Category: environmental protection agency

New England’s Unique Environmental Problem: Lead

New England’s Unique Environmental Problem: Lead

Lead and Solder Products” by colinmford is licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0.

In New England, even though most sources of drinking water are lead free, lead was a common material used for constructing pipes until 1986. Even today, while copper has eclipsed lead as the most common material used for pipes, lead solder can still be used to join copper pipes. Corrosive water can then cause the lead to leach into the drinking water. Lead contamination from drinking water is one of the most common forms of lead poisoning in both New England and across the country. 

Every state in New England still has lead pipes carrying water to houses (as well as lead contamination in schools). In Rhode Island, for example, there are 30,000 known lead service lines that are a contamination risk. Fortunately, New England is taking steps to remedy this problem. There are two “fronts” on which the battle against lead contamination in drinking water is being fought: in public infrastructure, such as schools, and in private residences and businesses, which is more challenging. In terms of schools, Maine, Vermont, and New Hampshire require consistent testing to see if lead is contaminating the water supply. In all three states, tests have come back confirming that a portion of the public school water supply is contaminated with lead. Meanwhile, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island do not require schools to test for lead, although Massachusetts has a robust voluntary testing program. Connecticut, for its part, does require young children to get tested for lead, but does not extend this requirement to schools. Assisted by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, states are investing in replacing lead pipes with safe, modern ones. These projects will not finish overnight, but still represent an important step in the right direction. On the federal level, the Lead and Copper regulates the amount of lead and copper in public drinking water, which currently stands at 15 ppb (parts per billion) for lead. However, science (and indeed the EPA) has emphasized that no amount of consumed lead is healthy or safe.

The Environmental Protection Agency recently estimated there are 9.2 million lead pipes carrying water throughout the country. Lead, which is commonly found in paint, ceramics, plumbing materials, gasoline, batteries, and pipes, among other products, has numerous negative health effects if consumed. Adults who consume lead can face high blood pressure, as well as kidney, brain, and reproductive complications. Adults are most commonly exposed to lead through drinking water as well as consumer products. Meanwhile, children who consume lead can face brain damage, slowed growth and development, and even hearing and speech problems. Children are most likely to be exposed to lead through paint dust. To address this long standing problem, the recently passed Bipartisan Infrastructure Law allocates $15 billion towards replacing lead pipes.

The social and physical costs of lead contamination, such as how lead disproportionately harms poor communities, are relatively easy to see, but it is important to consider the economic consequences as well. From an economic standpoint, health externalities such as kidney or brain complications harm the economy in the form of further burdening the logistics and finances of the healthcare system. Meanwhile, stunting childhood development harms long-term earnings, and some studies believe that lead exposure increases crime.  In 2019, lead exposure cost Maine $226.8 million dollars, Connecticut $984.4 million, Vermont $115.9 million, Massachusetts $2.0 billion, New Hampshire $272.9 million, and Rhode Island $257.1 million. This expense includes costs of reduced lifetime productivity, greater health care, education, social assistance expenditures, and premature mortality. State and federal budgets, as well as the private sector all bear a portion of this cost. Ultimately, the exposure of both children and adults to lead contamination is as much an economic issue as a moral one. 

Although the health problems associated with lead in drinking water have been known since at least the late 1800s, the problem still remains. Lead contamination is a prime example of how environmental and economic issues are very intertwined. Both the private and public sectors should continue working to reduce (and eventually eliminate) lead contamination in both children and adults. Doing so would be wise from both an economic and moral perspective. Overall, while lead poisoning might seem like a moral problem, its economic consequences prove that lead contamination is a multifaceted policy issue worthy of attention.

By Connor Feeney


Works Cited:

El-Dib, I. (2021, November 12). Lead exposure poses threat, especially to children, in Rhode Island. The Brown Daily Herald. Retrieved April 12, 2023, from https://www.browndailyherald.com/article/2021/11/lead-exposure-poses-threat-especially-to-children-in-rhode-island 

Frazin, R. (2023, April 4). EPA estimates 9.2 million lead water pipes in US, doles out funding to replace some of them. The Hill. Retrieved April 12, 2023, from https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/3933154-epa-estimates-9-2-million-lead-water-pipes-in-us-doles-out-funding-to-replace-some-of-them/ 

 Costa, C. (2022, May 31). All Maine schools are required to test for lead. here’s what they’re finding. newscentermaine.com. Retrieved April 12, 2023, from https://www.newscentermaine.com/article/news/investigations/testing-reveals-alarming-levels-of-lead-in-school-drinking-water-maine-cdc-drinking-water/97-0d23e363-5e9e-4d7c-b12c-259113d20e9a 

Emanuel, G. (2023, February 24). Mass. gets a ‘C-‘ in effort to address lead in school drinking water. WBUR News. Retrieved April 12, 2023, from https://www.wbur.org/news/2023/02/24/lead-water-school-daycare-facility 

Tan, T. (2023, January 8). Lead water pipes in 300 Bennington homes have been replaced in pioneering project. VTDigger. Retrieved April 12, 2023, from https://vtdigger.org/2023/01/08/lead-water-pipes-in-300-bennington-homes-have-been-replaced-in-pioneering-project/ 

Fleisher, C. (2018, July 13). Get the lead out. American Economic Association. Retrieved April 12, 2023, from https://www.aeaweb.org/research/lead-poisoning-health-intervention-long-run-impact-charlotte-north-carolina 

For parents. CT.gov. (n.d.). Retrieved April 12, 2023, from https://portal.ct.gov/DPH/Environmental-Health/Lead-Poisoning-Prevention-and-Control/For-Parents#:~:text=In%20Connecticut%20every%20child%20between,optional%3B%20it%20is%20the%20law.

Lloreda, C. L. (2020, January 14). Lead poisoning hits low-income children harder than their affluent neighbors. Massive Science. Retrieved April 12, 2023, from https://massivesci.com/articles/lead-flint-water-crisis-poverty-income-health-pollution-poor-rich/#:~:text=They%20found%20that%20children%20from,highlighted%20in%20red%20and%20yellow. 

Altarum. (n.d.). Value of lead prevention. http://valueofleadprevention.org/index.php?error=2 

Perls, H. (2022, August 10). EPA’s lead and copper rule: Examining challenges and Prospects – Environmental & Energy Law Program. Harvard Law School. https://eelp.law.harvard.edu/2021/01/lead-and-copper-rule/ 

About Lead. New England Lead Prevention. (n.d.). https://www.newenglandlead.org/about-lead/#:~:text=The%20most%20common%20source%20of%20lead%20poisoning%20in%20New%20England,built%20before%201978%20contain%20lead.

Waters of the United States: What’s economics got to do with it?

Waters of the United States: What’s economics got to do with it?

On June 27, 2017, the Environmental Protection Agency proposed a rule that would change the definition of the Waters of the United States (WOTUS).  On whose advice did they do this?  Why, economists’, of course!

Huh?

Let me back up.  In 2015, then-President Obama issued a document redefining which rivers, streams, lakes and marshes fell under the jurisdiction of the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers.  This rule has come to be known as the Waters of the United States rule.

Non-policy wonks can be forgiven for wondering: 1. how a government can redefine what comprises that waters of the US, and 2. why the move would be so controversial.

The 2015 rule (which was never actually implemented, as it was stayed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit) was called by then-speaker of the House of Representatives John Boehner as “a raw and tyrannical power grab that will crush jobs… and places landowners, small business, farmers, and manufacturers on a road to a regulatory and economic hell.” A pretty strong statement.

What the 2015 rule would have done was to clarify (or extend, depending upon your point of view) exactly which waterways the EPA and the Corps can oversee under the Clean Water Act.  Prior to 2015, the Clean Water Act covered only “navigable waters,” such as large lakes and rivers but did not necessarily include tributaries, wetlands, or smaller streams.  The rule of 2015 expanded that definition to include protections for tributaries that may or may not run all year round, such as small streams and wetlands.

But why did economists get involved?  Every proposed rule by the Executive Office must undergo a benefit-cost analysis, demonstrating that the benefits of the proposed rule outweighs the costs.  Bill Clinton first imposed this test in the 1990s, to protect against overbearing regulations.  Leaving aside the merits and drawbacks of imposing such a test, let’s look at what that would involve in this instance.

First, we would need to look determine which bodies of water would now be included under the 2015 definition.

Second, we would need to examine the costs needed to comply with the rules for these newly regulated waters and the potential economic effects of imposing these costs (loss of profitability, job losses, etc).

Next, we would need to investigate the benefits of including the new waters under the regulatory umbrella.  And finally, we would have to compare the benefits and the costs – not as easy as it sounds, especially if the benefits and the costs occur at different times.

As with many environmental regulatory cost-benefit analyses, the costs of imposing a new regulation are relatively easy to calculate.  In this case, they include permitting costs, administrative costs, associated environmental compliance costs, and wetland and stream mitigation costs.  They may also include project relocation costs, if a proposed development were to be located in one of these newly-regulated areas.  These are measurable and concrete costs, and they are not insubstantial. The new definition could have potentially affected municipalities, ranchers, farmers, golf courses, and home owners, among others – anyone with a stream or a wetland on their property (of course, assuming that those waters aren’t already regulated by the state, as they are in Maine).

Benefits are more difficult.  What would have been the benefits of including tributaries, transitory stream, and wetlands under the federal regulatory umbrella?  According to supporters of the 2015 rule, benefits would have included the increased health of larger bodies of water (and by extension, improved human health as well as ecosystem health).  In order to protect a lake or a river, the argument goes, you can’t just regulate what goes into the mainstem of the river – you have to monitor what gets into the tributaries as well. But making that link from reduced pollution to improved aquatic health to ecosystem benefits is anything but straightforward.  That’s what many environmental and resource economists spend their careers doing.

Benefits could include the avoided costs of drinking water filtration, better flood control, avoided risks of cleanups from spills or other damage, and increased health of fish and shellfish populations.  To estimate these benefits, economists at the EPA used “ecosystem services” (see my blog post here).  They identified peer-reviewed economic literature that estimated the value of protecting, preserving, replacing, and increasing the size of wetlands.  Then, from that literature, they arrived at a per-acre value and multiplied that by the number of acres projected to come under the enlarged jurisdiction.

Crude? No doubt. Developing a country-wide estimate on the value of protecting wetlands is not a pretty process.  But at least it gives a number, an estimate of value.  If we consider wetlands to be assets, then protecting more of those assets against harm should have some sort of value. The Obama EPA found that the benefits of expanding the definition of the waters of the United States exceeded the costs by a ratio of at least 1.3:1 (under the most conservative assumptions) to as much as 3:1.

When the Trump Environmental Protection Agency proposed rescinding the 2015 rule (thus reverting to the “state of the world” before the 2015 rule), they needed to show that the benefits of rescinding the rule exceeded the costs. They couldn’t accept the Obama EPA’s numbers, because what was previously a benefit would now become a cost, and vice versa.  So what did they do? They cast doubt upon the Obama EPA’s estimate of the benefits of protecting ecosystem services, in part by saying that some of the studies were too old and out-of-date, and in part by questioning the methodology.  That’s fine – economists regularly squabble about methodology.

Here’s the kicker, though.  Rather than try to improve the methodology, or arrive at a “better” number somehow, they did not include the benefits of protecting ecosystem services at all.  Because the number was “uncertain,” they literally wrote “uncertain” in the column for ecosystem services, and then proceeded to add up the numbers anyway.  In other words, they assigned protecting wetlands and tributaries a value of 0. ZERO.  Anyone looking at the “bottom line” and not bothering to read the entire document would not have caught the error.

Estimating the benefits of environmental protection and conservation is not an easy job. And many environmental advocates feel a little queasy at the prospect of assigning a “value” to ecosystems.  However, by not assigning a value to them we are allowing others to do so – and the value that they choose could be zero.  If we’re serious about protecting our valuable ecosystems from increasing threats, then we need to demonstrate that environmental protection has an economic value – and that it’s not zero.  Only once we can talk about regulations confidently in terms of benefits and costs, can we hope to adequately measure the impact of our (in)actions.

What do you think? Do you have any experience with WOTUS – good or bad?