Why Does the US Find It So Hard To Replace a Lead Pipe?

The United States Environmental Protection Agency recently issued a proposal requiring water systems across the U.S. to replace lead drinking water pipes within the next 10 years, marking an important step toward the Biden administration’s implementation of its previous commitments. Back in November 2021, the Biden administration signed the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, which included $15 billion in dedicated funding to support the replacement of lead water pipes across the U.S. More than two years later, the EPA is only just proposing that the task be started.

In reality, the issue of lead water pipes has been plaguing the American public for some time. From the 1920s until the 1970s, developed countries such as the U.S., Britain and Germany commonly chose to use lead water pipes when building their cities, due to their physical properties such as pressure resistance and the fact that they were cheap. However, with their increased service life, the lead content of these pipes gradually leaked into the tap water, resulting in tap water lead significantly exceeding the standards. Because lead is a toxic substance, excessive amounts damage the nervous system, affect children’s development, and so on. Incidents of lead poisoning have been reported in many major cities in the U.S. In 2015, following the Flint, Michigan water crisis, hundreds of children tested positive for elevated blood lead levels, while in 2021, elevated lead concentrations in tap water from multiple supply lines were found in Benton Harbor, Michigan.

But American infrastructure problems go far beyond lead water pipes. Likewise in the area of drinking water safety, an investigative report released by the U.S. Geological Survey in early July showed that, due to aging wastewater systems, nearly half of all tap water in the U.S. contained at least one type of toxic synthetic organic fluoride; on Nov. 22, a train derailed in southeastern Kentucky, causing a hazardous chemical spill that led to a fire and the release of toxic gases; and a similar accident occurred in Ohio last February. The Hawaii fires in August were a tragedy, resulting in the loss of nearly 100 lives on the island of Maui, and many of the victims’ family members are still pursuing class action lawsuits against the local power companies because they believe aging power facilities significantly contributed to the blaze.

According to statistics, there are issues with nearly a quarter of all bridges in the U.S., more than half of all fatal traffic accidents are related to poor road conditions, the average speed of passenger trains is only half that of trains in Europe, and more than 70% of electrical facilities are severely outdated. The American Society of Civil Engineers once gave American infrastructure an average grade of D+, meaning that infrastructure conditions were “mostly substandard,” showed “significant deterioration,” and presented a “high risk of failure.” Why does the U.S. — the world’s largest economy — have infrastructure problems that are so striking that even replacing lead water pipes seems so difficult?

The first issue is funding. At first, this may sound confusing, given that U.S. spending for fiscal year 2023 reached $6.1 trillion, with a deficit of nearly $1.7 trillion. In reality, though, American infrastructure investment relies heavily on local and state finances, with only 25% of public infrastructure investment coming from the federal government. Both the federal government and local and state governments are investing less and less in urban infrastructure: According to the American Society of Civil Engineers’ 2021 forecast, the U.S. faces a nearly $2.6 trillion infrastructure investment gap over the next 10 years, whereas the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act provides for only $550 billion in new investment — $15 billion of which is earmarked for lead water pipe replacements. That said, some industry associations estimate that replacing the lead water pipes is likely to cost $50 billion, so it is not currently clear whether the federal government will allocate additional funds once the $15 billion has been exhausted.

The second issue is the system of separation of powers in the U.S., which makes for a messiy and intractable relationship between federal, local and state governments, and which is also one of the reasons for the complexity of the decision-making process regarding infrastructure renewal and the slow progress of related projects. Chicago, for example, has the largest number of lead water pipes in the U.S. — approximately 400,000 — and the city’s water commissioner has said that replacing Chicago’s lead water pipes could take 40 years and require an investment of at least $12 billion. However, federal funds are unlikely to be directed toward Chicago for this purpose, and the city itself, located in the Rust Belt, does not have the capacity to invest additional funds.

Furthermore, home-grown protectionism has exacerbated the difficulties in renewing U.S. infrastructure. Washington is currently bent on reshaping the global industrial chain, and on matters relating to infrastructure, it has a closed-door mentality. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act emphasizes the principle of localizing the industrial chain, and the Biden administration has issued an executive order requiring that steel and other raw materials for federally funded projects must be purchased in the U.S. Not only that, but powerful labor unions are likely to increase U.S. labor costs exponentially, as evidenced by the major autoworker and medical staff strikes this fall. Infrastructure costs in the U.S. have long been higher than similar projects in Europe or in Asia, and there is no doubt that the “Buy American” clause, which imposes restrictions on how materials are sourced, coupled with high wages for workers, has contributed to the rising cost of infrastructure renewal projects, such as replacing lead water pipes. Ultimately, these projects have been delayed for so long that it has become difficult to find a solution.

The author, Ma Wei, is a scholar at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences’ Institute of American Studies.