EPA has proposed improvements to the Lead and Copper Rule (LCR) to reduce lead in drinking water. The proposed rule would require utilities to eliminate the nation’s roughly 9.2 million lead service lines (LSLs) at an estimated cost of $2.1 to $2.9 billion per year.1
The socioeconomic benefits from the rule vastly outweigh the cost and range from $17.3 to $34.8 billion per year2 – a whopping 8 to 12 times the annual cost of replacement. Read More
Lindsay McCormick, Project Manager.
Last week, EDF submitted comments to the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) on the state’s proposed rules for lead in water testing at licensed child care facilities. Our comments focused on what we learned from our pilot in 11 child care facilities, including 4 in the Chicago area.
Even at very low levels, lead can impair brain development, contributing to learning and behavioral problems as well as lower IQs. While national attention on lead in drinking water has spurred action in schools, few states have addressed lead in water in child care settings – even though these facilities serve children at younger, more vulnerable ages.
Illinois is one of seven states that EDF has highlighted in a previous blog for requiring lead in water testing in child care facilities. In January 2017, Illinois General Assembly enacted SB550, establishing a new set of requirements to address lead in drinking water in the state. Under the legislation, Illinois was required to adopt rules prescribing the procedures and standards to assess lead in water in licensed day care homes, day care centers, and group day care homes (herein after “child care facilities”). Read More
Tom Neltner, J.D., Chemicals Policy Director and Sam Lovell, Project Specialist
Yesterday, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker signed legislation that takes an important step to replacing the 240,000 lead service lines (LSLs) in communities across the state. SB-48 allows municipalities and water utilities to provide financial assistance to property owners to replace LSLs on private property. We described the legislation in an earlier blog – and applauded the critical work of state advocates in building support for the law.
