Lead in Drinking Water
Lead has been in the news frequently, nationally and in New Jersey. It is a toxic substance that causes neurological damage, especially to young children. Lead in drinking water is one source of exposure. As indicated by recent drinking water test results from some schools in New Jersey and nationwide such as the widely-publicized crisis in Flint, some drinking water taps are testing high in lead.
To explain why this is happening and to put it in a broader context that considers other water infrastructure needs, the Jersey Water Works Steering Committee has issued a statement. Jersey Water Works has also convened a collaborative task force to develop a practical, broadly-supported action agenda to eliminate lead in drinking water throughout New Jersey. Additionally, Jersey Water Works has developed this library of resources to help educate our constituents on lead in drinking water, including its effects and best-practice solutions for communities, utilities and residents.
The resources are organized into these sections:
- General Information on Lead in Drinking Water
- Government and Utility Actions
- Steps Residents and Parents Can Take
- Recent Articles
Rates could fund lead pipe replacement in critical states: Laws in states with the most lead service lines support the practice
In Rates could fund lead pipe replacement in critical states, Emmett Environmental Law & Policy Clinic at Harvard Law School and Environmental Defense Fund reviewed state laws and policies in 13 states with the most lead service lines (LSLs), and found no explicit barriers to using rate funds to replace the lines on private property. These states have an estimated 4.2 million LSLs, more than two-thirds of the nation’s total. In these states, publicly-owned utilities can act pursuant to existing state legislation by determining that the practice serves a public purpose—protecting public health. Investor-owned utilities can do the same, but typically need approval of the state’s utility commission. While we have not reviewed the remaining states, we anticipate that the state laws and policies are similar to the ones we evaluated.
Get the Lead Out: Ensuring Safe Drinking Water for Our Children at School
This report, Get the Lead Out: Ensuring Safe Drinking Water for Our Children at School, by the Environment America and U.S. PIRG Education Fund provides recommendations for states and communities to address the problem of lead in drinking water in schools across the nation.
Research to Move Toward Evidence-Based Recommendations for Lead Service Line Disclosure Policies in Home Buying and Home Renting Scenarios
EDF and collaborators at Cornell published a new study that provides insight into how disclosure policies can impact potential home-buyer and renter behavior. This effort builds on a report EDF published in 2017 grading state housing disclosure policies according to their ability to help homebuyers make informed decisions about lead service lines (LSLs) before they sign a sales contract. LSLs are pipes that connect homes to the water mains under the street and are a major source of lead in drinking water. Four states — Connecticut, Delaware, New York, and Pennsylvania — and Washington, DC scored an A-. Twenty-one states scored a D or F. The remaining 25 states scored a B or C.
State Approaches to Testing School Drinking Water for Lead in the United States
This report, State Approaches to Testing School Drinking Water for Lead in the United States,describes the features of statewide initiatives in operation between January 1, 2016 and February 28, 2018 in 24 states and the District of Columbia to conduct testing for lead in school drinking water, and the prevalence of elevated lead concentrations in tap water in public schools based on available data. To identify and summarize the features of state policies and programs, researchers conducted online searches using a search engine and by scanning state legislative and department websites and existing resources from public health organizations. Researchers communicated with state government agencies to verify their policy or program and to request relevant documents and up-to-date data on water quality test results for lead.
Key findings of the study include that there is no uniformity in:
- States’ approaches to create and oversee programs to test for elevated lead in school drinking water
- States’ action levels
- States’ protocols to test school drinking water for lead and to share their findings
- States’ recommendations for school responses to testing
- States’ organization and maintenance of water quality data
In 12 states (which were those with available data on the lead content found in drinking water in schools), the research team found that:
- 12% of all water samples tested had a lead concentration at or above the state’s action level
- 44% of schools tested had one or more water samples with a lead concentration at or above the state’s action level
- Schools that collected and tested water from a greater number of taps were also more likely to identify a sample with elevated lead concentrations
- Use of lower action levels by a state program would increase the proportion of schools that would need to take steps to address the content of lead in the drinking water
Perspectives on State Legislation Concerning Lead Testing in School Drinking Water
The Center for Green Schools at the U.S. Green Building Council undertook this study, Perspectives on State Legislation Concerning Lead Testing in School Drinking Water, to inform state legislators and advocates as they consider new state laws to address lead contamination in school drinking water. They reviewed the growing body of state laws concerning testing of lead in school water, and they identified relevant reports that could help understand the effectiveness of laws. They also contacted stakeholders with knowledge of the implementation and impact of the state laws. Finally, they analyzed how each law addresses key elements that may relate to the effectiveness of a law in terns of the coverage of schools, implementation of testing, risk, reduction, and disclosure.