by Michael Wines, Patrick McGeehan and John Schwartz, originally published on March 26, 2016

 

JERSEY CITY — Anxious parents may wonder how a major school system like Newark’s could overlook lead in the drinking water of 30 schools and 17,000 students. The answer: It was easy. They had to look only a few miles away, at the century-old classrooms of the schools here, across the Hackensack River.

The Jersey City Public Schools district discovered lead contamination in eight schools’ drinking fountains in 2006, and in more schools in 2008, 2010 and 2012. But not until 2013 did officials finally chart a comprehensive attack on lead, which by then had struck all but six schools.

This winter’s crisis in Flint, Mich., has cast new attention on lead in water supplies. But problems with lead in school water supplies have dragged on for years — aggravated by ancient buildings and plumbing, prolonged by official neglect and tight budgets, and enabled by a gaping loophole in federal rules that largely exempts schools from responsibility for the purity of their water.

Children are at greatest risk from lead exposure, and school is where they spend much of their early lives. But cash-starved school administrators may see a choice between spending money on teachers or on plumbing as no choice at all.

“They feel it’s almost better not to sample, because you’re better off not knowing,” Marc Edwards, a Virginia Tech civil engineering professor who has fought for lead safety nationwide, said in an interview.

The problem is persistent and widespread. Baltimore’s public schools switched entirely to bottled water in 2007 because ripping out the lead plumbing would have been impractical. Sebring, Ohio, found elevated lead levels in August after workers had stopped adding an anti-corrosion chemical to the water supply.

The Los Angeles Unified School District allotted $19.8 million in September to retrofit or remove its 48,000 drinking fountains to erase a small but tenacious lead threat. Ithaca, N.Y., schools switched temporarily to bottled water in January after water tests found elevated lead levels at two schools.

Congress could easily have cracked down on lead in schools. In fact, it once did. The 1988 Lead Contamination Control Act required schools to scrap lead-lined water coolers, test drinking water and remedy any contamination they found. But a federal appeals court struck down part of the law affecting schools in 1996. And while some states have devised their own lead-testing rules, federal lawmakers have yet to revisit the issue.

The only regulation left is a 1991 rule by the federal Environmental Protection Agency requiring periodic tests for lead and copper by most public water systems, whether the supplier is a big utility or a well in a trailer park or campground.

But although schools and day care centers are the main sources of water for children on most weekdays, only the few schools that operate their own wells fall under the rule. The vast majority of schools use treated water from utilities.

And while the utilities test their water, virtually all lead contamination occurs inside schools — in lead pipes, water-cooler coils and linings, and in leaded-metal fountains and taps.

“If you’re a mom-and-pop coffee shop in Sparta, New Jersey, and have a private well, you’re required to certify every quarter,” said Robert Barrett, the chief executive of Aqua Pro-Tech Laboratories, a New Jersey environmental testing laboratory. “But if you’re a school, you don’t have to do anything.”

Mr. Barrett, whose firm tests water in 13 states, said the Newark and Flint revelations prompted reassessments by schools and other institutions that had not scrutinized their plumbing in years, if ever.

“No one was testing,” he said. “Now all of a sudden they’re all going crazy.”

In Newark, where school officials disclosed elevated lead levels earlier this month, Mr. Barrett’s firm began testing water systemwide on March 19. Students at the 30 schools now drink bottled water, and the youngest students were offered free blood tests.

There, as in Los Angeles, high lead levels persisted even though workers flush the water pipes every weekday to push out lead that accumulates overnight. Nor did some filters on Newark school fountains reduce contamination sufficiently.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says children whose blood lead content exceeds five micrograms per deciliter — 50 parts per billion, or less than a millionth of an ounce in a pint — should see a doctor. High blood lead levels can stunt a child’s mental development and damage a range of organs. But even smaller amounts can affect children’s intellectual development, and the agency says no level of lead is safe.

The E.P.A.’s 1991 lead rule — the one that requires most public water systems to periodically test for lead and copper — limits the amount of lead in drinking water to no more than 15 parts per billion. The rule is being revised, though, and that limit could soon be lowered. Even though the rule does not apply to most schools, districts that do monitor drinking water generally use it as a guideline.

Tainted water is not the biggest source of lead exposure in humans; on average, the E.P.A. says, it makes up about a fifth of contamination. Pregnant women working in schools are at greatest risk because fetuses are most profoundly affected by contamination. Women face an increased risk of miscarriage, along with potential organ damage and developmental problems in the baby.

Schools built before 1986, when an amendment to the Safe Drinking Water Act banned lead plumbing, pose the greatest hazard. Fountains may be fed water through lead pipes commonly used in the early 20th century. Older water coolers may have lead linings and components.

But even newer buildings can face a threat. Under industry pressure, Congress defined “lead-free” in the amendment as no more than 8 percent lead. Plumbing hardware like faucets and connectors often contained that much lead until 2013, when the permissible level fell to near zero.

Los Angeles school officials learned of the 8-percent rule the hard way. In the 131 schools built over the last decade, the district installed thousands of water fountains with long-lasting brass fittings to reduce maintenance costs. They later discovered that the leaded brass fittings tainted the water in some fountains beyond the E.P.A.’s lead standard.

The district’s $19.8 million lead initiative seeks, in part, to correct that. “The approach we’re taking now is to get rid of anything with a brass fitting,” Roger Finstad, the district’s maintenance and operations director, said.

In New York City, officials have uprooted and replaced all lead pipes leading from water mains into schools, swiftly replaced equipment when tests showed high lead levels, and ordered weekly pipe flushing at any school with a violation. All schools’ water is regularly tested. The result? Only 1.3 percent of nearly 90,000 water tests have exceeded the city’s lead threshold. The program is “a model for the nation,” said Dr. Philip Landrigan, an expert on lead and a professor of preventive medicine and pediatrics at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai.

That scorched-earth approach is the surest way to control lead threats, but few school systems have the money or knowledge to pursue it. Many instead follow a whack-a-mole strategy, testing a sample of water sources, then fixing or disabling ones with excessive lead concentrations.

That can be ineffective, because the levels at any fountain or tap can swing wildly as residue breaks loose in lead plumbing. Dr. Edwards, the Virginia Tech specialist, recalled testing a single tap 10 times. Eight tests judged the water perfectly safe. The other two showed “astronomical amounts of lead,” he said, “like eating five to 10 paint chips.”

“This is like Russian roulette,” he said.

So it was in Newark, where the E.P.A. sampled water in 2003 as part of an outreach program on lead, and found contamination in three schools. The district began replacing school water fountains and installing filters on violating water sources, but never got ahead of the problem. From 2012 through 2015, nearly one in eight water samples exceeded the E.P.A.’s 15 parts-per-billion threshold.

“Did we know we had a problem? Yes,” said Marion A. Bolden, Newark’s superintendent early last decade. “ Did we think we had adequately remediated the problem? Yes.”

Here in Jersey City, the public schools are classic candidates for a lead problem. Two-thirds are over 80 years old, and a third more than a century old. The system had been under state control since 1989 because of poor management and low test scores; only recently, with Marcia Lyles as the superintendent, did the state agree to return control to local officials.

Jersey City taps and fountains went untested until the E.P.A. took samples in 2006, again part of the federal outreach program, and turned up lead concentrations up to 60 times the federal threshold at eight schools. Not until early 2008, after more tests found fresh contamination at six of the schools, did the superintendent at the time, Charles T. Epps Jr., switch those students to bottled water.

Jersey City’s mayor then, Jerramiah Healy, declared the matter closed. “We believe this is a situation that is isolated to the affected schools and to certain water fountains within those schools,” T he Jersey Journal newspaper quoted him as saying.

Mr. Healy was wrong. The district tested all its fountains and taps in mid-2008 and found that water in 27 more schools was as much as 80 times higher than the E.P.A.’s lead threshold. Under pressure from advocates, the district tested selected water sources at 38 buildings in 2010 and found yet more lead. In a 98-year-old school, Nicolaus Copernicus Elementary, 16 of 19 water fountains and coolers were found above permissible levels.

That school and some others were switched to bottled water, and fountains and taps were turned off. But that was not the end.

A 2013 retest of all 2,000-plus water sources found yet more contamination, including one fountain whose water tested 853 times the accepted maximum. Among those water sources were 10 in prekindergarten classes where daily tooth brushing was part of the regimen.

“Any fountains in this building, they don’t even work,” the Nicolaus Copernicus principal, Diane Pistilli, said this week. “Parents were concerned, and rightly so.”

by Candice Williams, originally published on March 24, 2016

 

A group of Flint residents, pastors and national advocacy organizations are asking a federal court to order water delivery to every household in the Flint water system amid ongoing issues with lead-contaminated water.

In a motion for a preliminary injunction filed Thursday in the Eastern District of Michigan, Flint-based Concerned Pastors for Social Action, the ACLU of Michigan and others say they are requesting home delivery because “Flint residents are irreparably harmed by their lack of reliable access to safe drinking water” in the ongoing water crisis.

The lawsuit cites the difficulty Flint residents have in obtaining water for daily needs because of issues including transportation. It’s a concern they see persisting for months.

“We have no choice but to take this action because, despite the government’s promises and efforts thus far, large numbers of Flint residents still lack acceptable access to adequate supplies of clean, safe drinking water,” said Michael Steinberg, ACLU of Michigan Legal director in a statement. “Furthermore, despite the official apologies and vows to fix this crisis, our government officials still have a long way to go to ensure that clean water begins flowing to Flint homes as quickly as possible.”

The motion for preliminary injunction is part of a lawsuit filed Jan. 27 that alleges violations of the federal Safe Drinking Water Act and seeks federal court intervention to secure safe drinking water for Flint residents.

“Despite public pressure and media attention, there are Flint residents who cannot reliably access safe drinking water,” said Dimple Chaudhary, senior attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council. “We are asking the court to order the city of Flint and Michigan state officials to provide every household with bottled water delivery, to ensure all Flint residents have safe water for the duration of this crisis.”

The state said Thursday it is providing daily distribution of filters, water testing kits and cases of water.

Ari B. Adler, director of communications for Gov. Rick Snyder, said the office does not comment on pending litigation, but added that residents can receive unlimited cases of water.

“The state is committed to helping the people of Flint recover from this crisis and to move forward as quickly and safely as possible with restoring quality water service to their homes,” Alder said in an email. “We are now nearing our 80th day of emergency operations and the State Emergency Operations Center remains activated to muster state resources in partnership with local and federal efforts, as well as nonprofit agencies.”

The issues residents have faced in obtaining water from distribution centers include a lack of transportation and frequent trips to receive one case per day, according to the groups. They add some residents are spending hundreds of dollars on bottled water to supplement what they receive from distribution centers.

“After living with this crisis for as long as we have, morale in Flint is very low,” said Pastor Alfred Harris of Saints of God Church in Flint and president of the Concerned Pastors for Social Action. “It is tiring and draining to rely on bottled water day in and day out, and there is no end in sight. I’m not sure that people in Flint will ever have full confidence again that our water is safe to drink.”

Another issue, the group said, is that some members of Flint’s immigrant community are deterred from going to the distribution centers because of the presence of National Guard and other law enforcement.

The group said that some households have had issues with installing and maintaining faucet filters because the equipment doesn’t always fit; for others, the installation instructions are difficult to understand. They contend that some filters have cracked, clogged or broken after one or two weeks.

“I spend my days and weekends distributing information, delivering bottled water and filters, and coordinating bottled water donations — things that the government should be doing instead of me,” said Melissa Mays, a Flint resident and co-founder of the organization Water You Fighting For.

“… I get requests for help nearly every day, mostly from people who have no car, lack access to transportation, and have tried without success to get bottled water or filters delivered from the government. Most of these people are in a panic because they have run out or are close to running out of water and they don’t know what else to do.”

Alder said that the state has issued more than 540,100 cases of water, 110,400 water filters and 42,700 water testing kits through its door-to-door Water Response Teams and Water Resource Sites at the city’s five fire stations. There is no limit to how much water a person can receive at a resource site, Alder said adding that no ID is required and no questions are asked.

Alder also said that those who are homebound can call United Way 211 to be placed on a home delivery list. Residents can also receive assistance with water filter installation.

But two-thirds are satisfied with their home tap water, Rutgers-Eagleton Poll finds

-originally published on March 29, 2017

 

NEW BRUNSWICK, N.J. – Like much of the nation in the wake of the Flint, Mich. water crisis, New Jerseyans are concerned about the quality of their drinking water, according to the latest Rutgers-Eagleton Poll. Amid reports of similar lead problems here at home, 52 percent of New Jersey residents are concerned about the water they drink: 33 percent are very concerned, and 19 percent are somewhat concerned. Twenty-two percent are not very concerned, and 24 percent are not concerned at all.

In general, most New Jerseyans say that water pollution is at least a somewhat serious problem. Twenty-five percent believe it is a very serious problem, and another 37 percent say it is somewhat serious; 28 percent feel it is not too serious. Yet the number of those who see it as very serious is currently at an all-time low after several decades above the 50-percent mark.

Despite strong general concern, New Jerseyans are mostly satisfied with the quality of the water coming into their homes. Nineteen percent rate their tap water as excellent, 45 percent rate it as good, 20 percent rate it only fair, and 14 percent rate it as poor. These ratings have changed little over the past two decades.

“Decades of polling show us that water quality and pollution have long been concerns in New Jersey, given the state’s history of polluted waterways,” said Ashley Koning, assistant director of the Eagleton Center for Public Interest Polling at Rutgers University. “Residents as a whole are more positive now than in the past, but a heightened sense of concern persists among those who still suffer from substandard water access and quality, a consequence of racial, socioeconomic, and geographic disparities.”

While residents are generally pleased with tap water quality, they prefer bottled or filtered water for drinking. Thirty-seven percent mostly use bottled water, 32 percent use filtered water, and 21 percent drink right from the tap. Ten percent use some combination of these methods. Tap water usage is down slightly since the Poll last asked about it more than a decade ago.

Results are from a statewide poll of 801 adults contacted by live callers on both landlines and cell phones from Feb. 18 to 23, 2016. The sample has a margin of error of +/-3.9 percentage points. Interviews were done in English and, when requested, Spanish.

Heightened concerns among those most impacted

Concern over drinking water quality is pervasive: about half or more of every demographic is at least somewhat concerned.

Concern is especially high among those who give their tap water quality negative ratings. Thirty-eight percent of residents who rate their tap water as only fair are very concerned, and another 30 percent are somewhat concerned. Among those who say their water is poor, 64 percent are very concerned; another 8 percent, somewhat. Those who rate their water as good or excellent, on the other hand, are much less worried. Half of residents who rate their water as good are concerned at some level, as are a third of those who rate it as excellent.

The type of water in one’s home also has a significant impact. Residents who use city water are more concerned than those with access to well water – 55 percent (35 percent very, 20 percent somewhat) versus 36 percent (20 percent very, 16 percent somewhat).

Likewise, users of filtered water (52 percent) and especially bottled water (62 percent) are more likely to express concern than those who drink water right from the tap (40 percent). The relationship goes both ways: those who express the most concern are least likely to drink tap water and more likely to use an alternative method.

Views on the severity of water pollution, in general, follow similar patterns. Thirty-two percent of residents who rate their own water as fair and 66 percent who rate it as poor believe water pollution is very serious; about one in ten say the same among those who rate their water as good or excellent. Residents who use bottled or filtered water are also more likely than those who drink tap water to believe the problem is very serious. Those who say the problem is very serious are least likely to use tap water.

Opinions on the severity of water pollution and concern over drinking water go hand in hand: the more one is concerned, the more likely he or she is to believe water pollution is a serious problem, and the more likely one is to believe water pollution is serious, the more concerned he or she is about tap water quality.

The water quality divide

Six in ten New Jerseyans say the quality of their tap water is good or excellent, but a closer look reveals disparities in access, usage, and ratings among certain demographic groups.

Non-white residents are more likely than white residents to have city water where they live (84 percent versus 79 percent), as well as more likely to use bottled water for drinking (44 percent to 32 percent). They are, in turn, less likely than white residents to rate the quality of their drinking water as good (42 percent to 47 percent) or excellent (15 percent versus 22 percent).

Those living in the state’s southern region near Philadelphia, or in shore or especially exurban counties, are most likely to have access to well water and thus more likely than urban or suburban residents to use their tap water for drinking. Almost nine in 10 urban and suburban residents use bottled or filtered water as their main drinking source. Urban and especially suburban residents are also most likely to give their home tap water negative ratings.

Those in the highest income bracket are almost twice as likely as those in less affluent households to have well water (at 21 percent). Almost half of low-income residents use bottled water for drinking, more than any other income bracket. Water ratings increase with income: 61 percent say their water is excellent or good among those in households making $50,000 or less annually, compared to 69 percent among those making $150,000 or more.

While ratings vary little between those with city and well water, residents using city water are much less likely to drink straight from the tap than those with well water.

Residents who predominantly use tap water instead of bottle or filtered water give much higher ratings to the quality of water in their home.

“Race, income, and location drive disparities in tap water access and usage and, in turn, shape ratings on home tap water quality,” said Koning. “Non-white, urban, and lower income residents tend to perceive their water as lower quality, and the situation in Flint as well as recent reports of lead problems here in New Jersey suggest they may have reason for that concern.”

22 March 2017: UN agencies and partners around the world called for urgent attention to water security threats and highlighted the need to treat wastewater as a valuable resource, as they marked World Water Day on the theme of ‘Wastewater’.
UN-Water, the UN inter-agency coordination mechanism for freshwater-related issues, launched its annual World Water Development Report at a three-day water summit and expo in Durban, South Africa from 22-24 March, jointly hosted with the Government of South Africa.
Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) target 6.3 calls for halving the proportion of global untreated wastewater.
The report recommends a range of policy instruments, based on empirical studies of diffuse pollution.
The UN High-Level Panel on Water (HLPW) unveiled its ‘Access to water and sanitation for 10 billion people’ initiative at the Durban water summit and expo.
In its statement, the HLPW welcomed the UN General Assembly’s adoption of a resolution calling for a new International Decade for Action on Water for Sustainable Development from 2018-2028 (A/RES/71/222).
In a blog post, Astrid Hillers of the GEF International Waters team notes that water crises have consistently been among the top five global risks identified in the World Economic Forum (WEF) annual risk reports, as drought, over-exploitation and desertification contribute to local conflicts and can cause large-scale displacement and regional instability.
In support of local authorities, UN-Habitat highlighted its cooperation with the Government of Tanzania in the large slum settlement of Mwanza, to improve living conditions for residents, including access to safe drinking water and sanitation.
Léo Heller, UN Special Rapporteur on the human right to water and sanitation, issued a statement on World Water Day calling for development cooperation to focus on capacity building activities that support local authorities in their responsibility to provide water and sanitation services.
[UN World Water Day Website] [UN Press Release on Wastewater] [World Water Development Report Web Page] [UN-Water Report: ‘Wastewater: The Untapped Resource’] [UNESCO Press Release on Wastewater Report] [UNESCO Web Page on World Water Development Reports] [World Water Day Summit & Expo] [Global Citizen Campaign] [WSSCC Press Release] [WSSCC Web Page on Strategic Plan] [WSSCC Strategic Plan 2017-2020] [OECD Report: ‘Diffuse Pollution, Degraded Waters: Emerging Policy Solutions’] [World Water Council Press Release] [World Bank Press Release] [World Bank Blog Post on WASH PD] [Water Data Challenge Press Release] [GEF Blog Post] [SIWI Press Release] [Peter Thomson Statement on Special Event Priority Actions for Water and Disasters in the Next Decade] [Peter Thomson Statement on Improving Integration and Coordination of the Work of the UN on the Water-related Goals and Targets] [Event Programme: Improving the Integration and Coordination of the Work of the UN on the Water-related Goals and Targets] [UNICEF Press Release] [UNICEF Report on ‘Thirsting for a Future: Water and Children in a Changing Climate’] [HLPW Joint Statement] [UN-Habitat Press Release] [UCLG Statement] [UN Press Release on Statement by UN Special Rapporteur on the Human Right to Water and Sanitation]

NY’s Water Infrastructure Proposal: A much needed investment.
Frank Sinatra, in his song “New York, New York” made a line famous by saying, “If I can make it there, I’ll make it anywhere.” In a city where people are trying to beat the competition to elbow their way to the top in entertainment, finance, real estate and other industries, making it in New York is not only an anthem, it’s a rallying call for when the road seems impossible.
Governor Cuomo is trying to address these problems with a $2 billion proposal to improve water quality across the state of New York.
Initial ideas from our state leaders about how to spend the funding focuses on curbing source water contamination along with polluted runoff and making investments to rebuild and improve water infrastructure.
Some of these include: Lead service line replacement There is no safe level of lead, and the best way to prevent a child or adult from exposure is to remove the risk.
Schools across the state are finding lead in their drinking water.
Affordability Because the bill has come due to rehabilitate and replace outdated systems, basic water and sewer services are placing more stress on the budgets of low income New Yorkers, while strapping water/sewer utility budgets overall.
These smart solutions include investments in green space that improves neighborhood quality of life.
But identifying and prioritizing vulnerable communities, like low income communities and communities of color with populations most at risk due to contamination, should be first.
If the great state of New York, which covers the entire scope of water issues from urban to rural, can take a big step forward to fix its water issues, there’s no reason why others can’t do the same.

Legislation that could allow increased discharges of toxic chemicals into West Virginia’s rivers and streams won final approval from the state Senate Tuesday, giving business and industry lobbyists a major victory on a long-sought change in the way the state calculates water pollution permit limits.
Senators voted 20-13 in favor of House Bill 2506 and sent the measure to Gov.
DEP officials have previously used a more protective low-flow stream figure in calculating those permit limits.
Sen. Corey Palumbo, D-Kanawha, noted that the legislation makes West Virginia’s permit calculations less stringent than surrounding states.
“I don’t think our path to economic development is saying we allow more pollutants into our streams than other states.” While lawmakers heard testimony from DEP officials, industry lobbyists and a consultant working for the West Virginia Rivers Coalition on the issue, the legislative review of the bill brought out no clear answers about the extent to which pollution discharges could be increased or about long-term public health implications of the bill — or about exactly what new businesses and jobs such a change in environmental rules would bring to West Virginia.
Miller’s amendment was rejected on an 18-11 vote with five senators absent.
I am certain of it from the science I learned.” Never fully explained during legislative discussions on the bill, though, was why the DEP under the previous administration rejected EPA’s recommendation to use harmonic mean for both types of pollutants, keeping a low-flow measurement for non-carcinogens, as surrounding states also do.
Various industry groups have waged an on-and-off effort to change the state DEP to using harmonic mean since the early 1990s, when a proposal to do so was defeated after one of its chief opponents, the Affiliated Construction Trades Foundation, ran a public relations campaign that dubbed the measure the “Cancer Creek Bill.” Trump noted during Tuesday’s floor debate that after passage of harmonic mean, West Virginia will still continue to apply its drinking water standards, known as Category A, to all segments of all rivers and streams statewide, even when there is no public drinking water intake present.
“West Virginia provides as great or greater protection to its waters in terms of drinking water criteria than any of our surrounding states,” Trump said.
I like that our state says every stretch of every river and stream is going to meet drinking water criteria.” Voting against the final bill were Sens.

The contamination in August led to more than 5000 residents becoming ill with gastroenteritis, and has been linked with three deaths.
An estimated $3,448,211 has been spent by the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board, and Hastings District and Hawke’s Bay regional councils.
While the bulk of the total has been spent by the regional council – with costs of $1,484,800 for the inquiry and its own investigation – the district council has come under fire for spending close to $1million in legal and investigation fees.
Mr Yule said the "vast bulk of the money spent, more than $700,000, has gone on exactly the kinds of work the Taxpayers’ Union is recommending" including technical and scientific investigation.
Mr Graham said a lesson in co-operation needed to be learnt – as well as the Government inquiry, the regional and district council’s spent over $500,000 on its own prosecution.
The regional council spent $444,251 on its own investigation, which saw charges laid against the district council – their costs associated with the prosecution totalled $71,000 in legal costs.
Continued below.
Meanwhile the release of the first of two reports from the Havelock North drinking water inquiry panel’s investigation has been delayed until May this year.
Originally set down to be delivered to Attorney-General Christopher Finlayson this Friday, the inquiry sought Cabinet approval to extend the timeframe.
Announcing the time extension request, Mr Finlayson said it was due to a number of reasons including delays caused by legal action between the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council and the Hastings District Council, delays caused by the need to ensure the interim safety of Havelock North’s drinking water; the inquiry’s decision to adopt a two-stage approach to the inquiry, and the underlying complexity of the statutory and regulatory regimes involved.

Approval granted for fixing 18,000 Flint, Michigan water lines.
DETROIT (AP) — A federal judge approved a deal Tuesday to replace water lines at 18,000 homes in Flint, Michigan, marking a permanent fix to overcome the disastrous decision in 2014 to draw water from a river without treating it to prevent lead contamination.
Flint will be responsible for replacing lead and galvanized-steel lines that bring water into homes.
Pipes at more than 700 homes have been replaced so far.
“Flint proved that even while poisoned, we’re not just victims,” said resident Melissa Mays, a plaintiff in the case.
While under the control of state-appointed financial managers, the city tapped the Flint River as its water source while a new pipeline was being built to Lake Huron.
Michigan will continue to provide water filters, but the state can start closing free bottled water sites in Flint depending on demand and results of water quality tests.
U.S. District Judge David Lawson approved the settlement, which was the result of weeks of negotiations involving a court-appointed mediator.
There will be no cost for replacement cartridges or household testing kits.
There will be tests for lead in the Flint system every six months until one year after the replacement of water lines.

Water on, off N.J. military base contaminated with chemicals, base says.
Tests on several water sources on and off Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst show contamination from two chemicals contained in firefighting foam used on the base for decades, the base said.
The testing is ongoing and being completed as part of a comprehensive environmental effort by the U.S. Air Force to ferret out contamination after prior tests in ground and surface waters on base found elevated levels of PFOS and PFOA, the base said.
Dustin Roberts said.
Of 131 off-base private drinking water wells tested, three were contaminated, and one had combined PFOS/PFOA levels of 1,392 parts per trillion, Roberts said.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s health advisory level – or HAL – for PFOS and PFOA is 70 parts per trillion.
On base, the program has tested approximately 165 groundwater monitoring wells and 28 drinking water sources – 27 of them wells and one surface intake that is off- base.
Of those, 124 of the monitoring wells were contaminated and two base drinking water sources, two shallow wells on the Lakehurst part of the base, were contaminated, Roberts said.
Such systems were commonly installed in aircraft hangars, he said.
Roberts said the Air Force at the base is concerned with the contamination overall, but is focusing on impacts off base.

The settlement requires Michigan to provide at least $87 million, with an extra $10 million in reserve, to inspect and replace the pipes as well as provide the plaintiffs with $895,000 to recover legal fees.
The national outrage and outpouring of support for the city after its lead contamination was publicized two years ago has led to substantial changes for the community’s water system, says Virginia Tech engineering professor Marc Edwards, who was one of the first people to identify the water contamination crisis in Flint.
"Flint has actually been meeting all federal water safety standards for at least 6 months, and in similar situations, residents of other cities in the US are routinely told that their water is ‘safe’ to drink, even without filtration," Dr. Edwards tells The Christian Science Monitor via email.
About $30 million of the settlement will be paid out of $100 million in federal funds from an Obama-era law signed in December 2016.
"It provides a comprehensive framework to address lead contamination in Flint’s tap water."
The lead crisis in Flint began in April 2014, when a state-appointed emergency manager switched the city’s water supply from Detroit water to the Flint River as a temporary cost-cutting measure.
"The Flint crisis is more than just water lacking corrosion control, but also the corroded lead pipes," he tells the Monitor via email.
Dr. Feigl-Ding, who is also the founder of Toxin Alert, a non-profit network and public alert system for toxic drinking water contamination, notes that many Flint residents have already suffered health problems from lead poisoning.
Virginia Tech’s Edwards says that the settlement represents an important step forward for Flint – and for communities across the country struggling with similar water problems.
"This new ‘Flint Standard’ should be considered for many other cities with old infrastructure, who currently have even worse lead in water problems than Flint."