The Role of the Legal System in the Flint Water Crisis

Abstract

A major factor explaining government actors’ failure to mitigate or avert the Flint, Michigan, water crisis is the sheer complexity of the laws regulating how governmental agencies maintain and monitor safe drinking water. Coordination across agencies is essential in dealing with multiple legal arrangements. Public health legal authority and intervention mechanisms are not self‐executing. Legal preparedness is essential to efficiently navigating complex legal frameworks to address public health threats. The Flint water crisis demonstrates the importance of democracy for protecting the public's health. Laws responding to municipal fiscal distress must be consistent with expected norms of democracy and require consideration of public health in decision making. ContextThe Flint, Michigan, water crisis resulted from a state‐appointed emergency financial manager's cost‐driven decision to switch Flint's water source to the Flint River. Ostensibly designed to address Flint's long‐standing financial crisis, the switch instead created a public health emergency. A major factor explaining why the crisis unfolded as it did is the complex array of laws regulating how governmental agencies maintain and monitor safe drinking water. MethodsWe analyzed these legal arrangements to identify what legal authority state, local, and federal public health and environmental agencies could have used to avert or mitigate the crisis and recommend changes to relevant laws and their implementation. First, we mapped the legal authority and roles of federal, state, and local agencies responsible for safe drinking water and the public's health—that is, the existing legal environment. Then we examined how Michigan's emergency manager law altered the existing legal arrangements, leading to decisions that ignored the community's long‐term health. Juxtaposed on those factors, we considered how federalism and the relationship between state and local governments influenced public officials during the crisis. FindingsThe complex legal arrangements governing public health and safe drinking water, combined with a lack of legal preparedness (the capacity to use law effectively) among governmental officials, impeded timely and effective actions to mitigate or avert the crisis. The emergency manager's virtually unfettered legal authority in Flint exacerbated the existing complexity and deprived residents of a democratically accountable local government. ConclusionsOur analysis reveals flaws in both the legal structure and how the laws were implemented that simultaneously failed to stop and substantially exacerbated the crisis. Policymakers need to examine the legal framework in their jurisdictions and take appropriate steps to avoid similar disasters. Addressing the implementation failures, including legal preparedness, should likewise be a priority for preventing future similar crises.

Analyzing the Flint Water Crisis: Insights and Suggestions for Future Resilience

“…The key decisions and failures that led to the water crisis were first on April 25, 2014, when officials from Flint switched the city's water supply to the Flint River as a cost-cutting measure for the struggling city [1]. In doing so, they unwittingly introduced lead-poisoned water into homes, in what became a massive publichealth crisis.…”

“…In doing so, they unwittingly introduced lead-poisoned water into homes, in what became a massive publichealth crisis. However, the second policy failure implicated in the Flint water crisis involves the federal Safe Drinking Water Act's Lead and Copper Rule [1]. When Flint switched its drinking water source to the Flint River in April 2014, the state environmental quality department failed to require the city to treat the water for corrosion, as would be necessary to meet federal Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) standards [1].…”

“…The water crisis in Flint, Michigan, which is a tale of environmental injustice and poor judgment, started in 2014 when the city moved its drinking water supply from Detroit's system to the Flint River to save money [1]. Residents of Flint experienced several serious water quality and health problems because of inadequate water treatment and testing; these problems were Letter to the Editor repeatedly disregarded, neglected, and denied by government officials even as complaints rose.…”

“…Residents of Flint experienced several serious water quality and health problems because of inadequate water treatment and testing; these problems were Letter to the Editor repeatedly disregarded, neglected, and denied by government officials even as complaints rose. For 18 months, over 9,000 kids in Flint received water that was tainted with lead [1]. But just as it is now, lead exposure has been connected to catastrophic health effects, including death and insanity which could only be preventable by avoiding water contaminated with lead thereby avoiding exposure [2].…”

Learning from the Flint Water Crisis: Restoring and Improving Public Health Practice, Accountability, and Trust

“…Elsewhere, two of us have analyzed the complex legal framework that contributed to the Flint water crisis. 2 In this article, we examine two key implications from that analysis. First, we assess the importance of adequate legal preparedness in dealing with complicated legal arrangements and multiple statutory responsibilities.…”