Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Quality topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Proponents urge committee to pass Lead Line Replacement Act, citing health, equity and economic benefits
Summary
Community groups, labor and environmental advocates told the House Development Committee HB 307 would tackle Ohio's estimated 745,000 lead service lines, protect children’s health, prohibit shutoffs during replacements, and require financial assistance programs; proponents warned replacement will be expensive but beneficial.
Multiple proponents urged the House Development Committee to support House Bill 307, the Lead Line Replacement Act, framing it as a public‑health, equity and infrastructure investment.
Archie Beasley of the Junction Coalition, a community‑based organization in Toledo, told the committee "no amount of lead is safe for human consumption" and urged the bill's provisions that prohibit water shutoffs for inability to pay, require financial assistance programs for low‑income households and seniors, and fund outreach and navigation assistance. Beasley described neighborhood conditions — aging housing stock, long‑standing environmental burdens and distrust of government — and urged explicit partnership with community organizations to avoid leaving the most vulnerable behind.
Sean Gray, business manager for Cleveland Plumbers Local 55, urged inclusion of responsible‑contractor language to prevent low‑quality or fly‑by‑night contractors from taking contracts. Gray told members such language would protect public safety and taxpayers and argued that investing in trained apprenticeships and compliance reduces long‑term costs.
Annalise (recorded as Central Ohio regional director, Ohio Environmental Council Action Fund) presented statewide context: Ohio reportedly ranks third in the nation for lead service lines, an estimated 745,000 lines statewide, and nearly 4,000 children test positive each year for elevated blood lead levels. She summarized the bill's technical provisions — ban on partial replacements that can spike tap lead, requirements for inventories and certified filters, training and certification to build workforce capacity, and options to spread costs across rate bases — and cited cost estimates that full replacement could cost roughly $5,000,000,000 and return $32–$45 in benefits per dollar spent.
Lawmakers asked for supporting analyses and evidence; sponsors and proponents agreed to provide the committee with cost‑benefit studies and data. Members also raised implementation questions including municipal home‑rule limits on imposing contracting requirements. No vote was taken; committee adjourned following testimony and questions.
