Poisonous lead levels in the blood of young children have fallen dramatically since the 1960s, as laws removed leaded gasoline and paints from general sale. But unlike lead in the air, the millions of tons of lead painted onto walls in older homes persists, and Maine’s stock of older homes holds a disproportionately high amount of it, risking generation after generation of children unless the homes are made safe.

The good news is that many of them are. Lead is now often either abated – removed, expensively – or sealed to keep down lead dust and flaking or peeling paint. New parents have learned that window sills are a prime area to make safe. Still, Maine’s Bureau of Health estimates that between 1,300 and 2,700 children under age 6 in Maine have elevated levels of lead in their blood, defined as at least 10 micrograms of lead per deciliter of blood. About 70 children meet the Centers for Disease Control standard for lead poisoning of 20 micrograms.

A couple of bills this session try to reduce these numbers. LD 1034, heard Tuesday, would impose a fee on manufacturers and others that have contributed to the lead problem in the past. The money would be used for education about lead hazards and for lead testing. The fee would be difficult to achieve in this anti-tax atmosphere and would surely lead to extended debates over who was responsible for how much of the problem.

Yet it correctly identifies the problem – the lack of funding to act on reducing the danger of lead to children. Funding from Washington for this purpose has dried up and though Gov. Baldacci has properly included $1 million for lead safety in his bond package, that is a tiny percent of what is needed to fix the problem.

The problem is more directly addressed in LD 1532, which is scheduled to be heard today. This bill holds landlords strictly liable if they fail to comply with lead-certification standards; notifies physicians when children’s lead levels exceeds 5 micrograms, instead of the current 10; and makes the current lead warnings on real-estate sale agreements and leases more pointed and scarier.

Removing or sealing lead in an old house makes a lot of sense; pushing landlords out of the business of renting their older homes in cities that already have a housing shortage does not. The way to achieve the goal of lead reduction without hurting the goal of keeping low-income housing available is to impose a lead-reduction requirement incrementally and with state subsidy. Maybe LD 1034 or the bond could help with that, but the amount of money needed is daunting unless spread out over several years.

The goal of LD 1532 is worth supporting. The discussion at the Judiciary Committee is how it might be paid for without driving landlords out of the rental business.