In the next decade, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) plans to replace all of the country’s lead pipes. Driving this change is Ronnie Levin, who conducted a cost-benefit analysis in 2023 on reducing lead in drinking water. This analysis highlighted the dollar costs of problems such as impaired cognitive function and increased health risks like hypertension and preterm birth, compared to the cost of mitigating lead. The EPA estimated the rule’s annual health benefits at $645 million, with an implementation cost of $335 million, resulting in a benefit-to-cost ratio of 2 to 1. However, Levin and her collaborator Joel Schwartz found that addressing lead in American water could save over $8 billion annually in health benefits and at least $2 billion in infrastructure costs, with a benefit-to-cost ratio of 35 to 1.
Levin, an instructor in Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health’s department of environmental health, has dedicated much of her career to advocating for lead mitigation. She expressed astonishment that the EPA agreed to such an ambitious goal. Her past work at the EPA in the 1980s involved a cost-benefit analysis of lead in drinking water, which revealed that a fifth of Americans were consuming unsafe levels of lead in their water. This analysis played a significant role in the development of a 1991 rule aimed at reducing lead and copper in drinking water.
Levin attributes the speed of change to the Biden Administration’s focus on lead, as well as her deep understanding of the EPA. By strategically utilizing the EPA’s own data, assumptions, and estimates, Levin was able to make a compelling case for lead mitigation, making it challenging for the government to dispute the research. While she is pleased with the new rule, Levin emphasizes that enacting rules alone is not sufficient. She stresses the importance of effective implementation and enforcement, pointing out that little progress will be made without these crucial components in place.