Editor’s Commentary
Mayor Barrett said in his press conference Monday night this week that, “in most case during the home visit, lead paint is the issue. This is primarily a lead paint issue when we make the environmental assessment. It’s primarily a lead paint issue when we’re dealing with children with elevated blood lead levels.”
This statement is not based on fact.
Prior to the retirement of Paul Biedrzycki, former director of disease control and environmental health at the City of Milwaukee Health Department, I met with Paul and asked him about testing water on premises were children were reported to have had elevated blood lead levels.
At the time he informed me that he was unaware of any testing of the water on the premises of reported lead poisoned children by the MHD due to HUD grant restrictions on doing such.
While HUD grant restrictions are indeed part of the problem that has obstructed gathering of data that would give policy makers reason to take decisive action addressing lead in water, the other issue that clearly seems to have added to the lack of concern about lead in water is the lack of motivation by policymakers who prefer to believe that lead-based paint is the sole environmental culprit.
Since the lead water disasters of Washington, DC and Flint, MI politicians and water utility bureaucrats have failed to advocate for water testing. Such effort should be initiated as part of the data gathering since clearly it could no longer be assumed that drinking water was not contributing to elevated blood lead levels equal to or exceeding 5 up/dL whole blood in young children after the disasters I mentioned above. I was told by current MHD staff that such testing of water was initiated late summer 2017.
Why did the city of Milwaukee fail to move on the concerns of Paul Biedrzycki memo of 2015? Could it be City leaders turned a blind eye to water as a leading source of lead ingestion in children because resources dedicated to testing water were intentionally blocked in order to prevent funding field sampling and laboratory testing?
Were resources blocked intentionally to create the lack of funding for mitigation of Lead Service Lines (LSL full replacement) and was there resistance by the water utility to spend towards efforts that focus on the safety of our drinking water?
Mayor Barrett needs to stop this continuing effort to frame the issue as paint vs. water. It is unproductive and ignores the reality that these two sources need to be comprehensively addressed in a City strategic plan that as Paul Biedrzycki told me “does not trade one risk for the other at the expense of community health and well-being.”