Drinking lead can damage people’s brains, but Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach opposes a plan to remove lead water pipes.
…
In their letter, the attorneys general wrote, “[The plan] sets an almost impossible timeline, will cost billions and will infringe on the rights of the States and their residents – all for benefits that may be entirely speculative.”
Kobach repeated this nearly verbatim in a March 7 post on X (formerly Twitter).
Buttigieg responded by writing, “The benefit of not being lead poisoned is not speculative. It is enormous. And because lead poisoning leads to irreversible cognitive harm, massive economic loss, and even higher crime rates, this work represents one of the best returns on public investment ever observed.”
As a water professional working for a utility, it will cost way more than that.
As a regulator for water resources I know industries will spend hundreds of thousands of dollars flying attorneys across the country to debate the validity of a $1000 field penalty for an illicit direct discharge to waters of the state and US.
It is often safe to say if the industry’s argument is talking cost and funding alone, then they have no legitimate or technical justification to oppose. Their cash reserves are at stake either way.
Water utilities are generally not wealthy corporations and will not be doing this. Many are municipally owned. However, having a mandate that will massively strain contractor resources and the supply chain to get replacement materials will massively raise the cost.
Not to mention, most utilities do not know where the lead connections are. A lot more will have to be dug up and checked to verify the material. That has its own expense.
There are private water systems, and yes, my comment was more regarding industries with permitted discharges, which is slightly tangental.
But yeah thar is generally why utilities are not penalized for violations and compliance with things like drinking water standards are often not directly enforced. However the opposition to the requirement for drinking water quality standards to be met are not technically justified by financial burdens.
This is a common hurdle for industries and utilities alike whose operations have exceeded their capacity to maintain.