Omaha’s Lingering Lead Legacy: Decades After Multi-Million Dollar Cleanup, Investigations Reveal Widespread Contamination and Eroding Public Trust

In 2022, Mary Royers purchased her dream home in Omaha, Nebraska, and soon after, a casual conversation with a neighbor across the street unveiled a disturbing truth: her neighborhood, once a bustling industrial hub, was heavily contaminated with lead. The neighbor, however, quickly reassured her that her property, like thousands of others in the sprawling 27-square-mile Superfund site, had been thoroughly remediated by federal authorities decades prior. Seeking definitive confirmation, the 36-year-old educator accessed the city’s online database, a public portal tracking soil test results across the affected area surrounding the former lead smelter. There, in reassuring bright green letters, the word "remediated" appeared next to her address. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had completed its extensive work an impressive two decades earlier, leading Royers to assume that expert analysis had definitively resolved the issue.

Relieved, Royers eagerly embarked on creating the garden she had long envisioned. Hours melted away as she immersed herself in the rich earth, meticulously preparing the soil, planting vibrant purple coneflowers to attract pollinators, and native prairie grasses to sway gently in the breeze. "You have the green light from the city. That means everything’s safe," she recalled thinking, a sentiment of profound gratitude and security washing over her. "Thank God I don’t have to worry about that."

However, the comforting illusion of safety was shattered last fall when an independent soil test, conducted as part of a joint investigation by the Flatwater Free Press and ProPublica, delivered a starkly different reality. Royers’ yard, despite its "remediated" status, contained lead levels more than 1.5 times higher than the threshold the EPA’s cleanup was designed to eliminate. The email bearing these results triggered a "gut-wrenching disbelief," she recounted, the image of dirt under her nails and smeared across her face flashing vividly in her mind. "It felt like a betrayal of that trust." Royers has since largely abandoned her gardening aspirations, a painful relinquishment of a cherished dream.

Omaha’s Toxic Legacy: A Century of Contamination

Omaha’s lead problem is deeply interwoven with its industrial past, almost as old as the city itself. For over a century, the American Smelting and Refining Company (ASARCO) operated a massive lead smelter in downtown Omaha, a facility that, along with other industrial factories, spewed an estimated 200,000 tons of lead dust across the city’s east side. To put this in perspective, that volume of toxic material is equivalent to filling at least 1,600 rail cars. The primary products of the smelter – lead for batteries, cable sheathing, and gasoline enrichment – powered American industry but left a devastating environmental footprint.

By the late 1990s, the human cost of this contamination became undeniably clear. Concerns mounted over elevated blood lead levels in children residing in the affected areas. In March 1999, the EPA officially initiated soil testing across Omaha yards, designating the region as a Superfund site. This marked the beginning of what would become the largest residential lead cleanup in the United States, a monumental undertaking covering 27 square miles and impacting a population of 125,000 residents.

The Superfund Intervention and Its Flaws

From 1999 to 2015, the EPA poured $273 million into excavating and backfilling nearly 14,000 yards across east Omaha. The agency’s Superfund program repeatedly hailed this as a resounding success, a testament to federal commitment to environmental health. The initial cleanup plan targeted properties with lead concentrations exceeding 400 parts per million (ppm), a level roughly analogous to a single marble in a 10-pound bucket of dirt.

However, the recent investigative findings suggest that Omaha’s soil may be far from the advertised safe haven. The Flatwater Free Press and ProPublica’s extensive testing of over 600 properties, including 150 previously certified as remediated, revealed a troubling pattern:

• One in ten supposedly "remediated" yards still harbored lead levels high enough to warrant cleanup under the original EPA guidelines.
• Nearly a quarter of all properties tested in east Omaha could qualify for further study under new, more lenient guidance issued by the Trump administration last fall, which significantly raised the acceptable lead levels for potential cleanup.

These results have ignited serious questions about the efficacy and completeness of the multi-million dollar cleanup, prompting experts to call for renewed action. Howard Mielke, an adjunct professor at the Tulane University School of Medicine and a leading researcher in lead-contaminated soil, emphasized the need for immediate intervention. "If you find a couple of high results, chances are many high results will be nearby," Mielke stated, advocating for both re-cleanup of affected areas and expanded testing to identify other potentially contaminated homes.

Weaknesses in the EPA’s Approach: A Deeper Dive

Several experts and environmental advocates point to systemic weaknesses in the EPA’s cleanup methodology as contributing factors to the current recontamination crisis.

• Arbitrary Cleanup Thresholds: Gabriel Filippelli, an Indiana University earth sciences professor, highlighted the scientific absurdity of rigid cleanup thresholds. "From a scientific standpoint, a 390 [ppm] is the same as a 410," he explained. This strict adherence meant properties with slightly lower, yet still dangerous, lead levels adjacent to remediated sites were often left untouched.
• "Patchwork" Remediation: Early Superfund cleanups often involved remediating entire yards if the average lead level exceeded the limit. However, by the time the Omaha project commenced, the strategy had shifted. Yards were divided into five sections (two front, two back, and the "dripline" around the house perimeter). Only sections whose average lead concentration surpassed 400 ppm were remediated. This "patchwork" approach, while seemingly economical as an EPA manager stated in 2004, often missed isolated "hot spots" within a section and left areas just below the arbitrary threshold untouched. Critically, contractors often ignored highly contaminated driplines if other sections of the yard did not qualify for cleanup, despite driplines frequently containing the highest concentrations due to lead paint shedding.
• Recontamination Risk: The failure to clean neighboring properties creates a perpetual cycle of recontamination. When dry and windy, microscopic lead particles (about one-hundredth the width of a human hair) become airborne, easily spreading from untreated areas to previously cleaned ones. The EPA’s own national guidelines, as noted by former New Jersey Sierra Club director Jeff Tittel, advised against "‘patchwork clean-up’ patterns which are prone to recontamination." Yet, lack of clear guidance and strict adherence to specific cleanup plans often led to this problematic outcome.
• Lead Paint Neglect: Omaha’s older housing stock presented another significant challenge: pervasive lead-based paint. While the EPA did agree to test and repaint exteriors of homes whose soil also qualified for cleanup, houses with lead paint but no soil remediation were ignored. Studies consistently show that deteriorating lead paint can heavily contaminate nearby soil, including gardens, contributing to recontamination over time. An EPA study cited by spokesperson Kellen Ashford indicated most lead paint contamination in Omaha was within 6 feet of the house, yet the agency did not fully address this critical source of ongoing lead exposure.

Human Impact and Eroding Trust

The consequences of this incomplete cleanup are deeply personal for residents like Brenda González Rocha, a mother of eight in south Omaha. Despite her yard being remediated in 2012, Flatwater Free Press and ProPublica tests revealed lead levels higher than before the EPA’s intervention. Her 4-year-old daughter already tested positive for elevated blood lead levels, and González Rocha attributes this to both soil and lead paint in her basement, which she independently hired a company to address.

González Rocha’s property is a microcosm of the systemic issue. She is surrounded by lingering lead: a yard down the street with high levels was never remediated; the banks of a nearby highway, known for accumulating lead, remain untouched; and the house next door, according to the city lead website, still has lead paint. While EPA spokesperson Kellen Ashford dismisses the likelihood of wind-blown dust from one house significantly recontaminating another to surpass cleanup levels, the investigation found that nearly all remediated properties exceeding the cleanup threshold were within 100 yards of an uncleaned, originally contaminated property. A third of these had two such neighboring properties, suggesting a clear link to recontamination.

González Rocha’s anxiety for her children, who range from 8 months to 22 years old and love playing outdoors, is palpable. "I worry that this could affect their quality of life," she expressed. "I would feel bad if something happened to them during their development. I would feel responsible." This sentiment underscores the profound psychological burden placed on families living in ostensibly "cleaned" environments that remain hazardous.

Official Responses and the Path Forward

The EPA declined an interview request with senior officials overseeing the Omaha cleanup. In an emailed statement, spokesperson Kellen Ashford affirmed the EPA’s commitment to cleaning contaminated sites and stated that "diligent cleanup efforts have led to a dramatic decrease in elevated blood lead levels" in Omaha. While blood lead levels have indeed dropped nationally, children in the Omaha Superfund site still exhibit higher rates of elevated lead levels compared to the national average.

Ashford also noted that the EPA could not assess the news organizations’ results without further investigation, advising property owners with concerns to contact the EPA or the city of Omaha, which now manages the site. He acknowledged that "it would not be possible to completely remove all lead," and therefore, the EPA and city also focus on community education about lead risks and precautions.

The city of Omaha has shown a mixed response. Mary Royers, upon forwarding her test results to the city’s lead office, prompted a re-test that found even higher levels of lead. The city has now committed to re-cleaning her yard in August, a small victory for one homeowner. However, the EPA and city have thus far refused to clean up or test the properties of other residents who have come forward with high lead results from the investigation.

Furthermore, the agency has not clarified its plans for properties that fall below the current cleanup level but exceed the Trump administration’s new, higher screening level, which could trigger further action. Any updates on this front are deferred until a new site study is released in October 2027.

"Benign Neglect" and the Need for Ongoing Oversight

The EPA’s standard procedure for Superfund sites mandates five-year reviews to update the public on cleanup progress. However, experts reviewing these reports for the Flatwater Free Press and ProPublica found that these reviews often fall short of providing a true picture of current contamination. While inspectors track the integrity of grass cover over new soil – a proxy for exposed lead – they do not conduct representative retesting of properties.

Jeff Tittel, who has witnessed similar issues at Superfund sites in New Jersey, described this as "benign neglect." He recalled the saga of a Ford Motor Company industrial waste site, declared safe, then re-designated a Superfund site, leading to a 2009 settlement after ongoing discoveries of hazards. "Government just wants to get it over with because it’s taking so long. They end up cutting corners or looking the other way," Tittel asserted.

Debbie Chizewer, a managing attorney with Earthjustice, strongly advocates for systematic retesting. "I think for the five-year review to be meaningful, you need to do testing," she stated. Without it, the EPA cannot truly ascertain the long-term effectiveness of its remedies, and residents remain in the dark about ongoing environmental toxins affecting their health. Ashford maintained that the EPA retests properties on a case-by-case basis, such as when construction disturbs soil, and that periodic reviews ensure site protection over time. Steve Zivny of Omaha’s Lead Information Office added that retesting and cleanup decisions also consider factors like the presence of children and their blood lead levels.

The EPA’s own 2024 review of the Omaha site revealed concerning statistics: 98% of lawns inspected showed signs of disturbance, indicating a risk of exposed buried lead. While the EPA tested only 32 demolished home sites, finding six exceeding cleanup levels, they concluded the solution was "generally protective; however, more data should be collected to support this conclusion."

Ian von Lindern, who managed lead cleanup at an Idaho Superfund site for over three decades, found these figures troubling. He acknowledged the federal government’s efforts but expressed skepticism about complete remediation. At his Idaho site, a local health district requires permits for digging and offers testing, which can lead to further remediation. Without such continuous oversight, von Lindern warns, "Those remedies are, I don’t want to use the word failing, but they’re becoming less effective."

For Mary Royers and her partner, Stephen Matthews, the personal impact is profound. While grateful for the forthcoming re-cleanup of their yard, they are left with a gnawing question: how many other Omahans remain misled, unaware, or simply resigned to living with persistent lead contamination? "We’re one house out of thousands," Matthews observed, highlighting the vast scale of the potential problem.

This summer, Royers is allowing weeds to grow freely in her garden, a temporary measure before the city replaces the soil. The thought, however, brings a sense of guilt. She believes more people should be aware and have access to testing and cleanup. But achieving that, she fears, would necessitate a painful acknowledgment that decades and hundreds of millions of dollars later, the monumental cleanup has significant cracks. "The priority is pretending like things are OK," Royers concluded, her voice tinged with resignation and frustration. "Clearly it’s not." The lingering lead in Omaha is not just a scientific or environmental problem; it is a profound crisis of public trust and accountability, casting a long, toxic shadow over the health and well-being of its residents.