* Chicago Tribune…
When it came time to split up the first batch of $15 billion Congress set aside last year to replace toxic lead pipes, Illinois officials had plenty of reasons to expect they would get the biggest share. […]
But when the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced last month how it plans to share nearly $3 billion this year, Florida got the biggest cut. Another state surprisingly in the top 10: Texas.
Since then environmental lawyers have been quizzing EPA officials and state bureaucrats about a 2022 survey the agency relied upon to conclude Florida surpasses Illinois in the number of lead service lines, and that Texas has more than Michigan and Wisconsin combined. […]
Illinois and other states with the most lead service lines are getting substantially less federal money per line than those with far fewer toxic pipes. For instance, Alaska, with 1,454 lead lines, and South Dakota, with 4,141, will get $19,704 and $6,919 per line respectively during the coming year.
The federal money headed to Illinois amounts to $221 per lead service line, a review of EPA data shows. Michigan and Wisconsin are getting $241 and $238 a line.
* AP…
The survey released Tuesday was the first time the agency asked about lead pipes and gave the best count yet of how many are underground. Florida, with an estimated 1.16 million pipes, was a surprise to one expert. Industrial states like Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania are more typically associated with extensive lead pipe issues.
Illinois ranked second in Tuesday’s survey, with 1.04 million lead pipes, followed by Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas and New York. […]
Erik Olson, a health and food expert at the environmental group Natural Resources Defense Council, said the EPA was “trying to do the right thing” by using its survey to direct lead pipe funds to states that need it most. But he called Florida’s figure “a big surprise.” Olson said the state told his group in 2021 that it doesn’t track lead service lines. The NRDC’s estimate for the state was about 200,000.
Olson said the Florida number is puzzling because lead pipes were most frequently installed in the decades before Florida’s population rapidly grew.
“We look forward to hearing an explanation,” Olson said.
* WTVO…
The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency has awarded Rockford $4 million to replace 960 lead water pipes. […]
“Lead is a toxin that can accumulate in the body and cause serious illness or even death,” said Sen. Steve Stadelman (D-Rockford). “This funding protects public water supplies and helps Rockford and other cities across the state replace these aging water pipes before IEPA deadlines kick in.”
The award is Rockford’s fifth from IEPA State Revolving Fund, which provides principal forgiveness loans that don’t have to be repaid. Rockford has received $16 million to replace lead service lines since 2019, with $4 million being the program’s maximum award amount.
Since 2017, the IEPA has provided $105 million in funding for lead service line replacement statewide.
* Lead paint is still a health hazard in Cook County. WTTW…
In suburban Cook County, officials now say as many as half a million homes have lead paint hazards that present enormous health threats for young children. One mother said her kids were poisoned several years ago — and the problems have not let up since. […]
“The most likely source of lead poisoning for children in Chicago is lead-based paint,” said Dr. Candice Robinson, medical director of the Chicago Department of Public Health. […]
The number of Chicago children with elevated lead levels has plummeted in the last 25 years. In 1996, 70% tested positive for elevated levels compared to under 2% in 2021, according to CDPH data.
But the city’s health department admits less than 50% of children are being tested regularly, a city requirement. And CDPH data finds that in many low income communities and communities of color, between 30% and 40% of all residents in older homes tested positive.
In a follow up email, a spokesperson responded, “CDPH Finds lead hazards in about 99 percent of residences built before 1978.”
- Grandson of Man - Wednesday, May 31, 23 @ 12:10 pm:
Texas and Florida should do the noble thing and give Illinois its share of money. After all, it’s sOciALiSm, and they voted against it.
- DuPage Saint - Wednesday, May 31, 23 @ 12:18 pm:
That is absurd that Illinois and other northern states are not getting the right amount for lead removal. I will say it again where is Durbin. I really feel that Durbin is most ineffective senator this state has ever had with the possible exception of Roland Burris
- Google Is Your Friend - Wednesday, May 31, 23 @ 12:21 pm:
Sounds like there’s a lot of funny business going on down in Florida.
- Jocko - Wednesday, May 31, 23 @ 12:36 pm:
==they don’t know where the state got the numbers it forwarded to the EPA. Florida officials aren’t talking about their methodology==
translation: Florida & Texas fudged their numbers to get more money than they were entitled to.
- Mason born - Wednesday, May 31, 23 @ 12:50 pm:
This is, IMHO, a foreseeable if unintended consequence of the way the Federal rule counts lines to be replaced. The Federal rule is counting unknown service lines as Lead until they’ve been investigated and classified as something else. Customer service lines are what’s being discussed here as in from the meter to the home plumbing. Water utilities do not have authority over that service line, it’s the customer’s plumbing which is under the authority of the plumbing code, if the area has one. That means the supplies don’t have information as to what was installed or when and the homeowner could replace that line at will, following applicable plumbing codes. Therefore most municipal systems aren’t going to have that data and wouldn’t have been collecting it until this rule change. Logically places like FL and TX with fewer plumbing codes and more rural areas are less likely to have uniform service lines leading to more unknowns. Doesn’t make it especially fair, but it is a logical problem.
Of course the problem for Illinois is those plumbing codes in Chicago REQUIRED Lead service lines. Unfortunately lead is a pretty good plumbing material if it wasn’t toxic, meaning a lot of these services will have survived for decades where other materials may have corroded or ruptured and been replaced.
- Give Us Barabbas - Wednesday, May 31, 23 @ 2:24 pm:
To be fair, based on their voting patterns and governments, Florida and Texas must have been drinking more lead-contaminated water, for much longer.
- DuPage - Wednesday, May 31, 23 @ 3:11 pm:
The Chicago lead pipe issue was brought up a couple of decades ago. At that time, it was claimed that the Lake water chemistry was such that it coated the inside of the pipes with lime, sealing off the lead. I don’t know how accurate that claim is. The $221 per water line does not even begin to cover the cost of replacement in Illinois or any other state for that matter.
- Proud Sucker - Wednesday, May 31, 23 @ 5:01 pm:
Two comments:
Mason born is spot on. Unless a line is reported to be copper, plastic or galvanized, it is assumed to be lead. FL and TX did not push their utilities and their customers to report knowing that they did not have lead lines. This was perhaps innocent at first and now may truly be gaming the system.
Polyphosphates are added to many drinking water systems, including Chicago’s to help adjust pH and sequester metals, primarily iron. They also help reduce all types of corrosion. The City just uses less polyphosphates than other locations because Lake Michigan water has low dissolved metals and is closer to a pH of 7.0 than groundwater.
- Chris - Wednesday, May 31, 23 @ 5:28 pm:
Maybe if state law didn’t give Chicago 50 years to replace the pipes.
Not seen as an urgent problem here, why would the feds increase the urgency?
Yes, I did contact my state rep about it as soon as I saw the amendment. The reply was merely the stock “we’re doing something!”—yes, condemning three more generations of Chicagoans to contaminated tap water.
- Joe - Wednesday, May 31, 23 @ 10:28 pm:
Mason: “ . . from the meter to the home plumbing.” Aren’t most meters in the home? Isn’t all the piping FROM the meter home plumbing? Do you mean from the outside “street” mains TO the meter?