pipes coming into your house? Oh? I was really hoping you would and ask me that. No, No, I can't say I do know. See, but that's the thing.

I mean. They're the number that the EPA is using is they're estimating, you know, based on a twenty sixteen study. They're estimating, you know, ten roughly ten million lead pipes across the country that need to be replaced. And this is an estimate because nobody knows exactly how many there are. They are estimating based on like when houses were built, you know, what materials were used back in those days.

Some cities like Pittsburgh, they're doing a survey and they have a really cool interactive map you can see online is to you know, where they're prioritizing these these lead pipe replacements. But there's a lot of systems that just don't know, and the EPA doesn't know either, and they're

you know that that is an impediment. Yeah, I mean the other thing I was surprised by is that you spoke with some folks from state water agencies who, again, you know, the money is flowing through the states, and I would have expected them to just be jumping for joy, uh, you know, at the prospect of getting all this money, but they actually seem really ambivalent and like, you know, not sure what to do with it. What's going on with that? Why are they saying like, we're not sure

how to use the money with you know what? Why? Why is that? Well, because I think in part they just haven't seen this much money that they have to dole out for this particular thing. And you know, it's it's it's just a new process for them to have to grapple with, and it's complicated, and you know, these these cities have to in these water systems have to apply for this money, and they have to develop criteria for that it's it's a it's a pretty significant bureaucratic process,

potentially speaking to the bureaucratic processes. Actually, our colleague Stephen Lee actually just reported on a report from the Inspector General uh saying that EPA's process for doling out money is not strong enough. So the Inspector General is saying more bureaucracy, more red tape. Meanwhile, the it sounds like the agency is really you know, under the gun to get this money out and to accomplish this this goal that has eluded you know, the agency for so long.

You know they've been trying to do this for so for such a long time. That's right, and you know, it's it's it's gonna be interesting to watch it unfold over the next year or so, and it's it's gonna take a while for all of this to playoff. Yeah, So, Paige, I wanted to talk to you about the human angle here, because it's not just a matter of you know, allocating money,

it's also allocating people in man hours. And you just did a story about how this could be you know, even tougher because we just don't have the plumbers, we don't have the construction workers who are able to do this. What's going on here? Yeah, I mean part of this is sort of if you step back, I think that so many employers are struggling at this moment in time to just fill open positions, right, So, I mean, you have this huge influx of cash and this potential for investment.

But yeah, I mean, if you don't have the people to kind of step up and you know, step up to finish the job, then that could be an issue. So I did reach out to a number of unions and some other folks who are kind of watching these these employment numbers pretty closely, and you know, unions like the United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry the UA. I mean, they've said that they can step up and meet the increased demand.

But there are also some other doubts about you know, actual employment numbers in the construction industry. So I chatted with some economists, for example, who said that workers construction workers are finding jobs and other sectors or dropping out of the workforce. So part of it as well is we'll have to see how long this takes. Right, Like the COVID nineteen pandemic is obviously still in full swing at this moment in time, and there's still very much

a labor shortage. But we'll kind of have to see if the if there are you know, union sponsored workforce training for example, might that could help fill the gap for some of this demand. And yeah, we'll have to see. Yeah, that was one of the things I was going to ask you about, is that, you know, ripping pipes out of the ground and installing new pipes, that's not unskilled labor, Like that's something that you actually need a lot of

expertise to be able to do. Is that One of the things that is making it harder here is that this is not just a matter of a labor shortage. It's a matter of labor shortage of this particular skill set. Definitely, And I mean I think that is I think all

labor is skilled labor. But just to be clear, the you know, yeah, there's definitely I chatted with a senior economics advisor from Cornell University and she said that, yeah, I mean, this is why a really clear workforce development system is needed to kind of respond to this demand.

And unions. When I spoke with the UA, they said that, you know, they are prepared to meet that demand because they do have these sort of apprenticeship programs already established and you know, the infrastructure, but infrastructure is there if you will. So they said that they can sort of respond. But I do think it's still quite early to kind of make an assessment of whether, you know, whether the they will sort of rise to the challenge, or if if there may be some sort of shortage of workers.

But as it stands right now, it's it's it's looking a little tight. Yeah, I mean, I just got the sense from your story that the UA folks, the labor union folks that you spoke to, we're putting a really rosy spin on this, you know, And you're right, it's way too early to say. I mean, maybe you know, they will be able to sort of train up enough people to handle these billions of dollars in federal funding.

But you know, is that fair to say that they're being a little overly optimistic or is it just you know, too soon, really too soon to say. Yeah, I really think it's too soon to say at this point in time. Honestly, I think that you know, just if you look at the numbers of the of I mean, if you look at the uas sort of you know, their numbers of

the members over time, they've sort of stayed consistent. It's not like they've drastically signed up a number of new members, but they also haven't lost you know, thousands of folks. So if that's any indication, then it's sort of like consistent in their membership. I do think it's just sort of too early to tell, to be honest. So finally, I want to finish with Bobby, you know, and take a big step back here and talk about the environmental

implications of all of this. You know, we're ten years on from the Flint water crisis, where you know, lead poisoning affected the entire city of Flint, Michigan. We've had three presidents now who have you know, made this a priority? President Obama, Trump, and now Biden. Are we heading in the right direction? Are we actually making progress toward dealing with lead in our drinking water systems? Or are we

pun very much non intended treading water here. I think that, you know, as far as I'm aware, the EPA and Congress have never allocated this bunch of money to lead pipe replacement. So I mean that's that's that's progress. You know, how quickly the lead pipes are actually replaced, you know, it is another question, but I mean the fact is that lead pipes aren't used anymore, and so the faster they're replaced, the more progress progress we make on that.

There are other water infrastructure issues that have to be addressed, and the and the EPA and Congress are both working on that, and they've allocated other you know, drinking water funds you know, for other infrastructure upgrades. These are systems that have been neglected for many, many years, and they're finally getting some funding. There's lots of complications with that, but nonetheless, I think it does represent progress. That's a

really good point. And it's actually an aspect of this that I hadn't thought about before that the problems not necessarily getting worse, you know, in that we're not having cities installing lead pipes and having to rip them out installing it. It's like these this is a legacy problem that we're just tay is taking a really really long time to fix. But here's the thing, like, you know, p fast is another example of of you know, one

of the infrastructure challenges we face some cities. I mean, there's a lot of p fasts in in in groundwater we've discovered, right, and so now cities are having to come back and realize that they're going to have to have other infrastructure upgrades in order to filter that out if they want or if regulations come along requiring them too. So you know, it's we made progress in some areas and then we realized that we have to make even more progress in other areas as well to ensure that

we have clean drinking water. All right, Well, that was Bobby McGill and Paige Smith speaking with us about lead pipes. Thank you both for joining us, and we will talk to you again soon. Thank you. Thanks see us, And that's it for today's episode of Parts per Billion. If you want more environmental news, check us out on Twitter. We use the handle at environment just that at environment, I'm at David B. Schultz If you want to chat with me, that's b as in burr it's cold outside.

Today's episode of Parts for Abilion was produced by myself, David Schultz. Parts for Bilion was created by Jessica Coombs and Rachel Dagle and is edited by Rebecca Baker and Chuck McCutcheon. Producer is Josh Block. Thank you everyone for listening. You don't need to be a judge to be interested in our nation's laws and legal institutions, just like you don't need to have a law degree to be curious about the inner workings of courts, law firms, and law schools.

That's where we come in. My name's Adam Allington and I'm the host of Uncommon Law, a podcast from the Bloomberg Industry Group. Uncommon Law is where public policy, storytelling, and the law are combined. We explore big topics ranging from tech policy to free speech, to race and gender diversity. So please give us a listen. You can subscribe and download today. Just search for Uncommon Law wherever you get your podcasts. Thanks so much,