Flint Water Crisis: Critique - Coursework Example

Flint Water Crisis: Five Official Charged Involuntarily for Manslaughter

This paper will conduct a comprehensive analysis of the news coverage on the Flint water crisis since its occurrence to date and the historical background and context of the happenings. This will be concluded by a position of the different sides of the divide on the issue and its implications.

News Evaluation and Analysis

Early this year, newsrooms and stations across the U.S were buzzing with the bittersweet news of the arrest of five officials of the State of Michigan on the count of involuntary manslaughter. The New York Times affirmed as much in their article, “5 charged with Involuntary Manslaughter in the Flint Water Crisis” published on June 14, 2017, by Scott Atkinson and Monica Davey. Like all other news features, the article was prompted by the lead contamination of Flint River dating back to April 2014. At the time, Flint changed its water source from the treated Detroit Water and Sewerage Department to the Flint River. While officials regarded this as a premier source of water, they failed to apply corrosion inhibitors to the water (Atkinson and Davey). This resulted in a series of issues that culminated in the lead contamination of the water consumed by residents of Michigan. The arrest of the five was apparently in connection with a death that ensued from the Flint Water Crisis. The news article details the outcome of the improperly treated water was a public health crisis that was marked with the exposure of over 12000 children to obscenely high levels of lead that might cause improper brain development or overall brain damage (Atkinson and Davey). This information provides the full extent of the choice made by state officials in switching water source. It also outlines the resulting consequences of the officials’ actions evidenced by their recent arrest. Like all news article that will follow, the news offered in this article is consistent with information presented in others articles in regards to the main point of discussion, a number of arrested officials, the impact of the exposure of lead to the residents of Flint, and figures of the affected children.

Emanuella Grinberg of CNN authored an article titled, “The Flint Water Crisis in 2 Minutes: What Happened, What’s Next” on April 20, 2016. The article details the Flint Crisis and the factors that lead to its cause. As in all other news articles, the need to minimize on cost is identified as the leading factor that caused Flint to switch its water source from Detroit Water and Sewage Department to Flint River. Nevertheless, the news coverage was inspired by the happenings at the time it was authored. Precisely, charges had been filed against the supervisor of Flint Treatment plant at the time, Mike Glasgow. Glasgow was charged with the tampering with evidence by changing the results of a report which evidenced the presence of lead in Flint pipeline and delivery system. A second defendant in the case, Mike Prysby, was accused of withholding information on the possible detrimental health consequences of Flint River (Grinberg). By authorizing the operating permit for the treatment of the plant at Flint, the second accused mislead the county and federal officials. Stephen Busch was likewise identified as an accused of conspiring with Prysby by manipulating test results. As members of the Department of Environmental Quality of Michigan, the pair is identified for their failure to adhere to the Safe Drinking Act of Michigan. Unlike other news articles, Grinberg clearly highlights the role of the accused in the Flint water crisis and the positions they hold in the county government. Also, it allows a clear insight into the state of the matter as residents and interested parties are able to precisely identify the source of the crisis (Grinberg). If the officials mentioned above had executed their duties diligently and had not tampered with the test results, then the issue would not have ensued, to begin with.

In June 2017, Douglas Williams of the Guardian published an article titled, “Flint Officials might Face Jail for Water Crisis.” The article starts with a short history of the state laws of Michigan pertaining to emergency situations. Afterwards, the article details in full the arrest of five officials, but it only mentions two: Dayne Walling, the mayor of Flint, and Darnell Earley, the emergency manager in Flint. According to the article, the arrest of the five is justice served. This is because of the complete neglected portrayed by the officials as well as their denial of the existence of a problem (Williams). Failure to admit to the existence of a problem denotes their guilt and knowledge of the repercussion of their actions. Sadly though is that the Governor, Rich Synder was not among the list of the arrested official. Many hold that as the overall authority, he should lead the pack of the arrested. Whether he will be arrested in the future remains to be a question of whether charges against him will be forwarded. For now, however, the public is of the opinion that the arrest of the five will serve as a lesson for others. By outlining state acts and laws pertaining to emergency issues and public welfare, it provides a foundation for understanding the role of the arrested in the outcome of the switch.

Background, History, and Research Context

Prior to the emergence of the issue, Flint sourced its water from Detroit Water and Sewage Department, which was also a provider to seven other counties south-east of Michigan. In a move to minimize on cost, Darnell Earley, the emergency manager in Flint, advocated for the change from the Detroit Water and Sewage Department to the newly created Karegnondi Water Authority (KWA) that would not only serve Flint but also neighboring counties. However, the switch to KWA would have to wait, while the construction of systems and pipes for water delivery by KWA from the nearby Lake Huron were underway (Hanna-Attisha, Mona, et al.). During this period, the residents of Flint would use derive their drinking water and water for other uses from Flint River as a short-term solution. This was notably in complete disregard of the state of the pipes at Flint River that had not been treated for the safe carriage of drinking water. On 25 April 2014, an image was captured of Flint Mayor, Dayne Walling, an emergency manager, Earley switching off water from the DWSD and drinking water from Flint River to commemorate the switch.

The crisis began almost immediately. Within weeks of the switch, residents began complaining about the discolored water and the foul smell emanating from the water. When questioned by the public and the media of the possible cause of the problem, state officials led by the Governor of Michigan, Rick Synder, denied the existence of any problem with the water source. While state officials continually affirmed the public of the safety of the water, their actions at the state offices betrayed them. For the following nine months after the switch, personnel at the State Office Building in Flint received bottled water. Perhaps, this was one of the indicators of the extent of the crisis and hypocrisy of the state officials. After this period, Governor Synder was necessitated to concede and asserted that indeed there was a water crisis in Flint following the switch (Hanna-Attisha, Mona, et al.). In spite of the public acknowledgment, the State was slow in its response with the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services releasing a much-criticized poster. In the poster, the department urged parents to continue with the use of the water to bath their children with the only caution being that the water was not to be consumed. For drinking water, the state religiously provided treated water at designated points throughout the city. In this move, it was seen that the state was still attempting to minimize cost even as the victims of the Flint crisis continued to pile. Following the insistent complains and the negative publicity the governor and the officials of Flints received, in October 215, they reverted to the use of Detroit Water and Sewage Department as the main source of water. This accompanied by any apology by Governor Synder in the form of monetary support to the victims. Precisely, he issued the release of 28 million U.S dollars to Flint that was to be used for medical care, supplies, and infrastructure upgrades. Later an additional 30 million U.S dollars was released and were to be used for water bill credits with business receiving 20 percent of the funds, while residents received 65 percent. While it might appear that the state officials made amends, it is imperative for the reader to note that the argument that will follow will be based on two aspects. One is the arrest of the five officials. Two is the initial neglect portrayed by state officials in their failure to properly treat and install corrosion inhibitors in the pipeline delivery system from Flint River.

Position on the Issue and its Implications

The Flint Water Crisis is markedly one of the most widely published and covered news feature airing on various media stations around the globe since the year 2014. In this regard, it is termed by scientists and policymakers as one of the worst cases of lead contamination of drinking water to date affecting not only the local communities but also other water supplies across the United States of America. Prior to the Flint Water Crisis, there were cases of lead contamination in other states and counties following the change in main water sources. In 2001, for instance, Washington D.C witnessed the dramatic increase in lead levels following the change of its water source. Likewise, in 2006, Durham and Greenville, N.C was found to have unsafe levels of lead in its water sources (Williams). Jackson faced the same predicament in the year 2015 when its official discovered that drinking water sources had been contaminated by lead, but opted to wait for six months to inform residents of the impending public health crisis.

Officials of Michigan should have viewed these cases as case studies to inform the possible consequences of changing and improperly treating drinking water sources. They failed instead opting to act in the same way as Jackson, Miss. For the first 525 days, the state insistently denied the existence of any problem with the water. This was in spite of the discoloration and foul smell emanating from the water. The question then that comes to mind is if indeed there was no problem with the water, is why the state opted to distribute bottled water to all its employees within State Office building (Atkinson and Davey). From the viewpoint of a casual observer, such would appear as a selfish move of a guilty party. If in fact, the water was safe for consumption as the Governor and other state officials had continually assured Flint residents, then there was no need for them to distribute bottled water to personnel. In a move to champion for the safety of the Flint River water, they should have been on the front line consuming the same piped water that they continually reassured people of.

It is arguable that the Flint water crisis is arose from the need by the state of cut on cost. According to a financial report released in the year 2011, the city of Flint had a projected 25 million U.S dollar deficit. This promoted the state of Michigan to take over the management of Flint. In an attempt to reduce the shortfall experienced in the water fund, the city under the authorization of the Michigan Governor and other state and city officials, announced the switch from the Detroit Water and Sewage Department as the main source of water. In this, they adopt a new system, Karegnondi Water Authority that would deliver water through its pipelines from Lake Huron. Seeing as the proposed system was still under construction, the management resorted to the delivery of water from the Flint River as a short-term solution. The perplexity of this issue brings numerous arguments and questions to mind. A most obvious question is the urgency and manner in which the city officials acted when deciding on Flint River as a short-term solution. If in fact there was a need to minimize cost, was it necessary to endanger residents and put their children at risk of slowed brain development by settling on use of piped water from Flint River. On the one hand, there are those of the opinion that the better option was waiting for the completion of the KWA pipeline that would guarantee the safety of drinking water. But in this, the problem of the cost would continue to augment as they waited for the completion of the new pipelines as the estimated time of completion was several months. Those of the contrary opinion holds that while Flint was a premier solution, requisite measures should have been undertaken including the installation of corrosion inhibitors to guarantee the safety of the drinking water.

Obviously, the risks of their choice were greater than their gains. As evidence of the detrimental impacts of the switch to Flint River is the upsurge in blood lead levels among children from 2.5 percent 5 percent through 2013 to 2015. Moreover, a research on the widespread nature of lead contamination affirmed that over 12,000 were exposed to unsafe levels of lead contamination that affects brain development and IQ levels among children. Is it then a question of negligence and disregard of the states and city officials duty to their residents, one might ponder. Indeed it is. The saddening fact is that both state and city officials were in full knowledge of the danger posed by the use of lead coated pipelines. 30 years ago the U.S Congress specifically banned the use of lead coated pipelines in the delivery of drinking water asserting that sufficient research evidenced leads detrimental impact on the health of people especially young children. The Flint River pipeline system is among those that are coated with lead. As such was the case, then what possible measures should have the officials undertaken. The emergency manager should have consulted environmental experts that would have advised two feasible solutions. One would be to dig up the lead coated pipelines and replace them with new ones. The process while it would have ensured the safety of the residents, it would have been costly. Inevitably, this would lead the city to its previous state of funds deficit; hence, it would not be a plausible solution to the current financial crisis of Flint in view. A second option would have been to treat the source of the water, Flint River, and conduct continuous tests to check for the presence of contaminants. In the unveiling of the role of city and state officials in the Flint Crisis and the feasible solutions to the financial crisis that prompted them to adopt the switch, one thing stands. The arrest of the five officials was justice served for the people of Flint.