New York's Lead Pipe Conundrum: Can Government Take Over Replacement?
The clock is ticking for New York state, which must replace 550,000 lead pipes by 2037. But with private landowners on the hook to fix the problem, will it ever be done? Environmental groups say shifting responsibility to state and local governments could make the process more efficient, cost-effective, and faster.
The issue is complex, with the average cost for a building owner to replace a lead line clocking in at $10,000. However, cost alone isn't the main obstacle – it's the hassle of obtaining necessary permits and dealing with multiple landowners who own adjacent properties. "It should be a no-brainer," says Joshua Klainberg, senior vice president of the New York League of Conservation Voters. "The federal government is telling every public water supplier to replace these pipes."
One potential solution involves government takeover, which could streamline the process and reduce costs by allowing construction to be done block by block. "There's an economy of scale here," Klainberg explains. "You can get materials at a better price, line up labor agreements, and keep costs under control."
However, there are also challenges to consider. The New York State Department of Health says the state is already responsible for some aspects of lead pipe replacement, but it's logistically and financially unrealistic to take on managing a $4 billion construction project.
New York City has taken steps in this direction, with federal funding allocated to replace 5% of lead service lines in disadvantaged communities. But experts say a citywide initiative would require legislative changes at the state level.
Rochester, which began its lead pipe replacement program in 2017, offers an alternative model. The municipal government is doing the work for property owners, with no direct cost to customers. This approach has allowed the city to prioritize replacements in environmental justice communities and areas where streets are due to be repaved.
The stakes are high – according to a report, replacing lead service lines in New York would result in a statewide savings of over $42 billion in public health costs over 35 years. Small amounts of lead exposure can have serious consequences for children's development and overall health. "It's no joke," says Klainberg. "Once you get exposed, it doesn't leave your body – the symptoms just get worse and worse."
The clock is ticking for New York state, which must replace 550,000 lead pipes by 2037. But with private landowners on the hook to fix the problem, will it ever be done? Environmental groups say shifting responsibility to state and local governments could make the process more efficient, cost-effective, and faster.
The issue is complex, with the average cost for a building owner to replace a lead line clocking in at $10,000. However, cost alone isn't the main obstacle – it's the hassle of obtaining necessary permits and dealing with multiple landowners who own adjacent properties. "It should be a no-brainer," says Joshua Klainberg, senior vice president of the New York League of Conservation Voters. "The federal government is telling every public water supplier to replace these pipes."
One potential solution involves government takeover, which could streamline the process and reduce costs by allowing construction to be done block by block. "There's an economy of scale here," Klainberg explains. "You can get materials at a better price, line up labor agreements, and keep costs under control."
However, there are also challenges to consider. The New York State Department of Health says the state is already responsible for some aspects of lead pipe replacement, but it's logistically and financially unrealistic to take on managing a $4 billion construction project.
New York City has taken steps in this direction, with federal funding allocated to replace 5% of lead service lines in disadvantaged communities. But experts say a citywide initiative would require legislative changes at the state level.
Rochester, which began its lead pipe replacement program in 2017, offers an alternative model. The municipal government is doing the work for property owners, with no direct cost to customers. This approach has allowed the city to prioritize replacements in environmental justice communities and areas where streets are due to be repaved.
The stakes are high – according to a report, replacing lead service lines in New York would result in a statewide savings of over $42 billion in public health costs over 35 years. Small amounts of lead exposure can have serious consequences for children's development and overall health. "It's no joke," says Klainberg. "Once you get exposed, it doesn't leave your body – the symptoms just get worse and worse."
. i mean, if it means gettin some cost control and efficiency, that's a win in my book. also, thinkin about all the $$$ saved from public health costs is nice 
. but at the same time, its not just a matter of throwin money at it, there gotta be ways to deal with them landowners and permits too 
. guess we'll just have to see how this plays out 
. Like, what's up with the complexity of getting all these private landowners on board? $10k is a lot of money for just replacing a pipe 
. And the hassle of permits and dealing with multiple landowners is just ridiculous 
.
. It'd make sense to let the state handle it, especially since they're already responsible for some parts of the replacement process 
. We can't keep relying on federal funding alone – that's not a sustainable solution 
. And what about New York City? They've already taken steps in this direction, but we need more concrete plans 
.
. The health risks are real, and we can't afford to wait any longer 
. We deserve better than this lead pipe mess 
!
. And yeah, there are gonna be some logistical hiccups, but that's just part of the game 
.
. Give me a break... let's get this done already! 
.
. municipal gov't stepping in to replace pipes for property owners? genius 
. we should be seeing more initiatives like this, not just nyc and rochester, but all over the state 
. Plus, they could get more efficient with materials and labor agreements, like Klainberg said 
. I'm worried about the cost though - $4 billion is a lot of dough 
. I'd rather have a safe water supply than worry about permits and landowners 
. What do you guys think?
. That way, you can get materials at a better price, line up labor agreements, and keep costs under control.
. We're talking about serious consequences for kids if they're exposed to lead. And according to that report, we could save over $42 billion in public health costs over 35 years? That's some serious bang for your buck! 
.
we were chasing after a giant pizza that was floating in mid air... anyway back to this lead pipe thingy, i feel like it's kinda funny how they're all bickering about who's gonna pay for it. like, can't we just get all the pizzas delivered to everyone's houses instead? 
. It's crazy to think they gotta sort out permits & landowner issues on their own...that's like tryin' to solve a puzzle blindfolded 
. Just imagine if they could just do it block by block, like Joshua said 
. It'd be way cheaper & faster! Plus, think about all the sick kids who get exposed to lead 
. Let's hope they can get it done by 2037! 
. It's a classic case of the 'market fails' – you know, where the government steps in because the free market just isn't workin' out 
. If we can get a consensus on how to tackle this issue, I say let's take it national and make lead pipe replacement a top priority 
.
and then the city can just take care of it all once the pipes are replaced 
maybe a hybrid approach would work? like gov't helps out some small towns and cities that need it more 
. I mean, it's not exactly rocket science... replacing old pipes shouldn't be that hard. Maybe the government should take a page out of Rochester's book and just do the work themselves? 
.
.
.
. Just hope they get it done before 2037...
WE NEED ACTION NOW! the cost is just a tiny fraction of what we'll save on healthcare costs in the long run. and think about all the hassle property owners are having to deal with - it's like they're being stuck between a rock and a hard place. 
. It's like they're saying one thing but doing another - every public water supplier is supposed to replace these pipes, so why not make it official? It's not just about the cost, it's about the hassle and who gets stuck with the bill. The gov can get materials at a better price and line up labor agreements, that'd be a game changer 
but i think gov gotta step in 
who are most affected by lead exposure 
by taking care of property owners and making it a no-brainer 
especially with the federal government already saying public water suppliers gotta replace these pipes 
and make it cost-effective 