Speaker 1: A decade after the Flint Crisis, Congress just made a
Speaker 1: massive investment toward removing lead pipes from our nation's drinking
Speaker 1: water system. But on today's podcast, we look at why
Speaker 1: the folks who run those water systems actually aren't celebrating. Hello,
Speaker 1: and welcome back yet again to Partsiper Billion, the environmental
Speaker 1: podcast from Bloomberg Law. I'm your host, David Schultz. It'll
Speaker 1: be ten years this March since officials in Michigan announced
Speaker 1: their plan to switch the water source for the town
Speaker 1: of Flint from Lake Huron to the polluted Flint River.
Speaker 1: That decision, and many many other subsequent missteps led to
Speaker 1: the Flint water crisis, in which the polluted water corroded
Speaker 1: the city system of old lead pipes and dissolved the
Speaker 1: toxic metal into the town's drinking water system. Aside from
Speaker 1: the sheer human tragedy of the crisis, one of its
Speaker 1: takeaways was that using lead pipes to deliver drinking water
Speaker 1: poses an unavoidable risk, regardless of how much that water
Speaker 1: is or isn't treated. So that was ten years ago.
Speaker 1: What's happened since then, Well, officials across the country have
Speaker 1: realized just how hard it is to remediate an environmental
Speaker 1: hazard that's been buried underground, and it's connected to each
Speaker 1: individual home. Maybe, as you'll hear in a bit, we
Speaker 1: don't actually know which houses get their water from lead pipes.
Speaker 1: Late last year, there was a big development on the
Speaker 1: financial side of things. Congress included fifteen billion dollars for
Speaker 1: lead pipe removal in the Infrastructure build that the presidents
Speaker 1: signed in November, and if the President's Build Back Better
Speaker 1: package passes, which is looking like a big if right now,
Speaker 1: that would add an additional ten billion dollars. It's the
Speaker 1: largest federal allocation toward lead piper removal since well, maybe ever.
Speaker 1: But there's a big difference between allocating money and actually
Speaker 1: spending it, and that's what we're going to be discussing
Speaker 1: on today's podcast. Bloomberg Law reporters Bobby McGill and Paige
Speaker 1: Smith recently wrote stories about some of the blockages that
Speaker 1: could clog up the flow of this money. EPUN very
Speaker 1: much intended. I started off by asking page about exactly
Speaker 1: what Congress actually did last year un lead pipes. So
Speaker 1: the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, it was signed by President Joe
Speaker 1: Biden on November fifteenth and It essentially promises fifteen billion
Speaker 1: dollars in funding to replace lead pipes over the next
Speaker 1: ten years, and so that's that's been signed into law.
Speaker 1: The other component about this is that you know, there
Speaker 1: is there are these pending negotiations on the what is
Speaker 1: known as the Build Back Better Act, and I mean
Speaker 1: that would provide an additional ten billion dollars and funds
Speaker 1: to replace lead pipes. And then there are also some
Speaker 1: other White House initiatives that could provide even more funding. Bobby,
Speaker 1: you know, I was really interested in your story about,
Speaker 1: you know, how this money that's already been passed and
Speaker 1: I signed by the President, how this is going to
Speaker 1: get out and it sounds like there are some real
Speaker 1: impediments to getting this out the door. Can you talk
Speaker 1: a little bit about a few of the things that
Speaker 1: might make it a little harder for EPA to actually
Speaker 1: get this money into people's homes and pipes. Yeah. Well,
Speaker 1: part of that is that, you know, the states, for
Speaker 1: the most part, are in charge of distributing this funding,
Speaker 1: and so as of a few weeks ago, the states
Speaker 1: we're looking for guidance from the EPA, you know, with
Speaker 1: regard to how they should be distributing this funding to
Speaker 1: local water systems and cities that need to replace pipes.
Speaker 1: This goes through what they call the State Revolving Fund,
Speaker 1: and and there are some other avenues as well, but
Speaker 1: that's the primary one. Yeah, and it seemed like one
Speaker 1: based on the people you spoke with. One of the
Speaker 1: biggest impediments here is that we still don't know where
Speaker 1: all the lead pipes are. You know, we don't have
Speaker 1: a full inventory of where these pipes are in the country.
Speaker 1: So here's a question, do you know if you have
Speaker 1: lead pipes coming into your house? Oh? I was really
Speaker 1: hoping you would and ask me that. No, No, I
Speaker 1: can't say I do know. See, but that's the thing.
Speaker 1: I mean. They're the number that the EPA is using
Speaker 1: is they're estimating, you know, based on a twenty sixteen study.
Speaker 1: They're estimating, you know, ten roughly ten million lead pipes
Speaker 1: across the country that need to be replaced. And this
Speaker 1: is an estimate because nobody knows exactly how many there are.
Speaker 1: They are estimating based on like when houses were built,
Speaker 1: you know, what materials were used back in those days.
Speaker 1: Some cities like Pittsburgh, they're doing a survey and they
Speaker 1: have a really cool interactive map you can see online
Speaker 1: is to you know, where they're prioritizing these these lead
Speaker 1: pipe replacements. But there's a lot of systems that just
Speaker 1: don't know, and the EPA doesn't know either, and they're
Speaker 1: you know that that is an impediment. Yeah, I mean
Speaker 1: the other thing I was surprised by is that you
Speaker 1: spoke with some folks from state water agencies who, again,
Speaker 1: you know, the money is flowing through the states, and
Speaker 1: I would have expected them to just be jumping for joy, uh,
Speaker 1: you know, at the prospect of getting all this money,
Speaker 1: but they actually seem really ambivalent and like, you know,
Speaker 1: not sure what to do with it. What's going on
Speaker 1: with that? Why are they saying like, we're not sure
Speaker 1: how to use the money with you know what? Why?
Speaker 1: Why is that? Well, because I think in part they
Speaker 1: just haven't seen this much money that they have to
Speaker 1: dole out for this particular thing. And you know, it's
Speaker 1: it's it's just a new process for them to have
Speaker 1: to grapple with, and it's complicated, and you know, these
Speaker 1: these cities have to in these water systems have to
Speaker 1: apply for this money, and they have to develop criteria
Speaker 1: for that it's it's a it's a pretty significant bureaucratic process,
Speaker 1: potentially speaking to the bureaucratic processes. Actually, our colleague Stephen
Speaker 1: Lee actually just reported on a report from the Inspector
Speaker 1: General uh saying that EPA's process for doling out money
Speaker 1: is not strong enough. So the Inspector General is saying
Speaker 1: more bureaucracy, more red tape. Meanwhile, the it sounds like
Speaker 1: the agency is really you know, under the gun to
Speaker 1: get this money out and to accomplish this this goal
Speaker 1: that has eluded you know, the agency for so long.
Speaker 1: You know they've been trying to do this for so
Speaker 1: for such a long time. That's right, and you know,
Speaker 1: it's it's it's gonna be interesting to watch it unfold
Speaker 1: over the next year or so, and it's it's gonna
Speaker 1: take a while for all of this to playoff. Yeah, So, Paige,
Speaker 1: I wanted to talk to you about the human angle here,
Speaker 1: because it's not just a matter of you know, allocating money,
Speaker 1: it's also allocating people in man hours. And you just
Speaker 1: did a story about how this could be you know,
Speaker 1: even tougher because we just don't have the plumbers, we
Speaker 1: don't have the construction workers who are able to do this.
Speaker 1: What's going on here? Yeah, I mean part of this
Speaker 1: is sort of if you step back, I think that
Speaker 1: so many employers are struggling at this moment in time
Speaker 1: to just fill open positions, right, So, I mean, you
Speaker 1: have this huge influx of cash and this potential for investment.
Speaker 1: But yeah, I mean, if you don't have the people
Speaker 1: to kind of step up and you know, step up
Speaker 1: to finish the job, then that could be an issue.
Speaker 1: So I did reach out to a number of unions
Speaker 1: and some other folks who are kind of watching these
Speaker 1: these employment numbers pretty closely, and you know, unions like
Speaker 1: the United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing
Speaker 1: and Pipe Fitting Industry the UA. I mean, they've said
Speaker 1: that they can step up and meet the increased demand.
Speaker 1: But there are also some other doubts about you know,
Speaker 1: actual employment numbers in the construction industry. So I chatted
Speaker 1: with some economists, for example, who said that workers construction
Speaker 1: workers are finding jobs and other sectors or dropping out
Speaker 1: of the workforce. So part of it as well is
Speaker 1: we'll have to see how long this takes. Right, Like
Speaker 1: the COVID nineteen pandemic is obviously still in full swing
Speaker 1: at this moment in time, and there's still very much
Speaker 1: a labor shortage. But we'll kind of have to see
Speaker 1: if the if there are you know, union sponsored workforce
Speaker 1: training for example, might that could help fill the gap
Speaker 1: for some of this demand. And yeah, we'll have to see. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that was one of the things I was going to
Speaker 1: ask you about, is that, you know, ripping pipes out
Speaker 1: of the ground and installing new pipes, that's not unskilled labor,
Speaker 1: Like that's something that you actually need a lot of
Speaker 1: expertise to be able to do. Is that One of
Speaker 1: the things that is making it harder here is that
Speaker 1: this is not just a matter of a labor shortage.
Speaker 1: It's a matter of labor shortage of this particular skill set. Definitely,
Speaker 1: And I mean I think that is I think all
Speaker 1: labor is skilled labor. But just to be clear, the
Speaker 1: you know, yeah, there's definitely I chatted with a senior
Speaker 1: economics advisor from Cornell University and she said that, yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean, this is why a really clear workforce development
Speaker 1: system is needed to kind of respond to this demand.
Speaker 1: And unions. When I spoke with the UA, they said that,
Speaker 1: you know, they are prepared to meet that demand because
Speaker 1: they do have these sort of apprenticeship programs already established
Speaker 1: and you know, the infrastructure, but infrastructure is there if
Speaker 1: you will. So they said that they can sort of respond.
Speaker 1: But I do think it's still quite early to kind
Speaker 1: of make an assessment of whether, you know, whether the
Speaker 1: they will sort of rise to the challenge, or if
Speaker 1: if there may be some sort of shortage of workers.
Speaker 1: But as it stands right now, it's it's it's looking
Speaker 1: a little tight. Yeah, I mean, I just got the
Speaker 1: sense from your story that the UA folks, the labor
Speaker 1: union folks that you spoke to, we're putting a really
Speaker 1: rosy spin on this, you know, And you're right, it's
Speaker 1: way too early to say. I mean, maybe you know,
Speaker 1: they will be able to sort of train up enough
Speaker 1: people to handle these billions of dollars in federal funding.
Speaker 1: But you know, is that fair to say that they're
Speaker 1: being a little overly optimistic or is it just you know,
Speaker 1: too soon, really too soon to say. Yeah, I really
Speaker 1: think it's too soon to say at this point in time. Honestly,
Speaker 1: I think that you know, just if you look at
Speaker 1: the numbers of the of I mean, if you look
Speaker 1: at the uas sort of you know, their numbers of
Speaker 1: the members over time, they've sort of stayed consistent. It's
Speaker 1: not like they've drastically signed up a number of new members,
Speaker 1: but they also haven't lost you know, thousands of folks.
Speaker 1: So if that's any indication, then it's sort of like
Speaker 1: consistent in their membership. I do think it's just sort
Speaker 1: of too early to tell, to be honest. So finally,
Speaker 1: I want to finish with Bobby, you know, and take
Speaker 1: a big step back here and talk about the environmental
Speaker 1: implications of all of this. You know, we're ten years
Speaker 1: on from the Flint water crisis, where you know, lead
Speaker 1: poisoning affected the entire city of Flint, Michigan. We've had
Speaker 1: three presidents now who have you know, made this a priority?
Speaker 1: President Obama, Trump, and now Biden. Are we heading in
Speaker 1: the right direction? Are we actually making progress toward dealing
Speaker 1: with lead in our drinking water systems? Or are we
Speaker 1: pun very much non intended treading water here. I think that,
Speaker 1: you know, as far as I'm aware, the EPA and
Speaker 1: Congress have never allocated this bunch of money to lead
Speaker 1: pipe replacement. So I mean that's that's that's progress. You know,
Speaker 1: how quickly the lead pipes are actually replaced, you know,
Speaker 1: it is another question, but I mean the fact is
Speaker 1: that lead pipes aren't used anymore, and so the faster
Speaker 1: they're replaced, the more progress progress we make on that.
Speaker 1: There are other water infrastructure issues that have to be addressed,
Speaker 1: and the and the EPA and Congress are both working
Speaker 1: on that, and they've allocated other you know, drinking water
Speaker 1: funds you know, for other infrastructure upgrades. These are systems
Speaker 1: that have been neglected for many, many years, and they're
Speaker 1: finally getting some funding. There's lots of complications with that,
Speaker 1: but nonetheless, I think it does represent progress. That's a
Speaker 1: really good point. And it's actually an aspect of this
Speaker 1: that I hadn't thought about before that the problems not
Speaker 1: necessarily getting worse, you know, in that we're not having
Speaker 1: cities installing lead pipes and having to rip them out
Speaker 1: installing it. It's like these this is a legacy problem
Speaker 1: that we're just tay is taking a really really long
Speaker 1: time to fix. But here's the thing, like, you know,
Speaker 1: p fast is another example of of you know, one
Speaker 1: of the infrastructure challenges we face some cities. I mean,
Speaker 1: there's a lot of p fasts in in in groundwater
Speaker 1: we've discovered, right, and so now cities are having to
Speaker 1: come back and realize that they're going to have to
Speaker 1: have other infrastructure upgrades in order to filter that out
Speaker 1: if they want or if regulations come along requiring them too.
Speaker 1: So you know, it's we made progress in some areas
Speaker 1: and then we realized that we have to make even
Speaker 1: more progress in other areas as well to ensure that
Speaker 1: we have clean drinking water. All right, Well, that was
Speaker 1: Bobby McGill and Paige Smith speaking with us about lead pipes.
Speaker 1: Thank you both for joining us, and we will talk
Speaker 1: to you again soon. Thank you. Thanks see us, And
Speaker 1: that's it for today's episode of Parts per Billion. If
Speaker 1: you want more environmental news, check us out on Twitter.
Speaker 1: We use the handle at environment just that at environment,
Speaker 1: I'm at David B. Schultz If you want to chat
Speaker 1: with me, that's b as in burr it's cold outside.
Speaker 1: Today's episode of Parts for Abilion was produced by myself,
Speaker 1: David Schultz. Parts for Bilion was created by Jessica Coombs
Speaker 1: and Rachel Dagle and is edited by Rebecca Baker and
Speaker 1: Chuck McCutcheon. Producer is Josh Block. Thank you everyone for listening.
Speaker 1: You don't need to be a judge to be interested
Speaker 1: in our nation's laws and legal institutions, just like you
Speaker 1: don't need to have a law degree to be curious
Speaker 1: about the inner workings of courts, law firms, and law schools.
Speaker 1: That's where we come in. My name's Adam Allington and
Speaker 1: I'm the host of Uncommon Law, a podcast from the
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Industry Group. Uncommon Law is where public policy, storytelling,
Speaker 1: and the law are combined. We explore big topics ranging
Speaker 1: from tech policy to free speech, to race and gender diversity.
Speaker 1: So please give us a listen. You can subscribe and
Speaker 1: download today. Just search for Uncommon Law wherever you get
Speaker 1: your podcasts. Thanks so much,