Advocacy Project: Issue Overview

Introduction:

• Lead in the drinking water of schools
• An amendment to the Clean Water Act, requiring annual testing and reports of school drinking water

Who is affected?:

• The students who attend the school, families/friends who visit the school and staff who work at the school. Also the companies employed to test the water and the school district staff who deal with the budget.
• The people who consume water contaminated with lead would win, because they would hopefully be saved from possible lead poisoning: "Lead is considered the number one health threat to children, and the effects of lead poisoning can last a lifetime. Not only does lead poisoning stunt a child’s growth, damage the nervous system, and cause learning disabilities, but it is also now linked to crime and anti-social behavior in children." (source)
• The company employed to test the water would also win, because they would be gaining business.
• The people directly effected by the school's budget might be the losers, since paying for testing could be costly. 

Consequences:

• Negative consequences for the individuals most impacted are the health problems associated with lead poisoning.  
• For the families of these individuals - if parents had a child or other family member with lead poisoning they would likely suffer emotional stress, along with medical bills.
• For society the impacts would include financial stress due to medical treatments, which might impact the overall community.  Also if it is a small community they could suffer emotional stress.

Economic Impacts:

• The school or school district would bear the cost of funding the testing.  They would also likely bear the cost of some repercussions if someone did get lead poisoning. 
• The social benefits would be healthier children and families, which would lead to happier children and families.  They wouldn't need to worry about possible poisoning.

Barriers:

• Barriers would be mostly financial.  Testing an entire school annually could get pricey, and then if they did find outlets with lead, the price of replacing them would be much more expensive.  Other barriers might be time - finding a time to bring in the testers, or do replacements if necessary.
• The school could do some sort of fundraising - if concerned families and communities would want to donate.  Also they might be able to get help from the government.  Time could be figured out easier, since they could do it after school hours on weekends most likely.  Here is say that grants are available under a statute.  

Resources:

• We would need the school community, and also the surrounding community, to come together to support the cause.  
• A local company to do testing, and also replacing if necessary
• The community could be tapped by bringing up the issue in school board meetings or parent groups.  Also by distributing fliers and pamphlets to homes.

History:

• I found a Minnesota Statute that was passed, here.
• "Minnesota Statutes 144.9501-144.9512 (also known as The Minnesota Lead Poisoning Prevention Act) were enacted to prevent and reduce lead exposure to children, up to the age of 72 months, and pregnant women from the adverse health effects caused by elevated blood lead levels."

Allies and Opponents:

• Allies would likely be the community and concerned families. 
• Opponents would probably be anyone in the school or district concerned about money or possibly legal issues if lead is found.

Policy Makers should definitely vote in agreement with annual water/outlet testing.  It will ensure the safety and optimal development of the children in the community.