Flint Water

What is Flint case about? The Flint water crisis is a story of government failure, intransigence, unpreparedness, delay, inaction, and environmental injustice. The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) failed in its fundamental responsibility to effectively enforce drinking water regulations. Would this have happened in Beverly Hills? Yes No This is the environmental justice issue

Decisions related to the use of the Flint River as an interim water supply source. Inadequate preparation (for example, staffing, training and plant upgrades) for the switch to full-time use of the Flint Water Treatment Plant using the Flint River as the primary water supply source. Is this grounds for a criminal indictment? Yes No

Inadequate and improper sampling of distribution system water quality, potentially in violation of the Safe Drinking Water Act. Is this grounds for a criminal indictment? Yes No

Intransigent disregard of compelling evidence of water quality problems and associated health effects. Is this grounds for a criminal indictment? Yes No

Callous and dismissive responses to citizens’ expressed concerns. Is this grounds for a criminal indictment? Yes No

Persistent delays in coordinating appropriate responses to the resultant public health crises once irrefutable evidence of exposure and poisoning was presented. Is this grounds for a criminal indictment? Yes No

FLINT WATER ADVISORY TASK FORCE—FINAL REPORT MARCH 2016 22 Regulatory Context The federal Safe Drinking Water Act20 (SWDA) was enacted in 1974 and governs regulation of drinking water throughout the United States. It has been amended multiple times since its enactment, most recently in 2015. From the United States Environment Protection Agency (EPA) website: “The Act authorizes EPA to establish minimum standards to protect tap water and requires all owners or operators of public water systems to comply with these primary (health-related) standards. The 1996 amendments to SDWA require that EPA consider a detailed risk and cost assessment, and best available peer-reviewed science, when developing these standards. State governments, which can be approved to implement these rules for EPA, also encourage attainment of secondary standards (nuisance-related).”21

Lead and Copper Rule The Lead and Copper Rule (LCR), promulgated in 1991,22 falls under the SDWA. Shortterm revisions, prompted following the incidence of elevated lead levels in theDistrict of Columbia’s water distribution system, were published in the Federal Register in 2007. 23 From the guidance to the states on the rule: The goal of the LCR is to provide maximum human health protection by reducing lead and copper levels at consumers' taps to as close to the [Maximum Contaminant Level Goals] MCLGs as is feasible. To accomplish this goal, the LCR establishes requirements for community water systems (CWSs) and non-transient non-community water systems (NTNCWSs) to optimize corrosion control and conduct periodic monitoring. Systems are required to perform public education when there are lead action level exceedances at more than 10 percent of the taps that are sampled, treat source water if it contributes significantly to lead and copper levels at the tap, and replace lead service lines in the distribution system if the lead level at the tap continues to exceed the action level after optimal corrosion control and/ or source water treatment has been installed. 24

Lead Exposure Lead is a potent neurotoxin. For any given exposure, lead has more profound health effects in children because the exposure is distributed throughout the body’s volume. Children’s smaller body volumes convey larger risks from lead exposure; these effects are concentrated in brain cells. One of the most concerning aspects of lead exposure is that once it has been deposited in the nervous system, lead cannot be removed. The impact of lead poisoning on neurological development is permanent. Recent research has indicated that, with each 1 microgram per deciliter increase in blood lead level, children demonstrate decreasing performance on intelligence tests.26

Roles of Government Entities in the Flint Water Crisis Many individuals, agencies and groups participated in the events leading to the Flint water crisis and the subsequent response. Their various roles and responsibilities have been subjects of considerable discussion and debate. In the subsequent sections, we describe the defined (or statutory) roles of many of these parties, as well as the nature of their involvement in the Flint water crisis. Findings and recommendations are also provided.   The water crisis in Flint is effectively elevating public awareness of the latent dangers associated with lead in water systems, which regulators and many water utilities historically have been reluctant to address beyond the addition of corrosion control treatment. As it responds to the acute crisis in Flint, the State of Michigan is in a position to set important precedents that may have application well beyond the state, as more utilities and regulatory agencies prepare for more aggressive approaches to address the problem of lead in water. This opportunity is noted in several of the recommendations provided below.