During the Democratic debate in Flint, Michigan on March 6, Hillary Clinton and Senator Bernie Sanders spent much of the two hours discussing domestic policy, from gun-control to race relations and economic equality.
By far, the topic du jour was the environment: specifically, the alarming levels of lead that have crept into our nation's water supply and homes — a problem highlighted by the recent contamination crisis in Flint itself.
When an audience member asked the candidates if they would support an effort to remove all lead service lines in the nation within the first 100 days in office, Clinton had a bold response:
"I want us to have an absolute commitment to getting rid of lead wherever it is, because it's not only in water systems. It's also in soil, and it's in lead paint that is found mostly in older homes."
She went on: "We will commit to a priority to change the water systems, and we will commit within five years to remove lead from everywhere."
—Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) March 7, 2016
This indeed is a responsible and noble endeavor, but is it economically feasible? Not so much, says Marc Edwards, a water quality expert and engineer at Virginia Tech who played a critical role in exposing the lead crisis in Flint (and, years earlier, in Washington, D.C.).
"Don’t get me wrong. I want the lead sources removed as bad as anyone else," Edwards told Tech Insider via email, "but doing so will carry a very high price tag."
How high? On the order of trillions of dollars, according to Edwards.
A nationwide problem
Lead poisoning in children is rampant across the US.
In 2004, The Washington Post found that 274 water utilities that serve 11.5 million people had reported unsafe levels of lead since 2000. And it's not just from the water. The CDC says that lead-based paint is the predominant source of lead exposure in children.
In the past several decades, the US has taken many steps toward reducing lead exposures, Edwards said. Getting rid of lead everywhere within the next five years would, indeed, be a "noble goal" and one that we should prioritize, he continued.
"Unfortunately, achieving that goal is probably not financially feasible, especially in an era of declining discretionary budgetary resources," Edwards said.
What can be done?
There are some good, low-cost measures to reduce lead contamination.
For one, treating the water with anti-corrosives is a smart, cheap move, Edwards said.
Flint got itself into its current crisis because the city failed to treat its water with chemicals that would prevent its pipes from corroding. As a result, the water irreversibly damaged the pipes' insides, causing toxic levels of lead and other contaminants to leach into the water supply. It will now cost the city $1.5 billion to fix.
Compare that to the amount of money it would have cost to treat the water with anti-corrosives in the first place — about $100 per day ($12 million per year) — and you can see why this would've been a substantially better economic move.
Even better, Edwards said, treating water with anti-corrosives extends the life of expensive water pipes such as those made from iron and copper, further stretching the savings down the line.
But if you can't nip the problem in the bud at the level of the pipes, there are also other low-cost ways to minimize your exposures.
In cities with only moderate levels of lead in its drinking water, Edwards said, running the water for at least three minutes before drinking or cooking with it can greatly minimize your exposure. You can also use point-of-use water filters, which are designed to sit on the counter or attach to your home faucet. They typically cost around $20 and are a cheap, easy way to eliminate the metal.
"Ideally we would achieve the noble goal of eliminating all lead sources," Edwards said, "but in the absence of a crash program that is funded at the expense of achieving other worthy societal goals, we will have to make do with lower cost interventions in the meantime."
And what about lead in the soil? "Lead in soil is also very difficult to remove," Edwards said.
Developing a national plan to mitigate lead exposure is crucial, and Clinton (and Sanders) should be applauded for taking the gravity of the problem to heart. But a promise to eliminate all of the nation’s lead in just five years is, sadly, almost certainly overambitious and unfeasible.
