The Washington Report

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently released an updated version of its lead hazard pamphlet, titled “Protect Your Family from Lead in Your Home."

The Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act requires sellers and landlords to provide buyers and tenants with:

• A lead-based paint disclosure form
• Any known records or reports of lead hazards, and
• The EPA-approved lead hazard pamphlet

These requirements apply to most residential properties built before 1978 (when lead-based paint was banned). EPA does not require users to discard older versions of the document. EPA encourages users to exhaust their existing stock prior to printing copies of the new version.

The updated pamphlet includes information on new lead health standards, including:

• Revised dust-lead hazard and action levels;
• Updated terminology and definitions related to lead abatement; and
• Expanded guidance on identifying and managing lead exposure risks.

The requirement to provide this pamphlet applies broadly to pre-1978 housing, including single-family residences, rentals, multifamily buildings and condominium units leased by owners. The disclosure form and pamphlet are required regardless of whether lead hazards are known to exist.

Download the EPA's Lead Hazard Pamphlet

Visit NAR's Lead-Based topic page to learn more. 

The National Association of REALTORS® (NAR) is continuing its strong defense of private property rights by joining industry partners on an amicus brief supporting George Sheetz’s new petition for review before the U.S. Supreme Court in Sheetz v. El Dorado County (“Sheetz II”). The case follows the Court’s unanimous ruling in favor of Mr. Sheetz, in which NAR played a key role by filing an amicus brief in support of his challenge to the County’s unconstitutional land‑use exaction. 

In 2016, George Sheetz applied for a permit to build a modest single‑family home on his property in El Dorado County, California. As a condition of approval, the County imposed a Traffic Impact Mitigation (TIM) Fee of $23,420, which is set legislatively and calculated based on the property’s location and its classification as a residential project.  

Sheetz paid the fee but challenged it as an unconstitutional taking under the Fifth Amendment. In April 2024, the Supreme Court ruled in Sheetz’s favor, holding that such fees must satisfy the Nollan/Dolan requirements of essential nexus and rough proportionality between the imposed fee and the effects of the proposed land use. 

The case was remanded to the California Court of Appeals, which upheld the fee, concluding that the County’s traffic impact fee program satisfied constitutional requirements. The California Supreme Court denied Sheetz’s petition for review. 

Sheetz has now returned to the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that the California courts failed to faithfully apply the Supreme Court’s instructions. The Sheetz II petition argues that the appellate court wrongly treated the TIM fee as constitutional merely because it was adopted through a rational legislative process, rather than requiring the County to prove that the amount charged was proportional to the impacts of his individual project. 

Without clear enforcement of the Nollan/Dolan standards, state and local governments can continue to impose excessive, one‑size‑fits‑all fees that shift public infrastructure costs onto individual property owners. Legislative impact fees can significantly increase the cost of housing and discourage new housing construction. 

NAR’s legal advocacy efforts to support private property rights remain a priority. NAR will continue to monitor any developments in this case and provide updates accordingly.