The latest filing in Frazier v. Jones does not arise from speculation or hindsight. It arises from a federally mandated change that took effect at the end of 2024.

Under updated EPA Lead and Copper Rule requirements, municipalities were required to complete and publicly maintain more accurate service line inventories, including how “unknown” lines are classified for replacement planning. Once those standards were applied, Cedar Rapids’ long-standing public representations about its water system began to shift — quickly and materially.

“This isn’t speculation. Almost all of the evidence I’m using comes straight from their own documents — the City, housing authorities, state agencies, and federal law. I’m not creating it. I’m producing it.”
— Will Frazier

---

How the RICO Claim Reached the Water Issue

Civil RICO is not meant to capture isolated errors. It addresses patterns of conduct, particularly where institutions respond defensively once compliance obligations tighten.

In recent federal filings, Frazier notified the court that newly discovered evidence related to water infrastructure and public safety — evidence required to exist under updated federal rules — had been transmitted prior to judgment but not considered. He further alleges that retaliatory actions escalated after he began requesting records tied to that required data.

RICO does not require proof of intent at the outset. It requires showing repeated conduct, notice, contradiction, and harm tied to coordinated behavior. That is why water infrastructure data became relevant to the case — not as a separate environmental lawsuit, but as context for how systems respond when compliance becomes unavoidable.

“This isn’t about one mistake. It’s about how institutions respond once compliance becomes unavoidable.”
— Will Frazier

---

Why the “17 Percent” Figure Changed

Cedar Rapids Water Service Line Map (Current)

For years, Cedar Rapids publicly referenced an estimate of roughly 17 percent lead-related service lines. That figure existed in a regulatory environment where “unknown” classifications were common and not always treated as presumptive lead for planning purposes.

That changed.

Under EPA Lead and Copper Rule revisions finalized and enforced by late 2024, municipalities are now required to treat unknown service lines far more conservatively — effectively as presumptive lead until proven otherwise. This affects planning, disclosure, and replacement prioritization.

Once those standards are applied:

• Large “unknown” areas no longer remain neutral
• Many lines shift into galvanized requiring replacement or presumptive lead
• Exposure appears more concentrated in older housing stock

“Seventeen percent was never the ceiling. Once the EPA required cities to apply the law correctly, the numbers changed.”
— Will Frazier

This is not a retroactive accusation. It is the consequence of updated federal compliance requirements.

Cedar Rapids Map (Applying EPA Guidelines for Unknown Pipes)

---

What Happened After the Records Request

After formally requesting records explaining how Cedar Rapids was classifying service lines under the updated federal standards, Frazier did not receive documents.

Instead, the City placed a yellow door tag — not on his door, but on his neighbor’s.

The notice stated that the Water Department needed to repair or inspect the water meter. According to Frazier, the City later acknowledged the visit was connected to his records request.

“I asked for paperwork. I didn’t ask them to show up at someone’s house. And I didn’t ask them to inspect a water meter — because a water meter isn’t a service line.”
— Will Frazier

A water meter is municipal equipment used for billing and readings. It is not a lead pipe and not a galvanized service line. Frazier argues that labeling the visit as a meter repair contradicts the stated purpose of verifying line classifications.

More significantly, the notice was left only on the door of a non-litigant neighbor, not the litigant who made the request. In active litigation — particularly where retaliation has already been alleged — selective contact with a vulnerable third party raises serious concerns.

“You don’t contact the weaker party next door and pretend it’s routine. That’s intimidation — and the paper trail proves it.”
— Will Frazier

At this stage, Frazier is not required to prove motive. He is required to show notice, contradiction, and pattern — which he argues the documentation now reflects.

---

Why the Water Issue Fits the RICO Pattern

The door-tag incident does not stand alone. Frazier points to a consistent pattern that emerges once federal compliance tightened:

• Risk classifications change only after scrutiny
• Requests for records trigger physical actions instead of disclosures
• Administrative framing is used to minimize urgency
• Corrections occur under pressure, not proactively

In civil RICO analysis, pattern matters more than any single act. The same institutional behavior alleged in housing enforcement and court proceedings appears again in the City’s response to newly required water data.

---

What Is at Stake Now

Because the updated inventory requirements only took effect recently, the stakes are forward-looking.

Until service lines are accurately classified and replaced under current federal standards, entire categories of projects remain exposed:

• Downtown and riverfront redevelopment
• Public-private construction initiatives
• Casino-adjacent and infrastructure-heavy developments
• Federal and state funding tied to environmental compliance

EPA funding, environmental justice reviews, and financing disclosures all rely on accurate, current inventories — not outdated classifications.

---

What Comes Next

Frazier has now formally notified federal courts and agencies that his RICO case has expanded to include newly required water infrastructure data, supported by municipal records and updated federal law.

The question is no longer whether Cedar Rapids has lead or galvanized service lines — that is a known issue nationwide. The question is how institutions responded once federal rules required greater accuracy, and whether actions taken after that point crossed into retaliation or obstruction.

That question is now part of the federal record.

On My Disassociation from the Family Justice and Accountability Act (FJAA) and the Launch of Stone Soup for Justice

After an extensive period of prayer, reflection, and careful consideration, I must make a difficult and deeply serious announcement.

With a heavy heart, I am formally and fully ending my association—of any capacity—with the Family Justice and Accountability Act (FJAA) and its founder, Francesca Amato.

I do not make this decision lightly. I have worked too hard, for too long, to elevate the voices of my family, Iowa families, and families across this country; to build constructive relationships with lawmakers; and to earn trust through careful, honest advocacy. I cannot allow my name, reputation, or work to be tied to conduct and representations that I believe are dishonest, exploitative, and fundamentally misaligned with the kind of reform our children deserve.

---

Ethical and Policy Concerns

My decision is rooted in both policy and ethics.

I have personally witnessed parents paying thousands of dollars for “services” that delivered little meaningful support or tangible outcomes. I have also observed what I consider to be cult-like dynamics within the organization—expectations of unquestioning loyalty to leadership, pressure to accept narratives that conflicted with facts, and hostility toward legitimate professional accountability.

In my view, this environment harms vulnerable families who are seeking help, not control.

---

Misrepresentation to Lawmakers

I am especially troubled by a pattern of mistruths and overstatements directed at legislators and the public.

I was informed that Senator Chuck Grassley’s office and other U.S. Senate offices “100% stand behind” the FJAA bill. I know firsthand that this is not accurate. I have worked directly with Senator Grassley’s staff and other congressional offices and have earned their respect by being precise, honest, and careful in what I represent.

While Senator Grassley stands firmly for accountability and transparency—and remains fully supportive of his constituents—his office does not support the FJAA bill. He has expressed concern that it blurs state and federal authority and creates confusion rather than clarity.

I cannot and will not attach my name to claims of congressional support that I know are untrue, nor to a 94-page bill that, in my judgment, overreaches, confuses jurisdictional boundaries, and risks undermining broader reform efforts.

---

Retaliation and Unprofessional Conduct

I have observed a troubling pattern of unprofessional and retaliatory behavior from Francesca Amato that I find incompatible with serious policy work.

This has included:

• Speaking negatively about advocates behind their backs while presenting warmth to their faces
• Creating unnecessary conflict between advocacy groups
• Encouraging supporters to attack other advocates in her defense
• Demanding public gratitude or deference
• Responding to substantive policy concerns with personal attacks

When I raised legitimate concerns about state–federal boundaries and Title IV-E compliance, the response was not honest policy discussion but attacks on my character.

Most concerning, my private medical information and lawful medical treatment were weaponized in an attempt to discredit me. Given that Francesca Amato presents herself as an ADA advocate, I view this as a serious violation of medical privacy and disability rights.

I have also observed a broader lack of personal responsibility in routine matters, which further eroded my trust. These are not the hallmarks of accountable leadership.

---

Implausible Claims and False Hope

I was repeatedly presented with grandiose and implausible claims, including assertions of imminent executive orders, high-level meetings, promises to personally take me to meet President Trump because he was “about to sign” the FJAA, and statements that Robert F. Kennedy Jr. was reviewing the bill.

When such claims are made without evidence—and used to build loyalty, financial commitment, or hope from traumatized families—that crosses a line.

Survivors of system harm deserve transparency, realism, and integrity. Not fantasies.

---

Formal Disassociation

For all of these reasons, I am formally and completely disassociating myself from:

• The Family Justice and Accountability Act (FJAA)
• Its current bill
• Any claim that I support or endorse Francesca Amato’s strategies, representations, or leadership

---

Moving Forward: Stone Soup for Justice

I remain deeply committed to child welfare reform, sibling preservation, and enforcement of federal law—particularly Title IV-E—in a way that is honest, targeted, and workable.

Going forward, I will be focusing my efforts on Stone Soup for Justice, a new collaborative team and legislative vehicle grounded in truth, accountability, and cooperation. Stone Soup for Justice reflects our belief that real reform is built collectively—through transparency, shared responsibility, and rigorous policy work—not through control or misinformation.

I am honored to move forward with the advisement and support of Kathleen Arthur, a long-respected and credible voice in Congress on child welfare and federal funding. Together with Stone Soup for Justice, we are developing legislation tightly focused on Title IV-E requirements and enforcement.

Our work will center on:

• Misuse of Title IV-E funds
• Federal compliance standards states must meet to receive and retain funding
• Wrongful removals and wrongful terminations of parental rights
• Removals and terminations that resulted in injury or death
• Family-court-forced separations
• Failures to prioritize kinship placement and sibling preservation
• Violations of reasonable-efforts requirements
• Systemic practices that bypass federally mandated protections for parents and children

At the end of the day, my goal is to deliver the results and meaningful change families deserve—especially those who placed their trust elsewhere—through honest advocacy, precise lawmaking, and steadfast accountability.

My loyalty is, and always will be, to the children and families of Iowa and to families across this country seeking real, sustainable change.

I will not compromise that mission to remain aligned with conduct I cannot defend.

— Kristin Mitchell

---

Supporting Statements

Kathleen Arthur (Left)

“Children must come first. I have been working on fixing the Families First Act since it was passed. It simply did not have enough protections or oversight. It did not solve the funding problems. Change is slow; however, we are on the edge of making major change in child welfare. This team has clicked with members of Congress better than any I have ever seen. Congress is ready. The ground is fertile. The time to plant the seeds is now.”

Tasha Ulshafer (Left)

“I’m excited to start this new journey with the amazing new group I’m with. Moving forward with people who stand for truth and real action feels empowering. I was misled before by Francesca Amato, but that chapter is closed.”

Melissa Owens (Left)

“I am withdrawing my support and any association with the Family Justice and Accountability Act 2025 and its organizer after discovering serious constitutional issues with the bill and witnessing harmful, cult-like organizational behavior. My commitment to families navigating the family court and CPS systems remains unchanged. I will now be working with a new group, including Kristin Mitchell, Kathleen Arthur, and others at Stone Soup for Justice, to develop federal legislation that truly protects children and keeps them in loving homes. While this change may come as a surprise to many people I deeply care about, this new path reflects my dedication to finding real, ethical, and effective solutions for those who are suffering and seeking true resolution.”

Lead Lines, Local Coverage, and the AWWA Paradox

In 2025, even as Cedar Rapids was being celebrated by the American Water Works Association (AWWA) for having the “Best-Tasting Drinking Water in Iowa,” the city’s own data was telling a very different story — and so was AWWA.
Because at the same time AWWA was handing out awards, it was also suing the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to block or delay the EPA’s new lead-pipe regulations.

When Cedar Rapids published its updated water-service-line map in fall 2024, it quietly confirmed something huge:
Roughly 9,000 service lines in the city were flagged as lead, galvanized downstream of lead, or “unknown / possibly lead” — about 17% of all service lines in Cedar Rapids.

That inventory wasn’t optional. It existed because of the EPA’s new Lead and Copper Rule Improvements (LCRI) — the very rule AWWA is fighting in court — which requires every community water system in the country to identify and replace lead service lines over roughly the next decade. Nationally, the EPA estimates around 9 million homes are still served by legacy lead pipes (US EPA).

Cedar Rapids is just one dot on that national map. But the way the story has been told here — in city press releases, local TV, and regional newspapers — raises real questions about who gets warned, how clearly, and why an organization actively trying to limit federal lead-pipe regulations is also handing out awards for “best drinking water.”

City of Cedar Rapids Official Announcements (Fall 2025)

October 6, 2025 – City News Release:
The City of Cedar Rapids publicly announced that “this year’s panel and conference attendees selected Cedar Rapids’ drinking water as Iowa’s Best-Tasting Drinking Water 2025!” at the Iowa Section AWWA annual conference. In the same release, Utilities Director Roy Hesemann emphasized the water’s safety and reliability, stating that “City staff work hard to provide clean, safe, and great-tasting water to our residents and customers every minute of every day.” City Manager Jeff Pomeranz reinforced the message, adding that “our high-quality water drives investment in our community, creating opportunities for thousands of Cedar Rapids residents.”
These statements framed the award not just as a taste victory, but as validation of cleanliness, safety, quality, and economic value.

Mid-October 2025 – City Social Media Promotion:
Across Facebook, LinkedIn, and Instagram, the City prominently celebrated the award. One official post read:
“The Water Division at the City of Cedar Rapids works hard around the clock to deliver clean, great-tasting drinking water… It is our pleasure to be awarded the 2025 Best Tasting Water in Iowa at this year’s AWWA Iowa Section conference by not only a panel of judges but by attendees as well. This is the fifth time Cedar Rapids has held the title, and it’s an honor we do not take lightly. Fill your glass straight from the tap and enjoy Iowa’s Best Tasting Water today!”
The messaging again stressed cleanliness, reliability, and pride in the city’s water system.

City “Rankings & Recognition” Materials:
Cedar Rapids regularly includes this accolade in official brag sheets. The city’s “Rankings and Honors” list, shared by the tourism bureau, states:
“Cedar Rapids has Iowa’s Best-Tasting Drinking Water according to the Iowa Section of the American Water Works Association.”
Although referencing the 2023 win, the city repeated this framing after receiving the 2025 award—consistently presenting its water as award-winning and high-quality.

---

1. The Map That Shows Where the Risk Really Is

On October 8, 2024, Cedar Rapids utilities staff presented a new interactive service-line map and inventory to the City Council and posted it on the city website. (Cedar Rapids)

Key numbers from that inventory:

• Total service lines: ~54,000
• Lines with confirmed lead or galvanized-after-lead + lines labeled “unknown / possibly lead”: about 9,000
• City’s own summary: this equals “about 17%” of Cedar Rapids service lines. (The Gazette)

Zoom into the map and a pattern jumps out:

• The older core of Cedar Rapids — downtown and surrounding neighborhoods — is heavily speckled with red and orange:
  • Verified galvanized iron or lead
  • Unknown / possibly lead
• Newer suburban areas are mostly green, labeled not lead.

In other words, the highest concentration of risk is exactly where you’d expect: older, denser, often lower-income housing stock in the city core.

Will’s house and his neighbor’s home, both part of an ongoing housing and retaliation lawsuit, show up in that same zone of concern — flagged as lines that may contain or have historically been connected to lead, even after he personally replaced a severely corroded galvanized pipe in his own bathroom.

---

2. What Cedar Rapids and The Gazette Told the Public in 2024

To their credit, The Gazette actually did cover this early.

• On Oct. 8, 2024, the same day as the city presentation, The Gazette reported that “up to 17% of Cedar Rapids water service lines could contain lead”, citing the new inventory and map. (The Gazette)
• A follow-up Nov. 14, 2024 story explained that Cedar Rapids had mailed notices to about 9,000 homes and businesses whose lines were lead, galvanized-after-lead, or unknown — again, roughly 17% of all service lines. (The Gazette)

That same piece compared Cedar Rapids to nearby communities:

• Iowa City: ~11% of service lines potentially lead-related
• Marion: ~8%
• Vinton: a stunning ~66%
• Several smaller towns landing between 25% and 50% (The Gazette)

So by mid-November 2024, both the city and The Gazette had publicly:

1. Acknowledged a large number of lead-related or uncertain service lines
2. Told people that letters were being sent to addresses tied to those lines
3. Pointed residents to the online inventory map

On paper, that sounds transparent. But that’s not what many residents experienced.

---

3. Who Got Warned, and When?

In the KCRG piece aired Nov. 20, 2024, viewers were told that in Cedar Rapids:

“Approximately 7,800 homes received a letter… it costs at least $7,500 to replace one service line.”

(From the on-screen graphic in KCRG’s “Letters about lead pipes and drinking water” segment.) (https://www.kcrg.com)

Meanwhile, Billy “Will” Frazier IV — a Section 8 tenant already litigating housing conditions and retaliation — says he:

• Never received a lead letter in 2024
• Only got his first “possible lead / unknown” notice in 2025, after:
  • He dug up and replaced a clogged galvanized line in his house
  • Filed a federal RICO case and a separate housing suit
  • Recorded metal sediment clogging his washer valves after a street main break
  • Filed lis pendens on his property and his neighbor’s, effectively freezing sale or transfer while the case was active

From his perspective, the timing looks less like routine notification and more like damage control after a tenant pushed his case into federal court.

The documented sequence:

1. Oct. 8, 2024 – City releases inventory + map; Gazette reports “up to 17%” and details numbers. (Cedar Rapids)
2. Nov. 14, 2024 – Gazette reports CR has mailed ~9,000 notices about lead/unknown/galvanized-after-lead lines. (The Gazette)
3. Nov. 20, 2024 – KCRG airs story and graphic noting 7,800 Cedar Rapids homes receiving letters. (https://www.kcrg.com)
4. 2025 – After Will files a notice of lis pendens, the City issues lead-related notices to him and his neighbor — even though their properties were already located within a service-line area the map identified as potentially containing lead.

On one side, you have official statements that “everyone who should have gotten a letter has gotten one.” On the other, you have residents in the most affected neighborhoods saying, no, we didn’t — not until we became a legal problem.

---

4. The 17% City, Living in a 9-Million-Home Country

Cedar Rapids isn’t unique. Nationwide:

• EPA and state inventories estimate more than 9 million U.S. households still get their water through lead service lines. (US EPA)
• The new LCRI rule sets a roughly 10-year deadline to replace all lead service lines and to identify every “unknown” line. (Department of Natural Resources)

Across Iowa, state guidance required every community system to submit a complete inventory by October 16, 2024, which is why Cedar Rapids and other cities rushed their numbers and maps into place last fall. (Department of Natural Resources)

But Cedar Rapids stands out because:

• It publicly markets itself as a “best-tasting drinking water” city, winning repeated awards from the Iowa Section of the American Water Works Association (AWWA). (Cedar Rapids)
• It has a documented 17% of service lines that are lead, galvanized-after-lead, or unknown. (The Gazette)

So you end up with two simultaneous realities:

On the marketing side: “Top-tier water, award-winning taste, best in Iowa.”
On the infrastructure side: “Roughly one in six service lines is either lead-related or not fully identified.”

That gap is exactly where trust breaks.

---

5. Media Reassurance vs. On-the-Ground Reality

While letters and maps were rolling out, Cedar Rapids residents were also hearing a different message:

• In June 2025, The Gazette reported on nitrate spikes in some Iowa rivers and mentioned Cedar Rapids drinking water specifically. City officials were quoted saying the water remained safe, thanks to treatment and monitoring, even as nitrate levels near the city’s intake had approached or exceeded federal limits. (The Gazette)

Put these together:

1. Fall 2024: stories about lead inventories and notices, with strong reassurance that water is safe and corrosion control is working. (The Gazette)
2. June 2025: a nitrate story again emphasizing safety and treatment success. (The Gazette)
3. October 2025: local TV, radio, and the city itself loudly celebrating “Best-Tasting Drinking Water in Iowa 2025,” given by the Iowa Section of AWWA. (https://www.kcrg.com)

Meanwhile, Will is documenting:

• Years of low-flow bathtub water
• A heavily corroded galvanized pipe he had to replace himself
• Metal debris in his washer valves after a city main break
• A late-arriving lead notice on a house where he’d already done emergency plumbing
• A home flagged on the city map as “unknown/possibly lead” tied into ongoing litigation

From his vantage point, the messaging sounds less like “we’re fixing this” and more like “we’re managing the optics.”

---

6. The National AWWA Lawsuit Hanging Over All of This

Here’s where the paradox gets impossible to ignore.

The Iowa Section of AWWA — the same group handing Cedar Rapids its “Best-Tasting Drinking Water” awards — is part of the national American Water Works Association. (Cedar Rapids)

In December 2024, that national AWWA filed a Petition for Review in the D.C. Circuit Court, challenging EPA’s new Lead and Copper Rule Improvements. (American Water Works Association)

AWWA’s own statements say it supports replacing all lead service lines, but argues the rule’s requirements and timelines are too strict, too fast, and too expensive for utilities. (American Water Works Association)

In practical terms, that lawsuit:

• Seeks to weaken or delay the very federal rule meant to force full replacement of lead and galvanized-after-lead service lines nationwide
• Comes at the same moment Cedar Rapids is:
  • Reporting 17% lead-related or unknown lines
  • Mailing letters and posting maps that quietly acknowledge the scope of the problem
  • Winning state AWWA awards for how great its drinking water tastes

So when Will looks at the TV and sees Cedar Rapids celebrated for “Best-Tasting Drinking Water 2025,” his reaction is blunt:

“Whose water are they tasting? Because it sure isn’t the homes with corroded pipes, metal in the washer, and kids bathing in slow, discolored water.”

From his point of view, the award isn’t just tone-deaf — it’s part of a coordinated national strategy:

• Reassure the public with taste tests and marketing
• Downplay the urgency of full lead-line replacement
• Fight EPA in court to slow or soften mandates that would otherwise protect tenants like him, and homeowners across Iowa, much faster.

---

7. Why This Matters Beyond One City

Cedar Rapids is not Flint. But that’s exactly why this story matters.

• Flint was the wake-up call.
• The LCRI and federal funding are supposed to be the response. (US EPA)
• AWWA’s lawsuit, and the way awards are being handed out while that case is pending, show how industry groups can slow enforcement while still looking like champions of “safe, high-quality water.” (American Water Works Association)

Cedar Rapids just happens to sit at the crossroads:

• A city with documented lead-related service lines
• A map that clearly shows older neighborhoods bearing the brunt
• Local media that did report the numbers, but then quickly shifted back to stories about “safe water” and “best-tasting” awards
• And a tenant whose housing and retaliation case forced those contradictions into the open.

This article is about Cedar Rapids.
The next article will zoom out:

• How many cities like this exist?
• How often are awards and reassurance used to blur the line between “legal compliance” and “actual safety”?
• And what happens when the people living on the red and orange dots on those maps decide to fight back?

That’s where Watch the Water in Cedar Rapids goes next.