SHOULD EPA REGULATE DOGS?

Water utilities are upset because USEPA recently declared that fire hydrants installed beginning January 4, 2014 must be essentially lead free. The federal Reduction of Lead in Drinking Water Act, which is effective on that date, requires compliance with strict new limits on lead in pipes, fittings and fixtures used for drinking water. In a guidance document issued in October, 2013, EPA asserted that "fire hydrants can be, and are, used in emergency situations to provide drinking water when there are disruptions to the normal operations of the drinking water distribution system." Therefore, EPA concluded "hydrants would not qualify for the exclusion for pipes, fittings and fixtures for nonpotable services."

According to media reports, many water utilities across the country have challenged EPA's application of the "lead-free" Act to fire hydrants, on several grounds. The Act, which was adopted in 2011, gave utilities and manufacturers three years to adjust to the new standard. However, EPA's hydrant rule was a surprise, being that it was announced only a little over two months before the compliance date. This surprise, it has been reported, does not give hydrant manufacturers sufficient time to retool for the changes, possibly creating delays in needed installation of new hydrants in 2014.

The primary purposes of hydrants, of course, are to provide fire protection and to enable flushing of distribution mains. Utilities have stated that use of hydrants for drinking water is uncommon and, at best, temporary. Therefore, any alleged lead risk to the public from hydrants is said to be minimal.

Several utilities have argued that EPA's interpretation will cause a hardship to the utilities and their ratepayers because inventories hydrants not manufactured under the new rule will have to be scrapped and new ones purchased.

Accordingly, utilities have asserted that hydrants should be exempted from the "lead-free" Act or that application of the Act to hydrants be delayed. Earlier this month, the House of Representatives voted to exempt hydrants from the Act, and the matter is pending before the Senate.

Perhaps EPA should be concerned over the traditional role of a fire hydrant as a urination magnet for male dogs. Over time, there may be quite an accumulation on a hydrant--a situation perhaps more risky for drinking water sourced from hydrants than rare lead exposure. If EPA were to regulate dog use of hydrants, the agency could achieve a leg up on assuring safe drinking water from hydrants.