Despite recent alarming revelations that children in 10 San Francisco and Oakland schools had been exposed to lead contamination well above federal safety standards, data from household water quality tests performed this year by the Bay Area’s two major utilities indicate that lead levels remain well below dangerous thresholds in the vast majority of the region’s homes.

In addition to routine systemwide inspections for lead and other toxic materials in their drinking water, the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission and the East Bay Municipal Utility District, which together deliver water to more than 4 million Bay Area residents, also conduct lead tests for individual households, upon request.

San Francisco’s Public Utilities Commission performed water quality analyses on 211 household faucets this year and taps from Jan. 2 to Oct. 17. Of those, six contained lead levels above 15 parts per billion. By far the most heavily contaminated sample, taken from a bathtub faucet, registered 698 parts per billion. Notably, since shower and bath faucets aren’t considered typical drinking-water fixtures, they are exempt from lead-free plumbing requirements.

Advertisement

Article continues below this ad

The San Francisco agency charges $25 for each tap it checks, though households eligible for the Women, Infants and Children Program, which provides food and other benefits to low-income families, can apply to have the tests performed for free.

Across the Bay, EBMUD rolled out a program in March that allows customers to apply for a voucher for a certified lab to test their water at no cost. Since the program began, 70 tap tests have been conducted and none were found to contain lead levels above 15 parts per billion.

In 2014, the agency also analyzed the taps at 55 of its customer’s homes as part of a scheduled water quality testing program required under federal regulations. In all, 99 percent of those tests revealed lead levels below 15 parts per billion, and 90 percent were below five parts per billion.

Lead can cause a grim array of short- and long-term health problems, including brain and nervous system damage, anemia and hypertension, when enough accumulates in the body. It poses an acute threat to young children, who can absorb up five times more of it when ingested compared to adults, according to the World Health Organization.

Advertisement

Article continues below this ad

While no amount lead is considered “safe” to ingest, the Environmental Protection Agency’s lead and copper rule mandates that water utilities take action when systemwide lead levels exceed 15 parts per billion. Both SFPUC and EBMUD rely on that as a benchmark for household lead tests.

Since the 1980s, efforts to eliminate water service lines containing lead have “greatly reduced” exposure to lead in tap water nationwide, according to the Centers for Disease Control or Prevention. In most cases, when dangerous levels of lead are detected, the source can be traced back to corroded household plumbing materials, often in older homes. Lead cannot be seen, smelled or tasted when dissolved in water.

“It is much more common for older (plumbing) fixtures to have trace elements of lead than pipes underground, said David Briggs, EBMUD’s manager of water operations.

Both utilities recommend that anyone who finds elevated lead levels in their home taps arrange to have their fixtures inspected and replaced — particularly in older homes. Since 2000, California law has required that all kitchen faucets sold in the state must be “ultra-low lead.” According to the SFPUC, most faucets purchased prior to 1997 were made of brass or chrome-plated brass containing up to 8 percent lead.

“We encourage property owners to contact plumbers and contractors directly to make upgrades to their plumbing system,” said Tyler Gamble, an SFPUC spokesman. When replacing plumbing fixtures, the utility also recommends selecting products certified by the National Sanitation Foundation as being “lead free.”

Advertisement

Article continues below this ad

In homes with older plumbing systems and fixtures, experts also suggest flushing taps for up to two minutes before drawing water for cooking or drinking to clear away any water that might be contaminated. That’s particularly important to do for faucets that haven’t been used in several hours, when lead can leach from a faucet’s interior.

“If people aren’t clear about how safe their water is, running and flushing the taps is the best thing to do,” Briggs said.

The post Checks present that lead ranges in Bay Space ingesting water are usually not harmful appeared first on DAILY SAN FRANCISCO BAY NEWS.

Decades after officials banned lead in gasoline for new cars and stopped the sale of lead paint — huge steps toward eliminating lead exposure to the public — there are still an estimated 500,000 U.S. children with levels of lead in their blood that are considered high, and experts say lead in drinking water is one important reason.

Now, the Environmental Protection Agency is aiming to further reduce lead levels in drinking water and tighten a rule that failed to prevent drinking water crises in cities like Flint, Michigan and Newark, New Jersey. Although the specifics aren’t public, the agency says it will propose requiring that utilities actively replace harmful lead pipes.

President Joe Biden has already called for eliminating the country’s estimated 9.2 million lead pipes, lines that connect water mains under the street to homes and businesses and are responsible for most of the lead that gets into drinking water.

But it’s costly to send out workers to dig up the pipe, lay new ones and replant damaged landscaping. In many cities, homeowners are expected to pay to deal with the pipe on their property.

“Across the population, this has huge effects,” said Ronnie Levin, a former EPA researcher who now teaches at Harvard University’s school of public health.

Advertisement

Article continues below this ad

Kids are especially sensitive to lead exposure and high doses significantly reduce intelligence, impair coordination and disrupt a student’s ability to focus and learn. Behavior can deteriorate. Federal officials say there is no safe level of lead for children — even small amounts can reduce IQ scores.

The updated rules will arrive as the federal government attacks lead on several fronts, with announcements about the dangers in aviation fuel and proposed stricter limits on dust from lead-based paint in older homes and child-care facilities.

Some officials remain more focused on the danger from sources like paint dust, but attention to the danger in water grew after Flint.

Decades of work have drastically reduced childhood blood lead levels in the U.S., but many kids are still being exposed to the toxic metal “and the expectation is that a fair amount of that is from lead in water,” said Dr. Aaron Bernstein, a Boston-based pediatrician who this year became the head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s environmental health programs.

Advertisement

Article continues below this ad

Bernstein said he is hopeful “that as we remove lead pipes, we’re going to see the numbers continue to fall. And that will be really wonderful.”

Lead is a nightmare to regulate because unlike other water contaminants it enters drinking water through pipes and plumbing fixtures after the water has already come out of the treatment plant. It also can vary widely – a family consuming dangerous amounts of lead may live next door to a house with no lead at all.

Levin was part of a contingent known as the “lead mafia.” The group pushed for strong lead regulations, arguing that many people would benefit, so even small health improvements were worthwhile.

Advertisement

Article continues below this ad

Others at EPA believed Levin’s analysis exaggerated the benefits of new regulations and some CDC officials argued that focusing on drinking water would take away from the fight against lead paint, according to a book about the science at EPA by Mark Powell.

But finally in 1991, EPA completed its lead rule.

“It was a tough fight within EPA,” Levin remembered.

The agency did not force utilities to eliminate lead in drinking water, but instead required them to test for lead in homes and add anti-corrosive chemicals.

Advertisement

Article continues below this ad

The EPA set an action level of 15 parts of lead per billion parts water, but allowed 10% of samples to be above that threshold. Utilities that tested above that could be forced to replace their pipes.

The rules have significantly reduced lead in drinking water, contributing to the nation’s 95% decline in young children’s blood lead levels over roughly the last half-century.

The CDC’s Bernstein said, “Our own lead program at CDC lost funding before Flint, as if we had finished the lead problem in this country.” But Flint brought renewed attention to the problem, and new investment in lead poisoning prevention, he said.

Advertisement

Article continues below this ad

Other crises erupted in 2016 in Newark, New Jersey, and in 2018 in Benton Harbor, Michigan.

Joe Cotruvo, a former director of the Drinking Water Standards Division at EPA, said the existing regulations do work, they just aren’t properly enforced.

Others disagree. Current rules do a bad job of monitoring for lead and cities haven’t done enough to push lead levels as far down as possible, said Michael Schock, a recently retired EPA chemist who worked on lead for decades.

“The public health implication is that there was a lot of lead exposures that would have been somewhat preventable” if utilities had been forced to do more, Schock said. Too many people at EPA still don’t want to significantly tighten standards, Schock said.

Advertisement

Article continues below this ad

Take the crisis that unfolded in Newark. Because it had a history of low lead levels, only small numbers of tests were required every three years. Officials would have been more likely to catch rising lead levels sooner if they had sampled more sites, more often, according to a 2022 journal article.

The crises in Newark and in Benton Harbor eventually received a more energetic official response. Lead pipes in both cities were rapidly removed and lead levels dropped.

Levin said removing pipes now and beginning to address lead-leaching plumbing in homes will cost money.

“But, you know, we’ve been diddling around for 30 years.”

Advertisement

Article continues below this ad

The Associated Press receives support from the Walton Family Foundation for coverage of water and environmental policy. The AP is solely responsible for all content. For all of AP’s environmental coverage, visit https://apnews.com/hub/climate-and-environment

The post EPA to strengthen lead protections in consuming water after a number of crises, together with Flint appeared first on DAILY SAN FRANCISCO BAY NEWS.

Reverse osmosis, a step in the water purification process, eliminates more than 99% of all impurities at the Pure Water Southern California Demonstration Plant in Carson. On the left is the filter, and on the right are samples before and after reverse osmosis. (Lauren Justice for CalMatters)

Californians could drink highly purified sewage water that is piped directly into drinking water supplies for the first time under proposed rules unveiled by state water officials.

The drought-prone state has turned to recycled water for more than 60 years to bolster its scarce supplies, but the current regulations require it to first make a pit stop in a reservoir or an aquifer before it can flow to taps.

The new rules, mandated by state law, would require extensive treatment and monitoring before wastewater can be piped to taps or mingled with raw water upstream of a drinking water treatment plant.

“Toilet-to-tap” this is not.

Between flush and faucet, a slew of steps are designed to remove chemicals and pathogens that remain in sewage after it has already undergone traditional primary, secondary and sometimes tertiary treatment.

It is bubbled with ozone, chewed by bacteria, filtered through activated carbon, pushed at high pressures through reverse osmosis membranes multiple times, cleansed with an oxidizer like hydrogen peroxide and beamed with high-intensity UV light. Valuable minerals, such as calcium, that were filtered out are restored. And then, finally, the wastewater is subjected to the regular treatment that all drinking water currently undergoes.

RELATED: This beer is made from recycled San Francisco shower water

“Quite honestly, it’ll be the cleanest drinking water around,” said Darrin Polhemus, deputy director of the state’s Division of Drinking Water.

The 62 pages of proposed rules, more than a decade in the making, are not triggering much, if any, debate among health or water experts. A panel of engineering and water quality scientists deemed an earlier version of the regulations protective of public health, although they raised concerns that the treatment process would be energy-intensive.

“I would have no hesitation drinking this water my whole life,” said Daniel McCurry, an assistant professor of civil and environmental engineering at the University of Southern California.

This water is expected to be more expensive than imported water, but also provide a more renewable and reliable supply for California as climate change continues. Most treated sewage — about 400 million gallons a day in Los Angeles County alone — is released into rivers, streams and the deep ocean.

Luis Canela, a water quality technician, injects chemicals to chlorinate water at the Pure Water Southern California Demonstration Plant in Carson. Photo by Lauren Justice for CalMatters

The draft rules, released on July 21st, still face a gauntlet of public comment, a hearing and peer review by another panel of experts before being finalized. The State Water Resources Control Board is required by law to vote on them by the end of December, though they can extend the deadline if necessary. They would likely go into effect next April and it will take many years to reach people’s taps.

Heather Collins, water treatment manager for the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, said the regulations will give the district more certainty about how to design a massive, multi-billion dollar water recycling project with the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts. The district imports water that is provided to 19 million Southern Californians.

The joint effort, called Pure Water Southern California, has already received $80 million from the state. The first phase of the project, which could be completed by 2032, is expected to produce about 115 million gallons of recycled water a day, enough for 385,000 Southern California households.

Most is planned to go towards recharging local water agencies’ groundwater stores, but about 20% could be added to drinking water supplies upstream of Metropolitan’s existing treatment plant for imported water.

“We’re excited,” Collins said. “It helps better inform us on what our project needs to include, so that we can have a climate-resistant supply for our agencies in Southern California.”

The new rules come as endless cycles of drought leave California’s water suppliers scrabbling for new sources of water, like purified sewage. In 2021, Californians used about 732,000 acre feet of recycled water, equivalent to the amount used by roughly 2.6 million households, though much of it goes to non-drinking purposes, like irrigating landscapes, golf courses and crops.

Last year, Gov. Gavin Newsom called for increasing recycled water use in California roughly 9% by 2030 and more than doubling it by 2040.

“Water recycling is about finding new water, not just accepting the scarcity mindset — being more resourceful in terms of our approach,” Newsom said last May in front of Metropolitan’s Pure Water Southern California demonstration plant.

Some recycled water is already used to refill underground stores that provide drinking water, a process called indirect potable reuse, employed beginning in the 1960s in Los Angeles and Orange counties. But a water agency must have a clean and convenient place to store the expensive, highly-purified water. “You don’t want to inject this recycled wastewater that you’ve spent all this effort cleaning into a dirty, polluted aquifer just to ruin it again,” McCurry said.

To expand these uses, state lawmakers in 2010 tasked the water board with investigating the possibility of adding recycled water either directly into a public water system or just upstream of a water treatment plant. In 2017, they set a deadline to develop the regulations by the end of 2023.

California won’t be the first; Colorado already has regulations and the nation’s first direct potable reuse plant was built  in Texas in 2013. Florida and Arizona have rules in the works.

California’s statewide rules, however, are expected to be the most stringent, said Andrew Salveson, water reuse chief technologist at Carollo Engineers, an environmental engineering consulting firm that specializes in water treatment.

“They are more conservative than anywhere else,” he said. “And I’m not being critical. In the state of California, because we’re in the early days of (direct potable reuse) implementation, they’re taking measured and conservative steps.”

Removing viruses and chemicals

The water that flushes down toilets, whirls down sinks, runs from industrial facilities and flows off agricultural fields is teeming with viruses, parasites and other pathogens that can make people sick. Chemicals also contaminate this sewage, everything from industrial perfluorinated “forever chemicals” to drugs excreted in urine. Bypassing groundwater stores or reservoirs to funnel purified sewage directly into pipes means that there’s less room for error.

The new regulations would ramp up restrictions on pathogens, calling for scrubbing away more than  99.9999% of diarrhea-causing viruses and certain parasites. Also a series of treatments are designed to break down chemical contaminants like anti-seizure drugs, pain relievers, antidepressants and other pharmaceuticals. Medications can bypass traditional sewage treatment so they are found in low concentrations in recycled sewage and groundwater.

Water makes its way to the first step of the water purification process, membrane bioreactors, at the demonstration plant in Carson. Photo by Lauren Justice for CalMatters

The added technologies are good at washing away pharmaceuticals, McCurry said, so having them “back-to-back introduces a ton of redundancy,” he said. “Any pharmaceutical you could think of, if you tried to measure it in the product water of one of these plants, is going to be below the detection limit.”

The new rules call for extensive monitoring to ensure the treatment is working. Some harmful chemicals, such as lead and nitrates, which are dangerous to babies and young children, will be tested for weekly; others, monthly. And water providers must also monitor the sewage itself before it even reaches treatment for any chemical spikes that could indicate illegal dumping or spills.

“We think we’ve got the chemical classes covered in the treatment processes, so that we’re removing materials that we don’t even know are there,” the water board’s Polhemus said.

Jennifer West, managing director of WateReuse California, a trade association for water recycling, said she was happy to finally see California’s regulations, though she hopes the state will build in more flexibility for water providers to alter the suite of treatments as technologies change.

!function(){“use strict”;window.addEventListener(“message”,(function(e){if(void 0!==e.data[“datawrapper-height”]){var t=document.querySelectorAll(“iframe”);for(var a in e.data[“datawrapper-height”])for(var r=0;r<t.length;r++){if(t[r].contentWindow===e.source)t[r].style.height=e.data[“datawrapper-height”][a]+”px”}}}))}();

Richard Gersberg, San Diego State University professor emeritus of environmental health, said he supports using highly treated waste for drinking water. But he suggests that the state fund long-term studies comparing health effects in people who drink it to those whose drinking water comes from another source, such as rivers, “which might end up being worse. Probably is,” he said.

Given the vast and changing cocktail of chemicals constantly in use, “we don’t know what we don’t know,” Gersberg said. “If this becomes huge in California, and it will, I believe … we should at least spend a little money.”

Who will be first?

All this treatment and monitoring is likely to be pricey, which is why Polhemus expects to see it largely limited to large urban areas that produce a lot of wastewater, such as Los Angeles County. The Metropolitan Water District’s $3.4 billion estimate for building the project dates back to 2018, and has likely increased since then, according to spokesperson Rebecca Kimitch.

For small and medium communities, Polhemus said, “it doesn’t pencil out in a small scale type of arrangement.”

The Orange County Water District, which has long been a leader in purifying recycled water, has concluded that piping it directly to customers doesn’t pencil out for them, either, because they’ve already invested so heavily in refilling their carefully tended aquifer.

It would “require adding more treatment processes and increasing operating expenses,” board president Cathy Green said in a statement. “Local water agencies are currently well-equipped to continue to supply drinking water to customers in our service area at a low cost using the Orange County Groundwater Basin.”

For other regions like Silicon Valley, though, the costs may be worth it as climate change continues to shrink state supplies.

“At this point, it’s more expensive than water we might import during a drought. But who knows what will happen in the future,” said Kirsten Struve, assistant officer in the water supply division at the Santa Clara Valley Water District, which serves approximately 2 million people.

“That’s why we need to get prepared.”

The Pure Water Southern California Demonstration Plant showcases technology that may provide drinking water to Southern Californians by 2032. Photo by Lauren Justice for CalMatters

The Santa Clara water agency, known as Valley Water, is planning a $1.2 billion project in Palo Alto to produce about 10 million gallons a day of water for groundwater recharge, but Struve said she hopes the plant also will be used for direct potable reuse in the future.

The timing of the regulations has butted up against the realities of planning for Monterey One Water on the Monterey Peninsula as well. The utility has been injecting purified wastewater into the seaside aquifer for three years, producing about a third of the local supply, said General Manager Paul Sciuto. It is working on expanding the project by 2025, Sciuto said.

“I get that question of, ‘This water is so pure, why do you put it in the ground? Why can’t you just serve it?’ ” he said. “And I always fall back on, well, there’s no regulations that allow us to do that at this point.”

Now that the state is closer to finalizing them, he said, “there’s a point on the horizon to shoot for.”

The post Don’t name it ‘rest room to faucet’ — California plans to show sewage into consuming water appeared first on DAILY SAN FRANCISCO BAY NEWS.

Under the law, the state would require all facilities whose water exceeds the 5 ppb limit to reduce lead to as close to zero as possible.

Daycare standards are higher than those in elementary, middle, and high schools, where not every faucet needs to be tested, faucets replaced, or parents notified unless lead levels exceed 15 ppb.

Rep. Chris Holden, the author of AB 2370, introduced legislation this year that would require schools to meet the same standards as day care centers.

“By aligning lead testing standards in childcare and schools, we can protect children from the toxic effects of lead,” Holden said in a statement.

Day care centers had a two-year window to have their drinking water tested for lead contamination. But so far, months after the deadline, only about half of the 14,500 tests required have been reported, according to EWG’s analysis. It’s unclear how many daycares haven’t yet tested their water for lead, or if their results haven’t been reported by labs.

Little said she expects the number of facilities with harmful lead exposure to increase as more testing results become available.

“It seems like this is just the tip of the iceberg,” she said, pointing out that licensed family child care homes in California, which have more day care centers, aren’t even required to test their water for lead.

Little advises parents sending their children to family children’s homes to encourage their providers to install newer faucets and lead-removing filters.

Parents sending their children to a center can search the EWG’s database for lead level results (PDF) and urge them to test their water if results from that facility are missing.

If the facility is found to have an unsafe level of lead in water, Little recommends parents check with providers for details on what they have done to lower that level.

Kumiko Inui, principal at San Francisco’s ABC preschool, whose lead levels scored the fourth-highest in the study, said the result was due to an outdoor sink that hadn’t been used in years and has since been turned off. However, she said other facilities at the bilingual Japanese-English preschool were below 5 ppb and that the school uses a filter in its kitchen sink and provides bottled water for students.

The post 1 in 4 California Youngster Care Facilities Has Unsafe Ranges of Lead in Consuming Water, First Necessary Testing Finds appeared first on DAILY SAN FRANCISCO BAY NEWS.

It has been nearly eight years since the Flint water crisis, and yet we continue to see lead-contaminated drinking water threatening human health and disproportionately affecting vulnerable communities across the country. While lead in drinking water continues to make headlines in the Midwest and cities of the Northeast, it may come as a surprise to some to learn that here in California, we have our own lead-drinking issues as well.

In 2016, Fresno residents were concerned about “rusty, discolored water” coming out of their pipes. Nearly 14% of children tested in one Fresno borough had reported high levels of lead, 25% of Fresno schools reported finding lead in their drinking water wells, and 40 households had lead levels above the federal limit. Expanded testing found an additional 300 homes had lead coming out of their faucets, prompting class action lawsuits. Fresno found that lead was seeping into her water through corroding and unwrapped galvanized pipes.

Lead is a heavy metal that can leach from old, corroded plumbing and cause serious damage, affecting the nervous system, cognitive ability, fertility and more. Health experts agree that there is no safe concentration of lead, meaning any concentration is dangerous. Water systems cannot continue to neglect their aging water infrastructure and wait for another crisis. The irreversible damage that lead exposure can cause makes it imperative for water systems to replace lead supply lines now and ensure safe drinking water for their residents before it’s too late.

Lead-contaminated drinking water is not unique to these cities. An NRDC study found that 186 million Americans drank water from drinking water systems that had lead levels greater than 1 part per billion (ppb). Another analysis by NRDC found that there are up to 12 million leading service lines in the United States, while the EPA estimates up to 10 million.

Although information on where the lead supply lines are located in our drinking water systems is incomplete and lacking, it is becoming increasingly clear that lead plumbing is a problem across the country, including California.

A significant portion of California’s drinking water infrastructure, including lead supply piping and components, is obsolete and in need of replacement. The latest EPA Drinking Water Infrastructure Survey and Assessment indicates that California will need over $51 billion over the next 11 years to maintain and improve its drinking water infrastructure. Fortunately, the new federal funding offers hope.

The bipartisan Infrastructure Act (BIL) is a one-time down payment for our nation’s aging infrastructure and can help California ensure its residents have access to safe, clean drinking water. Nearly $15 billion will be dedicated specifically to replacing major service lines in the United States, and California is expected to receive nearly $250 million annually over the next five years.

This targeted funding will be instrumental in helping California meet its drinking water infrastructure needs and positioning the state to avoid another drinking water crisis. However, as we approach the second year of BIL funding, it will be critical for California to spend the money effectively and fairly.

The following is an overview of the key considerations California must keep in mind if it is to get rid of lead in its drinking water:

1. Impede partial replacement of the main line by removing all materials that may be a source of lead, including galvanized tubing. The state should be concerned about lead exposure from galvanized lines that have been or are located downstream of lead parts because they can trap and build up lead from upstream sources and release lead into the home. In addition, galvanized tubing itself may contain lead. The extensive damage caused by galvanized piping has been documented in California cities such as San Francisco, Fresno and Washington, DC. In response to the Fresno drinking water crisis, where corroded galvanized pipe was leaching lead into residents’ drinking water, the city banned the use of galvanized pipe plumbing in new construction. The danger posed by galvanized piping is unique to our own state, so the state must act quickly to protect Californians from all sources of lead, including lead-contaminated galvanized piping. States such as Michigan, Illinois and New Jersey recognize the health hazard of galvanized wiring downstream of lead parts and require that they be completely removed.

Although the inventory of lead service lines in California is far from sufficient, the Division of Drinking Water estimates that there are 560,000 galvanized lines on the supply side and an unknown number of galvanized lines on the customer side, many of which do supply lead-contaminated water to Californians could . Leaving galvanized pipes in the ground is unhealthy and a waste of resources when the state has to dig up the pipes to replace them.

3. Keep Californians safe by ensuring basic public health protections are provided, such as: B. Notification, tests and filters when leading service lines are replaced or disrupted. The lead pipe replacement process and other unplanned disruptions, such as replacing water meters and mains, can cause spikes in lead levels as construction activities allow more lead to be removed from service lines. This makes the provision of notices (in the language appropriate for that community), education and point-of-use or pitcher filters to residents, particularly families with children and other high-risk residents, prior to the replacement of the cordset for the Protection incredibly important their health. After replacing the lead supply lines, conducting water lead tests is critical to ensure all lead has been flushed out, the filters are working properly, and the water is safe to drink.

4. Consider equity and affordability in replacement activities for leading state service lines by using federal funds to cover necessary replacements on the customer side. An NRDC study found that rates of drinking water violations were increasing in communities of color and low-income. Because of redlining and environmental injustice, people of color are more likely to live in lead-piped communities. In addition, the cumulative effects of multiple sources of lead, such as gas and paint, are more severe in communities of color, and lead-contaminated drinking water further contributes to the overall harm to human health in these communities. Increasing the financial burden of replacing lead piping and parts would further compound existing inequalities, leading to partial replacement and continued lead exposure. When residents cannot afford the thousands of dollars to replace their customer-supplied lead line, it results in a partial replacement and continued lead exposure as the lead lines still remain in the ground.

   A recent study conducted in Washington, DC showed that household income and ethnicity are important predictors of who will be able to fully replace their leading line of service. Communities of color are also disproportionately low-income and have low homeownership rates, meaning failure to provide funding for full replacement can result in partial replacement that disproportionately impacts residents of color. California must ensure that water systems that receive funds from BIL fully pay for replacements without charging individual property owners to ensure that socioeconomic factors do not prevent Californians from having safe drinking water.

Rather than wait for another clean water crisis, California has the ability and the means to do it right and address the issues of its premier service line once and for all. Replacing these lead supply lines is a critical step in protecting the health of California residents and ensuring they have access to safe, clean drinking water.

The post Does California Have a Lead in Ingesting Water Downside? appeared first on DAILY SAN FRANCISCO BAY NEWS.

More testing and proper mainline replacement is needed statewide.

It has been nearly eight years since the Flint water crisis, and yet we continue to see lead-contaminated drinking water threatening human health and disproportionately affecting vulnerable communities across the country. While lead in drinking water continues to make headlines in the Midwest and cities of the Northeast, it may come as a surprise to some to learn that here in California, we have our own lead-drinking issues as well.

In 2016, Fresno residents were concerned about “rusty, discolored water” coming out of their pipes. Nearly 14% of children tested in one Fresno borough had reported high levels of lead, 25% of Fresno schools reported finding lead in their drinking water wells, and 40 households had lead levels above the federal limit. Expanded testing found an additional 300 homes had lead coming out of their faucets, prompting class action lawsuits. Fresno found that lead was seeping into her water through corroding and unwrapped galvanized pipes.

Lead is a heavy metal that can leach from old, corroded plumbing and cause serious damage, affecting the nervous system, cognitive ability, fertility and more. Health experts agree that there is no safe concentration of lead, meaning any concentration is dangerous. Water systems cannot continue to neglect their aging water infrastructure and wait for another crisis. The irreversible damage that lead exposure can cause makes it imperative for water systems to replace lead supply lines now and ensure safe drinking water for their residents before it’s too late.

Lead-contaminated drinking water is not unique to these cities. An NRDC study found that 186 million Americans drank water from drinking water systems that had lead levels greater than 1 part per billion (ppb). Another analysis by NRDC found that there are up to 12 million leading service lines in the United States, while the EPA estimates up to 10 million.

Although information on where the lead supply lines are located in our drinking water systems is incomplete and lacking, it is becoming increasingly clear that lead plumbing is a problem across the country, including California.

A significant portion of California’s drinking water infrastructure, including lead supply piping and components, is obsolete and in need of replacement. The latest EPA Drinking Water Infrastructure Survey and Assessment indicates that California will need over $51 billion over the next 11 years to maintain and improve its drinking water infrastructure. Fortunately, the new federal funding offers hope.

The bipartisan Infrastructure Act (BIL) is a one-time down payment for our nation’s aging infrastructure and can help California ensure its residents have access to safe, clean drinking water. Nearly $15 billion will be dedicated specifically to replacing major service lines in the United States, and California is expected to receive nearly $250 million annually over the next five years.

This targeted funding will be instrumental in helping California meet its drinking water infrastructure needs and positioning the state to avoid another drinking water crisis. However, as we approach the second year of BIL funding, it will be critical for California to spend the money effectively and fairly.

The following is an overview of the key considerations California must keep in mind if it is to get rid of lead in its drinking water:

1. Prevent partial replacement of the main line by removing all materials that may be a source of lead, including galvanized tubing. The state should be concerned about lead exposure from galvanized lines that have been or are located downstream of lead parts because they can trap and build up lead from upstream sources and release lead into the home. In addition, galvanized tubing itself may contain lead. The extensive damage caused by galvanized piping has been documented in California cities such as San Francisco, Fresno and Washington, DC. In response to the Fresno drinking water crisis, where corroded galvanized pipe was leaching lead into residents’ drinking water, the city banned the use of galvanized pipe plumbing in new construction. The danger posed by galvanized piping is unique to our own state, so the state must act quickly to protect Californians from all sources of lead, including lead-contaminated galvanized piping. States such as Michigan, Illinois and New Jersey recognize the health hazard of galvanized wiring downstream of lead parts and require that they be completely removed.

Although the inventory of lead service lines in California is far from sufficient, the Division of Drinking Water estimates that there are 560,000 galvanized lines on the supply side and an unknown number of galvanized lines on the customer side, many of which do supply lead-contaminated water to Californians could . Leaving galvanized pipes in the ground is unhealthy and a waste of resources when the state has to dig up the pipes to replace them.

2. Addressing California’s severe lead data shortage by investing in a detailed material inventory of its drinking water distribution system and developing a robust water testing program to obtain lead sampling data. Currently, as listed in the following list, California estimates that there are only 9 lead lines and 10,969 lead components on the supply side, but no information on the number of lead lines, components, or galvanized lines on the customer side. This lack of data is of great concern and likely contributes to the lack of urgency and accountability by water systems to address their aging pipelines, which could leach lead into drinking water. The state must take the necessary steps to create a detailed inventory of all materials used in the distribution system on both the supply and customer sides across the state.

California’s 2022-2023 Lead Service Line Replacement Intendary Use Plan Inventory List

California’s lack of lead sampling data also poses a problem in understanding the magnitude of the state’s lead problem. An analysis of the results of a 2017 law mandating lead testing in schools built before 2010 showed that nearly 1 in 5 of the 8,200 schools issued drinking water fountains with lead levels greater than 5 ppb, the limit set by the Food and Drug Administration of 5 ppb Drug Administration bottled water. However, data gaps remain. The taking of several water samples, e.g. B. the first and fifth liters of water from the tap, can also help to further narrow down whether the lead is coming from the faucets and fixtures in the house or from the pipes of the distribution system.

Sampling for lead from the first and fifth liters of water.

3. Keep Californians safe by ensuring basic public health protections are provided, such as: B. Notification, tests and filters when leading service lines are replaced or disrupted. The lead pipe replacement process and other unplanned disruptions, such as replacing water meters and mains, can cause spikes in lead levels as construction activities allow more lead to be removed from service lines. This makes the provision of notices (in the language appropriate for that community), education and point-of-use or pitcher filters to residents, particularly families with children and other high-risk residents, prior to the replacement of the cordset for the Protection incredibly important their health. After replacing the lead supply lines, conducting water lead tests is critical to ensure all lead has been flushed out, the filters are working properly, and the water is safe to drink.

4. Consider equity and affordability in replacement activities for leading state service lines by using federal funds to cover necessary replacements on the customer side. An NRDC study found that rates of drinking water violations were increasing in communities of color and low-income. Because of redlining and environmental injustice, people of color are more likely to live in lead-piped communities. In addition, the cumulative effects of multiple sources of lead, such as gas and paint, are more severe in communities of color, and lead-contaminated drinking water further contributes to the overall harm to human health in these communities. Increasing the financial burden of replacing lead piping and parts would further compound existing inequities, leading to partial replacement and continued lead exposure. When residents cannot afford the thousands of dollars to replace their customer-supplied lead line, it results in a partial replacement and continued lead exposure as the lead lines still remain in the ground.

A recent study conducted in Washington, DC showed that household income and ethnicity are important predictors of who will be able to fully replace their leading line of service. Communities of color are also disproportionately low-income and have low homeownership rates, meaning failure to provide funding for full replacement can result in partial replacement that disproportionately impacts residents of color. California must ensure that water systems that receive funds from BIL fully pay for replacements without charging individual property owners to ensure that socioeconomic factors do not prevent Californians from having safe drinking water.

Rather than wait for another clean water crisis, California has the ability and the means to do it right and address the issues of its premier service line once and for all. Replacing these lead supply lines is a critical step in protecting the health of California residents and ensuring they have access to safe, clean drinking water.

The post Does California Have a ‘Lead in Ingesting Water’ Drawback? appeared first on DAILY SAN FRANCISCO BAY NEWS.

PHOENIX (Stacker) – From New York City to the Navajo Nation, people across the country are facing climate-driven water scarcity, exorbitant utility bills, aging or incomplete infrastructure, community disinvestment, and political inertia, all of which limit or completely cut off Access to essential water resources.

America’s water gap exacts a significant price on the well-being of individuals and the overall economy. More than $8.5 billion is lost annually as a result of time spent collecting water, high health care bills related to injuries, waterborne illness, and mental health challenges associated with water insecurity, according to a June 2022 report from nonprofit DigDeep. The water gap persists in all 50 states, from urban to remote communities, but it is not socially or geographically random. Water insecurity is associated with other socioeconomic disparities and disproportionately impacts communities of color. According to DigDeep, Indigenous households are 19 times more likely than white households to live without plumbing. Black and Latino households are twice as likely.

While rural homes are the most likely to lack running water, the majority of Americans residing in unplumbed homes live in cities. Plumbing poverty in urban areas is getting worse. Researchers found the average tenant in San Francisco living without piped water spent 44% of their income on rent in 2017. Water connection fees in San Francisco can cost several thousands of dollars—a financial burden low-income renters cannot afford, and negligent landlords may not want to pay. While urban residents considered “plumbing poor” are hidden in plain sight, rural residents impacted most severely by the water gap are almost entirely hidden from the nation’s collective consciousness. In colonias along Texas’ southwestern border with Mexico, tens of thousands of people live without access to running water or sewer service. Any water they can access is believed to be unsafe, and contaminated with arsenic, E. coli, and other harmful toxins.

Over the last 40 years, federal water infrastructure funding has fallen from 63% to roughly 9% leaving communities without the financial resources to upgrade and expand water and sewage systems. However, the White House says the recent infusion of money via President Joe Biden’s Infrastructure Investment and Job Act will speed up progress in prioritized underserved communities. Passed in November 2021, the law allocates roughly $50 billion for programs designed to improve state and local drinking water and wastewater treatment infrastructure. The Environmental Protection Agency also distributed $154 million to tribal territories and Native Alaskan villages. The average per-state funding for all 50 states was $138.7 million. Even for the millions of Americans with access to basic plumbing and running water, utility bills are unaffordable. A 2018 analysis by the Guardian found that across a sampling of 12 major US cities, water and sewage bills had increased by an average of 80% in just eight years, with low-income households bearing the greatest burden.

In 11 out of the 12 cities included in the study, 100% of people with incomes below 50% of the federal poverty threshold could not afford their water bills. According to the study, water bills exceeding 4% of household income are considered, for this analysis, unaffordable. This problem is not isolated just to the lowest-income households. Over the next eight years, average Americans neglected by federal funding are likely to feel the pressure of high-cost utilities in cities with low-quality water and wasteful infrastructure.

Stacker determined the 10 metro areas in the US most lacking in complete plumbing facilities based on the percentage of people in each metro without this basic access. The data is sourced from the 2020 five-year American Community Survey US Census Bureau. The census question asks whether a housing unit has hot and cold running water, a bathtub or shower, as well as other questions about kitchen appliances. Puerto Rico was excluded from these results. At a county-by-county level, the reasons why people lack access to basic plumbing are not closely or consistently tracked. Where we could find specifics, we have listed those here. Where we could not, we’ve provided contextual information about the state of that metro area’s water and sewage infrastructure.

#10. Dubuque, IA

• Total housing units: 41,518 (93.1% occupied)
• Households lacking complete plumbing facilities: 290 (0.8% of occupied housing units)

Throughout the state, Iowans are at an increased risk of water contamination. A 2017 study revealed that 1 in 5 infants in the state is born with high levels of lead in their blood, pointing to the dangers of tainted drinking water. Dubuque, however, reported no public drinking water violations in 2021.

Agricultural pollution is a major source of contamination for private well owners, resulting in water with harmful levels of bacteria and nitrates. Dubuque residents identified drinking water protection from private sources as one of the most critical health concerns in the next 3-5 years, according to the county’s Poverty Prevention Plan.

#9. Houma-Thibodaux, LA

• Total housing units: 87,081 (88.4% occupied)
• Households lacking complete plumbing facilities: 711 (0.9% of occupied housing units)

Louisiana’s southeastern parishes, like Lafourche and Terrebonne, are prone to hurricane damage, which can knock out critical community infrastructure. Beyond threats to water and sewage systems from natural disasters, the state’s water quality is a consistent problem, with upwards of 1,600 boil advisories across the state annually.

Louisiana will receive $7 billion from Biden’s infrastructure bill, with nearly $6 billion earmarked for roads, highways, and bridges. The remainder will be spent on water infrastructure improvements, among other things.

#8th. Laredo, TX

• Total housing units: 84,553 (90.3% occupied)
• Households lacking complete plumbing facilities: 722 (0.9% of occupied housing units)

Laredo made headlines early in 2022 when a water line break caused nearly two weeks of water shortages and boil advisories for thousands of residents. While this was a short-term problem amid a much larger water crisis, it is a prime example of the impact of aging, unmaintained water infrastructure.

Webb County, where Laredo is located, was previously embroiled in controversy when the $12 million Rio Bravo Water Treatment Plant opened without properly functioning systems. The plan was intended to provide clean drinking water to 8,000 people in neighboring towns. Instead, plant operators falsified water quality reports, permitting substandard, unsafe water to flow through the system and into the homes of residents.

#7. Hammond, LA

• Total housing units: 56,449 (86.0% occupied)
• Households lacking complete plumbing facilities: 431 (0.9% of occupied housing units)

Like many other Louisiana regions, Hammond is not spared from the damage and devastation caused by natural disasters. In the wake of Hurricane Ida, sewage system breakdowns were a persistent problem in the region. Neighboring St. Tammany Parish, where almost all residents use bottled water due to poor piped water quality, has received $23 million to improve its water system.

#6. Grant’s Pass, OR

• Total housing units: 39,362 (93.0% occupied)
• Households lacking complete plumbing facilities: 312 (0.9% of occupied housing units)

In 2018, Grants Pass began replacing its nearly 86-year-old water treatment plant with a new facility, acknowledging that, while it is still doing its job adequately, the old plant would not be able to withstand an earthquake.

The new plant is expected to be finished by the end of 2023. The city has also undertaken a $20 million wastewater treatment project. As a result of these major infrastructure projects, Grants Pass residents will see an approximate $20 increase in their utility bills over the course of the next four years.

#5. McAllen-Edinburg Mission, TX

• Total housing units: 281,380 (86.7% occupied)
• Households lacking complete plumbing facilities: 2,961 (1.2% of occupied housing units)

Leaky canals supplied by a diminishing Rio Grande River are creating water scarcity issues in the McAllen-Edinburg-Mission metro. These canals that supply the region lose about 40% of the water they carry due to aging infrastructure.

Water officials predict the demand for water in the area will double over the next 50 years as the population continues to grow. The region has already experienced rapid population growth between 1990 and 2020, increasing sixfold to 871,000.

#4. Anchorage, AK

• Total housing units: 160,311 (86.7% occupied)
• Households lacking complete plumbing facilities: 1,824 (1.3% of occupied housing units)

Alaska’s extreme environment makes piping water to remote regions—and even relatively urban areas like Anchorage—challenging and expensive for both builders and residents paying the bills.

Historically, installing indoor plumbing in a single home could cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. As an alternative, people may use honey buckets—large buckets to collect waste. But this type of sewage disposal is conducive to spreading disease. Invasive pneumococcal rates in southwestern Alaska are among the highest in the world due to a lack of running water and proper sanitation.

#3. Farmington, NM

• Total housing units: 51,299 (85.0% occupied)
• Households lacking complete plumbing facilities: 926 (2.1% of occupied housing units)

Farmington is situated on off-reservation Navajo trust land, and between three American Indian reservations belonging to the Navajo, the Ute Mountain Indians, and the Southern Utes. A short drive away, more than 40% of Farmington’s neighbors in Navajo Nation households do not have running water in their homes and 30% lack access to clean drinking water. Instead, they must haul water, sometimes from Farmington, for their cooking and sanitation needs.

Lack of water and plumbing puts residents at greater risk for infectious diseases, and it is in large part why the Navajo Nation reported a higher per capita COVID-19 mortality rate than any state in the US

#2. Flagstaff, AZ

• Total housing units: 66,807 (73.4% occupied)
• Households lacking complete plumbing facilities: 1,749 (3.6% of occupied housing units)

Coconino County, home to Flagstaff, relies on groundwater for 70% of its water supply. As climate change and population growth put pressure on various water sources throughout the state, residents in Flagstaff and beyond will face increasing water scarcity in the coming decades.

Longtime Flagstaff residents are familiar with this issue. In 2002, the Upper Lake Mary reservoir, from which Flagstaff got a significant portion of its water supply, dried out almost completely due to drought, causing shortages.

#1. Fairbanks, AK

• Total housing units: 44,270 (81.8% occupied)
• Households lacking complete plumbing facilities: 1,980 (5.5% of occupied housing units)

In parts of Fairbanks, permafrost keeps the ground frozen year-round, making it impossible for builders to lay water and septic systems. As a result, people turn to “dry cabins”—housing units without any plumbing—for the sake of practicality and as part of a lifestyle. The Fairbanks region has a large dry cabin community.

Immediately to the north of Fairbanks is the vast Yukon-Koyukuk region, which has the nation’s highest total percentage of homes with inadequate plumbing due to its harsh environment and inaccessibility.

Copyright 2022 Stacker via Gray Media Group, Inc. All rights reserved. This article has been re-published pursuant to a CC BY-NC 4.0 License.

The post Metros with the most individuals with out fundamental plumbing service, together with piped ingesting water and a bathroom appeared first on DAILY SAN FRANCISCO BAY NEWS.

PHOENIX (Stacker) – From New York City to the Navajo Nation, people across the country are facing climate-driven water scarcity, exorbitant utility bills, aging or incomplete infrastructure, community disinvestment, and political inertia, all of which limit or completely cut off Access to essential water resources.

America’s water gap exacts a significant price on the well-being of individuals and the overall economy. More than $8.5 billion is lost annually as a result of time spent collecting water, high health care bills related to injuries, waterborne illness, and mental health challenges associated with water insecurity, according to a June 2022 report from nonprofit DigDeep. The water gap persists in all 50 states, from urban to remote communities, but it is not socially or geographically random. Water insecurity is associated with other socioeconomic disparities and disproportionately impacts communities of color. According to DigDeep, Indigenous households are 19 times more likely than white households to live without plumbing. Black and Latino households are twice as likely.

While rural homes are the most likely to lack running water, the majority of Americans residing in unplumbed homes live in cities. Plumbing poverty in urban areas is getting worse. Researchers found the average tenant in San Francisco living without piped water spent 44% of their income on rent in 2017. Water connection fees in San Francisco can cost several thousands of dollars—a financial burden low-income renters cannot afford, and negligent landlords may not want to pay. While urban residents considered “plumbing poor” are hidden in plain sight, rural residents impacted most severely by the water gap are almost entirely hidden from the nation’s collective consciousness. In colonias along Texas’ southwestern border with Mexico, tens of thousands of people live without access to running water or sewer service. Any water they can access is believed to be unsafe, and contaminated with arsenic, E. coli, and other harmful toxins.

Over the last 40 years, federal water infrastructure funding has fallen from 63% to roughly 9% leaving communities without the financial resources to upgrade and expand water and sewage systems. However, the White House says the recent infusion of money via President Joe Biden’s Infrastructure Investment and Job Act will speed up progress in prioritized underserved communities. Passed in November 2021, the law allocates roughly $50 billion for programs designed to improve state and local drinking water and wastewater treatment infrastructure. The Environmental Protection Agency also distributed $154 million to tribal territories and Native Alaskan villages. The average per-state funding for all 50 states was $138.7 million. Even for the millions of Americans with access to basic plumbing and running water, utility bills are unaffordable. A 2018 analysis by the Guardian found that across a sampling of 12 major US cities, water and sewage bills had increased by an average of 80% in just eight years, with low-income households bearing the greatest burden.

In 11 out of the 12 cities included in the study, 100% of people with incomes below 50% of the federal poverty threshold could not afford their water bills. According to the study, water bills exceeding 4% of household income are considered, for this analysis, unaffordable. This problem is not isolated just to the lowest-income households. Over the next eight years, average Americans neglected by federal funding are likely to feel the pressure of high-cost utilities in cities with low-quality water and wasteful infrastructure.

Stacker determined the 10 metro areas in the US most lacking in complete plumbing facilities based on the percentage of people in each metro without this basic access. The data is sourced from the 2020 five-year American Community Survey US Census Bureau. The census question asks whether a housing unit has hot and cold running water, a bathtub or shower, as well as other questions about kitchen appliances. Puerto Rico was excluded from these results. At a county-by-county level, the reasons why people lack access to basic plumbing are not closely or consistently tracked. Where we could find specifics, we have listed those here. Where we could not, we’ve provided contextual information about the state of that metro area’s water and sewage infrastructure.

#10. Dubuque, IA

• Total housing units: 41,518 (93.1% occupied)
• Households lacking complete plumbing facilities: 290 (0.8% of occupied housing units)

Throughout the state, Iowans are at an increased risk of water contamination. A 2017 study revealed that 1 in 5 infants in the state is born with high levels of lead in their blood, pointing to the dangers of tainted drinking water. Dubuque, however, reported no public drinking water violations in 2021.

Agricultural pollution is a major source of contamination for private well owners, resulting in water with harmful levels of bacteria and nitrates. Dubuque residents identified drinking water protection from private sources as one of the most critical health concerns in the next 3-5 years, according to the county’s Poverty Prevention Plan.

#9. Houma-Thibodaux, LA

• Total housing units: 87,081 (88.4% occupied)
• Households lacking complete plumbing facilities: 711 (0.9% of occupied housing units)

Louisiana’s southeastern parishes, like Lafourche and Terrebonne, are prone to hurricane damage, which can knock out critical community infrastructure. Beyond threats to water and sewage systems from natural disasters, the state’s water quality is a consistent problem, with upwards of 1,600 boil advisories across the state annually.

Louisiana will receive $7 billion from Biden’s infrastructure bill, with nearly $6 billion earmarked for roads, highways, and bridges. The remainder will be spent on water infrastructure improvements, among other things.

#8th. Laredo, TX

• Total housing units: 84,553 (90.3% occupied)
• Households lacking complete plumbing facilities: 722 (0.9% of occupied housing units)

Laredo made headlines early in 2022 when a water line break caused nearly two weeks of water shortages and boil advisories for thousands of residents. While this was a short-term problem amid a much larger water crisis, it is a prime example of the impact of aging, unmaintained water infrastructure.

Webb County, where Laredo is located, was previously embroiled in controversy when the $12 million Rio Bravo Water Treatment Plant opened without properly functioning systems. The plan was intended to provide clean drinking water to 8,000 people in neighboring towns. Instead, plant operators falsified water quality reports, permitting substandard, unsafe water to flow through the system and into the homes of residents.

#7. Hammond, LA

• Total housing units: 56,449 (86.0% occupied)
• Households lacking complete plumbing facilities: 431 (0.9% of occupied housing units)

Like many other Louisiana regions, Hammond is not spared from the damage and devastation caused by natural disasters. In the wake of Hurricane Ida, sewage system breakdowns were a persistent problem in the region. Neighboring St. Tammany Parish, where almost all residents use bottled water due to poor piped water quality, has received $23 million to improve its water system.

#6. Grant’s Pass, OR

• Total housing units: 39,362 (93.0% occupied)
• Households lacking complete plumbing facilities: 312 (0.9% of occupied housing units)

In 2018, Grants Pass began replacing its nearly 86-year-old water treatment plant with a new facility, acknowledging that, while it is still doing its job adequately, the old plant would not be able to withstand an earthquake.

The new plant is expected to be finished by the end of 2023. The city has also undertaken a $20 million wastewater treatment project. As a result of these major infrastructure projects, Grants Pass residents will see an approximate $20 increase in their utility bills over the course of the next four years.

#5. McAllen-Edinburg Mission, TX

• Total housing units: 281,380 (86.7% occupied)
• Households lacking complete plumbing facilities: 2,961 (1.2% of occupied housing units)

Leaky canals supplied by a diminishing Rio Grande River are creating water scarcity issues in the McAllen-Edinburg-Mission metro. These canals that supply the region lose about 40% of the water they carry due to aging infrastructure.

Water officials predict the demand for water in the area will double over the next 50 years as the population continues to grow. The region has already experienced rapid population growth between 1990 and 2020, increasing sixfold to 871,000.

#4. Anchorage, AK

• Total housing units: 160,311 (86.7% occupied)
• Households lacking complete plumbing facilities: 1,824 (1.3% of occupied housing units)

Alaska’s extreme environment makes piping water to remote regions—and even relatively urban areas like Anchorage—challenging and expensive for both builders and residents paying the bills.

Historically, installing indoor plumbing in a single home could cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. As an alternative, people may use honey buckets—large buckets to collect waste. But this type of sewage disposal is conducive to spreading disease. Invasive pneumococcal rates in southwestern Alaska are among the highest in the world due to a lack of running water and proper sanitation.

#3. Farmington, NM

• Total housing units: 51,299 (85.0% occupied)
• Households lacking complete plumbing facilities: 926 (2.1% of occupied housing units)

Farmington is situated on off-reservation Navajo trust land, and between three American Indian reservations belonging to the Navajo, the Ute Mountain Indians, and the Southern Utes. A short drive away, more than 40% of Farmington’s neighbors in Navajo Nation households do not have running water in their homes and 30% lack access to clean drinking water. Instead, they must haul water, sometimes from Farmington, for their cooking and sanitation needs.

Lack of water and plumbing puts residents at greater risk for infectious diseases, and it is in large part why the Navajo Nation reported a higher per capita COVID-19 mortality rate than any state in the US

#2. Flagstaff, AZ

• Total housing units: 66,807 (73.4% occupied)
• Households lacking complete plumbing facilities: 1,749 (3.6% of occupied housing units)

Coconino County, home to Flagstaff, relies on groundwater for 70% of its water supply. As climate change and population growth put pressure on various water sources throughout the state, residents in Flagstaff and beyond will face increasing water scarcity in the coming decades.

Longtime Flagstaff residents are familiar with this issue. In 2002, the Upper Lake Mary reservoir, from which Flagstaff got a significant portion of its water supply, dried out almost completely due to drought, causing shortages.

#1. Fairbanks, AK

• Total housing units: 44,270 (81.8% occupied)
• Households lacking complete plumbing facilities: 1,980 (5.5% of occupied housing units)

In parts of Fairbanks, permafrost keeps the ground frozen year-round, making it impossible for builders to lay water and septic systems. As a result, people turn to “dry cabins”—housing units without any plumbing—for the sake of practicality and as part of a lifestyle. The Fairbanks region has a large dry cabin community.

Immediately to the north of Fairbanks is the vast Yukon-Koyukuk region, which has the nation’s highest total percentage of homes with inadequate plumbing due to its harsh environment and inaccessibility.

Copyright 2022 Stacker via Gray Media Group, Inc. All rights reserved. This article has been re-published pursuant to a CC BY-NC 4.0 License.

The post Metros with the most individuals with out primary plumbing service, together with piped consuming water and a bathroom appeared first on DAILY SAN FRANCISCO BAY NEWS.

More than 2 million people in the United States live in homes without running water or basic plumbing.

From New York City to the Navajo Nation, people across the country are facing climate-driven water scarcity, exorbitant utility bills, aging or incomplete infrastructure, community disinvestment, and political inertia, all of which limit or completely cut off access to essential water resources .

America’s water gap exacts a significant price on the well-being of individuals and the overall economy. More than $8.5 billion is lost annually as a result of time spent collecting water, high health care bills related to injuries, waterborne illness, and mental health challenges associated with water insecurity, according to a June 2022 report from nonprofit DigDeep.

The water gap persists in all 50 states, from urban to remote communities, but it is not socially or geographically random. Water insecurity is associated with other socioeconomic disparities and disproportionately impacts communities of color. According to DigDeep, Indigenous households are 19 times more likely than white households to live without plumbing. Black and Latino households are twice as likely.

While rural homes are the most likely to lack running water, the majority of Americans residing in unplumbed homes live in cities. Plumbing poverty in urban areas is getting worse. Researchers found the average tenant in San Francisco living without piped water spent 44% of their income on rent in 2017. Water connection fees in San Francisco can cost several thousands of dollars—a financial burden low-income renters cannot afford, and negligent landlords may not want to pay.

While urban residents considered “plumbing poor” are hidden in plain sight, rural residents impacted most severely by the water gap are almost entirely hidden from the nation’s collective consciousness. In colonias along Texas’ southwestern border with Mexico, tens of thousands of people live without access to running water or sewer service. Any water they can access is believed to be unsafe, contaminated with arsenic, E. coli, and other harmful toxins.

Over the last 40 years, federal water infrastructure funding has fallen from 63% to roughly 9% leaving communities without the financial resources to upgrade and expand water and sewage systems. However, the White House says the recent infusion of money via President Joe Biden’s Infrastructure Investment and Job Act will speed up progress in prioritized underserved communities.

Passed in November 2021, the law allocates roughly $50 billion for programs designed to improve state and local drinking water and wastewater treatment infrastructure. The Environmental Protection Agency also distributed $154 million to tribal territories and Native Alaskan villages. The average per-state funding for all 50 states was $138.7 million.

Even for the millions of Americans with access to basic plumbing and running water, utility bills are unaffordable. A 2018 analysis by the Guardian found that across a sampling of 12 major US cities, water and sewage bills had increased by an average of 80% in just eight years, with low-income households bearing the greatest burden.

In 11 out of the 12 cities included in the study, 100% of people with incomes below 50% of the federal poverty threshold could not afford their water bills. According to the study, water bills exceeding 4% of household income are considered, for this analysis, unaffordable. This problem is not isolated just to the lowest-income households. Over the next eight years, average Americans neglected by federal funding are likely to feel the pressure of high-cost utilities in cities with low-quality water and wasteful infrastructure.

Stacker determined the 10 metro areas in the US most lacking in complete plumbing facilities based on the percentage of people in each metro without this basic access. The data is sourced from the 2020 five-year American Community Survey US Census Bureau. The census question asks whether a housing unit has hot and cold running water, a bathtub or shower, as well as other questions about kitchen appliances. Puerto Rico was excluded from these results.

At a county-by-county level, the reasons why people lack access to basic plumbing are not closely or consistently tracked. Where we could find specifics, we have listed those here. Where we could not, we’ve provided contextual information about the state of that metro area’s water and sewage infrastructure.

You may also like: 25 virology terms to help you understand outbreaks, from the common cold to COVID-19

The post Metros with the most individuals with out fundamental plumbing service, together with piped consuming water and a bathroom | Nationwide Information appeared first on DAILY SAN FRANCISCO BAY NEWS.