The saga of the drinking water in Flint, Mich., represents an abject failure on the part of government officials in that state.
And while the issue is limited to a Midwestern region far removed from Washington, it points out the danger of ignoring federal regulations; ignoring the concerns of residents; ignoring environmental issues; taking shortcuts in the name of cutting costs; and treating a segment of the population as disposable.
A quick primer: In April 2014, while financially strapped Flint was under the control of a state-appointed manager, the city’s water supply was switched from Lake Huron to the Flint River while a new pipeline to the lake was completed. This was done in the name of saving money, and officials declined to treat the water with an anti-corrosive agent, as called for under federal law. The Flint River is notoriously dirty, and residents quickly began complaining that the water coming out of their taps was brown and odorous. State officials insisted everything was safe, but researchers from Virginia Tech last year discovered that the water was highly corrosive and contained dangerous levels of lead. Some homes had lead levels high enough to meet the Environmental Protection Agency’s definition of “toxic waste.”
This is a problem of enormous proportions. As Flint pediatrician Dr. Mona Hanna-Attisha told CNN: “If you were to put something in a population to keep them down for a generation and generations to come, it would be lead. It’s a well-known, potent neurotoxin. … It drops your IQ, it affects your behavior, it’s been linked to criminality, it has multigenerational impacts. There is no safe level of lead in a child.” And lead poisoning is irreversible.
In other words, many children in Flint will suffer for years because of a lack of oversight by the state government. Rather than treat the water at a cost of $100 a day, officials subjected a city of about 100,000 people to a multigenerational tragedy. Congressman Dan Kildee, D-Mich., said: “When the governor appointed an emergency financial manager, that person came here … to simply do one thing and one thing only, and that’s cut the budget at any cost.”
On a broader scale, the unfolding scandal points to a debate being held on many levels in this country. Certain political factions frequently complain about overregulation and intrusive environmental policy, an argument that has led some conservatives to call for the abolishment of the federal EPA. Last June, then-presidential candidate Scott Walker echoed the thoughts of many Republican leaders when he said: “Every state has an equivalent of the EPA. Every state that has it, not that they’re all perfect, but they’re much more effective, much more efficient and certainly much more accountable at the state and local level than they are in Washington (D.C.)”
We’re guessing the people of Flint, Mich., would take issue with Walker’s assertion that state environmental agencies are efficient and accountable. Once complaints surfaced, officials took some 18 months to stop ignoring the issue and begin acting upon it; the National Guard now has been mobilized to assist with the distribution of bottled water and water filters.
The fact is that clean water — along with clean air, clean soil and environmentally responsive industry — is not something to be trifled with or taken for granted. And the saga of Flint, Mich., is a shameful example of governmental malfeasance that will resonate for years to come.
