Lead in water a problem in many cities for many years

At some point, the finger-pointing over the Flint water crisis will finally focus on the most obvious target of blame: the staff at the Flint water plant.

The technicians at that facility made horrendous errors by failing to treat the drinking water with phosphates that are designed to prevent toxic lead from mixing into the system. 

Beyond all the uproar about the governor and EMs and the DEQ and the EPA, ultimately the interim process of switching the city to Flint River water in 2014 would have succeeded if the Flint water workers knew how to adequately deal with smell and discoloration and lead.

Still, another key point is that what happened in Flint has happened, to a lesser extent, in cities across America. In 2004, when Washington, D.C., was hit with a lead-in-water scare, The Washington Post went to work on a series of investigative reports on drinking water standards.

After scrutinizing documents from 65 cities, the Post found at the time that many of the nation’s largest metropolitan areas failed to adequately protect the public from dangerously high lead levels in tap water. That included the drinking water systems in Lansing and in Detroit -- the massive system that has serviced more than 120 southeast Michigan communities, including Flint.

In 2004, the Post found that many cities were manipulating the results of tests used to detect lead in water, violating federal law, and putting millions of Americans at risk of drinking more of the contaminant than what was reported. (You can view the graphic below, with information about Lansing and Detroit, on a larger scale by clicking here.)

In cities such as New York, Boston and Philadelphia, waterworks officials had thrown out tests that showed high readings or they had avoided testing older homes most likely to have lead, records show.

“The result,” the Post reported, “is that communities large and small may have a false sense of security about the quality of their water and that utilities can avoid spending money to correct the problem.”

In 2014, a new federal law took effect that dramatically reduced the amount of lead that can be present in pipes, fixtures, valves, meters and fittings. But there are no retroactive requirements. The new definition of “lead free” plumbing refers to replacements and new construction, not what exists from decades past.

So, the impact of this amendment to the 40-year-old Safe Drinking Water Act will be felt very slowly.

Regarding the testing process at municipal water plants, this is what Jim Elder, who headed the EPA's drinking water program from 1991 to 1995, told the Post in ‘04:

He feared that utilities engage in "widespread fraud and manipulation."

"It's time to reconsider whether water utilities can be trusted with this crucial responsibility of protecting the public. I fear for the safety of our nation's drinking water. Apparently, it's a real crapshoot as to what's going to come out of the tap and whether it will be healthy or not."