Some downtown houses may have high amounts of lead in their tap water, which is prompting city officials to form a policy to coordinate a new water-piping system.
Madison has a historic problem with lead in its water because of lead piping used in houses built before 1929. Now some of the pipes are releasing lead particles into running water.
“There is no lead in the groundwater,” Priscilla Mather, member of the Madison Water Utility Board of Commissions, said. “It comes solely from the pipes and mostly from old houses.”
In response, the city passed an ordinance in 2000 requiring the replacement of all lead services. The Lead Service Replacement Program is working to do this with its 10-year schedule that will replace all lead surface water lines in the city. The city is requiring home or apartment owners to pay half of the service costs.
“The city is ambitiously working with the unacceptable lead levels in some of the old houses, particularly downtown where students live,” Ald. Mike Verveer, District 4, said.
Mather added that with the exception of Madison’s hard water, the city’s water quality is excellent. The lead in the water is not harmful to adults.
“There is really nothing to fear,” Verveer said.
However, according to a recent report, Wisconsin received a failing grade for its public water quality.
The Wisconsin Public Interest Research Group released a report evaluating nine states’ compliance with federal water standards in accordance to the Clean Water Act of 1973. Wisconsin received an “F” in such categories as inspection, reporting, assessing appropriate enforcement actions, public accountability and mandatory penalties.
WisPIRG clean-water associate Anthony Pizer said Wisconsin’s enforcement procedures have become detrimental to Clean Water Act efforts. This is contrary to Wisconsin’s historical status as an environmental leader.
“The policies need to begin making the people who do the polluting responsible for their actions, either by stricter regulations and inspections or harsher penalties economically,” Pizer said.
Of the states surveyed in the report, entitled “Clean Water Enforcement Report Card: How Nine States’ Regulations Measure Up,” only two, New Jersey and Washington, received grades of “C” or better.
Overall, most states severely lacked adequate tools to enforce the regulations set up as a result of the Clean Water Act. In fact, 40 percent of Wisconsin’s water still does not meet the federal water quality standards.
Mather disagreed, saying Wisconsin usually gets “dinged” by the Environmental Protection Agency because of its advanced water testing. For example, Wisconsin is the first, and virtually only, state to test for mercury.
“I don’t think [the WisPIRG report] is a good representation of Wisconsin water policies,” Mather said. “It’s a misrepresentation, but then Wisconsin has always been held to such high standards.”
Arlen Christenson, University of Wisconsin emeritus law professor, said that the federal government depends on state governments, particularly the Department of Natural Resources, to administer water policies in compliance with the Clean Water Act. She added that these agencies are being severely undercut in funding by 50 percent.
“The state government has pushed the importance of the environment back in order to save other programs and in doing so, has hurt the efforts of the Clean Water Act,” Christenson said.
Currently, the Wisconsin DNR is receiving 40 percent of its funding from the state general fund, 20 percent from a federal grant linked to the Clean Water Act and only 4 percent from permit fees. The DNR has collected 0 percent of its funding from actual penalties.