Inconsistent Cleanup: A Pattern of Inequity in Omaha’s Lead Contamination Efforts

The city’s efforts to clean up lead contamination in east Omaha, Nebraska, have been touted as a success story by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). However, recent investigations reveal a more complex picture – one of inconsistent cleanup decisions that have left some residents’ yards still contaminated with toxic levels of lead.

The EPA uses a threshold level of 400 parts per million of lead in soil to guide its cleanup efforts. But when it comes to deciding which properties qualify for remediation, the agency appears to apply this standard haphazardly. Residents who have had their yards tested multiple times often receive conflicting results and are left wondering why some areas receive thorough cleanup while others are deemed ineligible.

Peter Olson’s experience illustrates this inconsistency. His yard was one of thousands that received a new layer of soil in 2012 as part of the EPA’s cleanup efforts. However, when ProPublica and Flatwater Free Press conducted tests in September, they found lead levels exceeding the EPA’s threshold. The agency responded with a cursory examination of a small area where a deck once stood – leaving the rest of the yard untouched.

In contrast, Mary Royers received a thorough testing process after her city contacted the EPA about high lead levels in her yard. She was told that demolition and construction activities had disturbed or uncovered contaminated soil, which warranted further investigation. This approach raises questions about the agency’s priorities and whether some residents are being given preferential treatment.

Many residents still live with toxic levels of lead in their yards – despite the city’s efforts to clean up the area. Amy Haney’s home, located just outside the boundaries of the Superfund site, had nearly 1.5 times the level of lead required for cleanup. Yet, she was told by the EPA that sampling beyond the site’s bounds is only for investigative purposes – leaving her and her neighbors in limbo.

This inconsistency speaks to a broader pattern of inequity in environmental justice efforts. Communities of color, low-income residents, and those living in proximity to polluters often bear the brunt of environmental degradation – only to be left behind when cleanup efforts are initiated.

As the city continues to grapple with the legacy of pollution from its lead smelter, it must acknowledge that inconsistency is not a neutral term. It is, rather, a manifestation of systemic inequity that demands attention and action. The EPA’s decision-making process may be guided by policies and funding, but it is also shaped by the people who are most affected – or least affected – by its decisions.

Inconsistency cannot be afforded in cleanup efforts. Every yard, every resident deserves equal consideration and access to remediation efforts. Anything less would only perpetuate the cycle of inequity that has plagued this community for far too long.

The EPA’s cleanup efforts in Omaha are a success story only if all residents – regardless of their zip code or socioeconomic status – can breathe easy knowing that their yards are safe from toxic lead contamination. Until then, we will continue to see inconsistent cleanup decisions, and the consequences will be felt by those who need it most: the children, the families, and the communities living on the margins.