Sweet 1

The Flint Water Crisis

We expect our government, and those under it, to act in the publics best interest.

However, that wasn’t the case in Flint, Michigan from 2014 until 2016. The Flint water crisis

shows the overall failure of government agencies and the public administrators working on its

behalf. Most importantly, it shows the effects of private contracted work inside the government.

Oversight is key and that is what the city of Flint was missing.

Background

In 2014, the city of Flint switched its water supply to Flint River. This change was made

while under the control of an emergency financial manager. This manager had been appointed by

the governor in hopes of sorting out the city’s fiscal issues after the recession (2016). With the

change in water supply and “a failure to add chemicals that reduce corrosion inside pipes”,

residents were exposed to lead contaminated water (Davey & Pérez-peña, 2016). Despite

warnings and the obvious test results of water, the city tried to cover up the contamination

instead of warning its residents.

The Tests

Throughout this public health crisis, we can see public administrators alter reports,

mislead the residents, and fail to act within the scope of their duties. One water regulator

doctored reports on water quality to conceal the contamination. After that, another two officials

began telling residents to “preflush” their pipes before collecting samples. All while not actually

testing the water from houses that were supposed to be tested. This created low and inaccurate

readings on the water quality. Despite officials obviously knowing about the unsafe water, they

still did not order any treatment of the water. (Haimerl & Goodnough, 2016)
 Sweet 2

Effects of Lead Exposure in Flint

In September 2015, a state of emergency was declared after blood lead data showed a

spike of lead on the children of Flint (Edwards et al., 2017). The contamination was later linked

to a deadly outbreak of Legionnaire’s disease. During this time, thousands of children were being

closely monitored for possibly high exposure levels of lead. High exposure can profoundly affect

growth, behavior, and intelligence over time. (Davey & Pérez-peña, 2016)

Who is at Fault?

The list of agencies that could have stepped in at some point and prevented the exposure

in Flint homes for over 16 months includes the Emergency Manager, the MDEQ, the

Environmental Protection Agency, the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services, the

city of Flint, and the state of Michigan (Butler et al., 2016). Overall, this is a product of many

miss steps that all began when a private contractor acted on the governments behalf and chose to

cut corners. This private contractor’s sole job was to cut spending and save the city of Flint

money. That event is not the only contributing factor to the water crisis, but it is one that should

be acknowledged.

Of course, I’ve already shown that there were many single officials that acted to cover up

the contamination, but it is also important to note that, according to Mr. Flood, “You have two

agencies manipulating reports on the same day,” (Haimerl & Goodnough, 2016). This does point

to one major coverup by many organizations. I doubt that both agencies randomly manipulated

data on the same day.

Charges and Allegations

The workers were charged with manipulating results of water quality tests. That had the

greatest effect on other agencies ability to act. Because they instructed residents to run their taps
 Sweet 3

before taking a sample, it lessened the appearance of led in the water. This reassured officials

and residents that the water was safe when, it was incredibly dangerous.

Putting fault on these workers, a day-to-day public administrator, for skewing results

assumes that officials would have acted if given the chance. That doesn’t seem to be the case

here. Three officials with the city were charged with tampering with evidence contained in

reports on lead levels in city water. Then, two state officials were also charged with conspiracy

to tamper with evidence. (Davey & Pérez-peña, 2016)

I put a lot of weight on everyone involved. These were not just random citizens with no

understanding of possible effects of their actions. These workers and officials knew what lead

exposure could do. They knew the regulations and they knew why those regulations existed. But

they chose to ignore them. They sacrificed the health of their residents to save face.

Solutions and Regulation Today

The EPA has sought input from multiple stakeholders and formed the National Drinking

Water Advisory Council (NDWAC) LCR Working Group. The NDWAC recommends that the

EPA focus on five key issues; sample site selection criteria, lead sampling protocols, public

education for copper, measures to ensure optimal corrosion control treatment, and lead service

line replacement. (Butler et al., 2016). In March 2011, the EPA held a public meeting seeking

comment on environmental justice considerations for the proposed revision.

Conclusion

The majority of those convicted were lower-level public administrators. I think this can

be credited to both lack of accountability at the top and that they have more decision-making

power. The lower-level public administrators are the ones enforcing regulation day to day. They

decide how regulation and policy are implemented. The Flint water crisis shows the overall
 Sweet 4

failure of government agencies and the public administrators working on its behalf. Most

importantly, it shows the effects of private contracted work inside the government. Oversight is

key and that is what the city of Flint was missing.

 Sweet 5

References

Edwards, M. A., Pieper, K. J., & Tang, M. (2017, February 1). Flint water crisis caused by
Interrupted Corrosion Control: Investigating "ground ZERO" HOME. ACS Publications.
Retrieved September 28, 2021, from https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.6b04034.

Butler, L., Scammell, M. K., & Benson, E. B. (2016, August). (PDF) the Flint, Michigan Water
crisis: A case study in regulatory failure and Environmental injustice. ResearchGate.
Retrieved September 28, 2021, from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/306075888_The_Flint_Michigan_Water_Crisis_
A_Case_Study_in_Regulatory_Failure_and_Environmental_Injustice.

Davey, M., & Pérez-peña, R. (2016, April 20). Flint water crisis yields first criminal charges.
The New York Times. Retrieved September 28, 2021, from
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/21/us/first-criminal-charges-are-filed-in-flint-water-
crisis.html?searchResultPosition=1.

Haimerl, A., & Goodnough, A. (2016, July 29). 6 more state workers charged in Flint water
crisis. The New York Times. Retrieved September 28, 2021, from
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/30/us/flint-michigan-water-crisis.html.

The New York Times. (2016, January 21). Events that led to flint's water crisis. The New York
Times. Retrieved September 28, 2021, from
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/01/21/us/flint-lead-water-timeline.html.