Lead and Drinking Water

Lead, unlike many other drinking water contaminants, is usually not present in the drinking water source, but rather results from the distribution system or on site plumbing itself.

Clean Water Action comments on EPA's proposed revisions to the Safe Drinking Water Act's Lead and Copper Rule

Clean Water Action and Clean Water Fund respectfully submit these comments regarding the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Proposed Lead and Copper Rule Revisions.

  •  

From We All Live Downstream

EPA office building
February 13, 2020

As I watched a February 11 hearing about regulating lead at the tap, I experienced one of those “Opposite Day” episodes where two objective realities collide. I listened to 7 witnesses talk to the U.S. Congress about the proposed revisions to the Safe Drinking Water Act Lead and Copper Rule. My colleague Kim Gaddy, who lives in Newark, talked about what the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) should do to improve the proposal.

Child's picture of an unhappy person with lead in their drinking water, and a happy person with clean water. Collected at the door by canvasser Kate Brinemann.
January 24, 2020

UPDATE: The public comment period closed on February 12, 2020. Clean Water Action members submitted more than 15,000 letters and emails asking EPA to do more to protect our water and communities from lead.

Hi all! My name is Veronica Weyhrauch and I’m a Field Manager with our Maryland office. Every day the entire field canvass team, including myself, head out to knock on doors and convince people to get involved.

Three glasses of water on a table. Photo credit:  bunyarit / Shutterstock
January 22, 2020

Under current regulations, if water systems exceed the Action Level for lead, they must take a number of actions including commencing lead service line replacement at a rate of 7% annually.  EPA’s proposed LCR revisions reduce this rate to 3% while closing some loopholes and proposing other requirements that will support more efficient and effective replacement programs. While closing loopholes and putting in place other requirements to make replacement activities more effective are positive steps, EPA is  justified in lowering the required rate of replacement. When systems exceed the lead Action Level, 7% is a realistic yet ambitious rate of replacement.