Bill Overview
Title: Get the Lead Out of Assisted Housing Act of 2022
Description: This bill addresses the removal of lead from drinking water in federally assisted housing. Specifically, the bill requires the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to require specified testing and remediation with respect to water service lines containing lead; authorizes HUD to inspect all sources of lead contamination in federally assisted housing and to mitigate sources of lead exposure; establishes a grant program for states and local governments to create inventories of water service lines containing lead and to test for lead in the drinking water at child care facilities, schools, and public water fountains; and allows recipients of certain HUD assistance to use such assistance to replace water fixtures and service lines containing lead.
Sponsors: Rep. Kildee, Daniel T. [D-MI-5]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals residing in or utilizing federally assisted housing
Estimated Size: 12000000
- There are approximately 4.8 million households that receive some form of federal housing assistance through HUD programs such as public housing, Housing Choice Vouchers, and Section 8 housing.
- Each household may include multiple individuals, expanding the number of people potentially affected.
- Children are particularly vulnerable to lead poisoning, and 1.1 million children live in federally assisted housing.
- Besides individuals living in assisted housing, this bill might impact residents of states and municipalities that receive grants to address lead issues in child care facilities, schools, and public water systems.
Reasoning
- Considering the population of approximately 9 million individuals living in federally assisted housing and targeting local grants for school systems, the allocation could affect different profiles of people.
- The budget constraints imply that while a broad implementation is intended, specific, heavily impacted targets like families with children will see a higher degree of significant benefit.
- Households may vary significantly in the directness of impact, especially considering that lead exposure reduction will chiefly benefit those with existent lead in drinking water service lines.
- The consideration of cost for testing, remediation, and fixture replacement can result in varied extent of implementation by locality and level of housing assistance program.
- The policy's primary and stronger impact will likely be evident in immediate years post-implementation due to infrastructure remediation efforts commencing early.
Simulated Interviews
Single Mother (Detroit, MI)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's hard worrying about my kids' health with lead lurking around. This policy sounds like a huge relief if it actually reaches us.
- I hope they get started soon—my kids deserve better than this.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
Caregiver (Chicago, IL)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Even if I make sure our facility is lead-free, what about the other places children spend their time? Policies like this are essential for full coverage.
- Seeing it actually put into action is what counts.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Public School Teacher (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 42 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm more confident sending my students home if this bill gets things moving. Lead poisoning is a silent crisis.
- It's smart not to just leave it to individual homes—targeting schools as well is key.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Retired (Pittsburgh, PA)
Age: 65 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I remember hearing about lead issues for decades. It's surprising we're still dealing with it.
- If this policy makes real waves, it could help a lot of elder folks like me rest easier.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
University Student (New York City, NY)
Age: 23 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I didn't know much about lead issues until moving here.
- It's comforting to know the local areas might soon be safer for all kids and families.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Community Health Advocate (Philadelphia, PA)
Age: 54 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- These steps should have been a no-brainer ages ago, but better late than never.
- I see the damage lead has done firsthand—I’ll be glad to report real improvements happening.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Plumber (Houston, TX)
Age: 30 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy means job opportunities for folks like me, but it's about more than just work—it's about real community benefits.
- Getting ahead with safer homes can be transformational.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Social Worker (Baltimore, MD)
Age: 37 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The long-term effects of lead on kids are devastating, so I'm for any measure that tackles those head-on.
- The success of this policy isn't just in tests but in timeliness and thoroughness.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Retired Military (Columbus, OH)
Age: 70 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Lead isn't something I worried about much before, but it's good seeing active steps taken.
- Keeping community health strong is something that everyone benefits from.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Elementary School Principal (St. Louis, MO)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Knowing my school can offer a lead-free promise lifts a weight off my mind.
- A policy like this underlines community commitment to our youngest members.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $750000000 (Low: $600000000, High: $850000000)
Year 2: $750000000 (Low: $600000000, High: $850000000)
Year 3: $750000000 (Low: $600000000, High: $850000000)
Year 5: $850000000 (Low: $700000000, High: $1000000000)
Year 10: $900000000 (Low: $750000000, High: $1050000000)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- The policy targets a vital public health concern, focusing on reducing lead exposure in vulnerable populations.
- Costs are associated with testing, remediation, infrastructure updates, and grant programs.
- Long-term fiscal benefits could be realized through health improvements and associated savings.
- Distributional impacts should be addressed by ensuring equitable access to grants and resources.