She mentioned the case of Michigan. In response to the water crisis in Flint, the state has made great strides in replacing its lead pipes, starting with a comprehensive inventory. “Michigan has really good information now,” Levin said. But by reducing the number of 'unknowns,' the state could get less money from the EPA — “and that's not fair.”
On one hand, Levin takes heart from the knowledge that the country will be better off when this program is completed, no matter what happens. Even if some of the money is wasted or spent inefficiently, there will be far fewer lead pipes in the United States in 10 years, she said — a huge improvement in public health.
At the same time, she warns against taking too much comfort in this argument, because there is a lot at stake in how the money is used. “If we take $15 billion, put it in a box and throw it in the ocean, we have made the situation in the United States significantly worse,” she says. The money could be used for things like dialysis machines or road safety. Even if lead pipes are slowly replaced, Levin says, “we can make big mistakes.”
Comments are closed.