The Value of Water: The Flint Water Crisis as a Devaluation of Natural Resources,not a Matter of Racial Justice

Introduction

Recognition of illnesses in children resulting from tainted water in Flint, Michigan, was developed via the efforts of Dr. Mona Hanna-Attisha, the program director of pediatric residency of Michigan State University College of Human Medicine's Pediatric Program at Flint's Hurley Hospital. On September 24, 2015, Dr. Hanna-Attisha released a study in which she and other researchers tracked lead levels of children under the age of five both before and after the city of Flint altered its water supply on April 25, 2014. The study evaluated 700 children whose lead levels were tested in 2013 and 700 children's blood samples taken in 2015. Samples showed a doubling of the presence of lead in children's blood; whereas nationwide and even in Flint, before April 2014, lead levels in children's blood had been dropping due to lead abatement programs. Medicaid programs covering children recommended testing for lead in children during their first and second years.

Forty percent of Flint's population is below the poverty level, and this provided readily accessible data for researchers such as Hanna-Attisha. The poverty rate coupled with the demographics of Flint, a city of nearly 100,000 people of whom roughly 56.6% self-identify as African American according to U.S. Census data of 2010, led to media portrayals of a racial injustice.^1,2 Government representatives from the area also began referring to the water crisis in terms of racial injustice and racial bias, coining a relatively new phrase: environmental racism. Scrutinization of water safety within the state of Michigan belies this argument, as rural populations who are primarily Caucasian have also suffered due to unhealthy water that state officials deemed safe. Additionally, privatization of public water sources in the absence of environmental assessments reveals a governmental indifference toward water as a necessary and public resource. Disregard for the value of water, natural resources, and commons is a persistent issue throughout Michigan. Through a review of some of Michigan's more prominent cases of water manipulation that transpired over the past 15 years, a systemic natural resource and environmental recklessness from government officials are exposed. Government agents have consistently pursued profiteering from short-term projects while denying impacts of long-term consequences.

History of the Flint Water Crisis

In June 2012, government officials attempted to save money by switching Flint's water system from the Detroit Water and Sewerage Department to the Karegnondi Water Authority. Emergency manager Ed Kurtz, appointed by Governor Rick Snyder, was authorized to assert autonomous power over political and financial decisions in Flint. Kurtz decided to draw water from the Flint River, despite its notoriety in being one of the most polluted waterways in Michigan. Inexplicably, the poor water conditions cost local residents a great deal.

In 2013, Governor Snyder authorized the development of a new water system running parallel to the Detroit Water system. There was no compelling need, as both the infrastructure and water supply were adequate to meet the needs of Flint; however, the idea that Flint's water treatment plant could be upgraded enticed the governor and other officials to believe it would create needed jobs and boost the local economy.

Governor Snyder and emergency manager Kurtz, among others, miscalculated. The upgrades to the water treatment plant were not completed when the contract with Detroit Water and Sewerage Department was terminated in April 2014. A decision was made to withdraw water from the Flint River until the water treatment plant became operational. Almost immediately, Flint residents began complaining about rashes, illnesses, and a foul smell coming from the water taps in their homes.

On April 25, 2014, Flint officials released a public statement declaring that the temporary water switch was not a cause for concern. Michael Prysby, an official at the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), Office of Drinking Water, verified that water standards were being met and that Flint water was safe for consumption. By May 2014, Escherichia coli and total coliform bacteria were detected in Flint's water, prompting an advisory to the residents to boil their water. Unfortunately, lead was already being released into the water. Boiling water will not eliminate lead. On January 2, 2015, Flint was found to be in violation of the Safe Drinking Water Act due to high levels of total trihalomethanes (TTHM) in the water. TTHMs are byproducts of chlorine and organic matter interaction and are known carcinogens. On February 25, 2015, residents discovered high levels of lead in their water. The Environmental Protection Agency's limit for lead is 15 parts per billion. Homes in Flint tested at 104 parts per billion. At this point, information about lead, bacteria, and TTHM was discussed within Flint and with various organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union. In September 2015, scientists from Virginia Technical University arrived, began testing various homes in Flint, and observed and recorded systemic problems, particularly high levels of lead throughout the water system. Media reports of Flint's water conditions made national headlines by November 2015. On January 5, 2016, Governor Snyder declared a state of emergency for Flint. At the end of April 2016, Governor Snyder declared Flint water to be safe, even though an estimated 8000 pipes still needed to be replaced.

Polluted Rural Waters in Southern Michigan

In 1999, Lynne Henning, a fourth-generation farmer producing crops of corn and soy on 300 acres in Hudson Township in Lenawee County, ∼70 miles southwest of Detroit, noticed a rapid increase in the establishment of large cattle operations near her farm. Within 10 miles of her home, a dozen large-scale dairy cattle operations were being operated as concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs), where several thousand cattle were housed in confined areas. CAFOs resulted from the consolidation of small- and medium-sized farms into large-scale livestock operations. United States’ agricultural policies led to a dynamic whereby only the largest operators could consistently profit in the nation's food distribution system that comprises a small number of large, powerful commodity buyers. The buyers forced operators into limited profit margins, squeezing out smaller farmers in the livestock industry.

CAFO owners maximized their narrow profit margins by disregarding environmental regulations. CAFOs have not been required to report pollution to the environmental protection agency (EPA). Release of data to the EPA would enable the public to view the reports as proscribed by Section 308 of the Clean Water Act. Public access to pollution data would enable rural communities to specifically discern CAFOs as a source of water pollution, allowing them to engage legal actions under the citizen suit provisions of the Clean Water Act. ⁴ CAFOs have been successful at persuading state government officials that submitting pollution reports under the Clean Water Act would create an undue burden to their business operations. Henning observed large volumes of cattle waste being dumped into streams and watersheds in the region as well as spreading manure on frozen fields, a process that creates significant runoff of waste when the ice melts in spring. Additionally, CAFO operators collect excrement through high-pressure spraying of chemicals. These chemicals along with animal waste products created a toxic brew that was being dumped into the environment in violation of Michigan's Clean Water Act. Henning and her neighbors noted that air and water pollution blanket the area in a manner that had not been previously observed. By 2005, Henning became a water sentinel for the Michigan chapter of the Sierra Club, a national environmental organization. Sierra Club personnel trained Henning to take water samples from the streams where she witnessed pollution occurring. Henning also flew over the CAFOs, photographing the extent of CAFO operations. Henning complained to her local DEQ office and provided evidence of the accumulation of toxins within the watersheds. Officials at DEQ ignored her data and requests to enforce environmental regulations.

Henning persisted and in return for her monitoring, she received threats and was the victim of vandalism, as some of her farm equipment was destroyed; large trucks transiting to the CAFOs would attempt to run her off the road, and she would find animal carcasses on her front porch. Undeterred, Henning sought to educate members of her community and expanded testing of the watershed, uncovering crypto spiridium at 11 sites and giardia at 8 sites. Environmental organizations tallied that in Lenawee County, 60 waste ponds hold more than 400 million gallons of animal waste. ⁵ In 2010, Henning was awarded the Goldman Environmental Prize. Henning's recognition garnered national attention and Michigan DEQ was eventually pressured to respond, leading to issuing hundreds of citations for water quality violations.

Inconsistent Recognition Between Urban and Rural Populations

Communities suffering the consequences of environmental harm are more readily recognized in urban environments where media, both traditional and electronic social forms, proliferate. In rural communities, distances and limited population size are more readily marginalized or ignored. Rural agriculturists in Michigan, as in much of the country, are poor. They possess limited political capital and infrequently garner political attention. CAFO owners are most often corporations beholden to investors who do not reside in nearby communities.

Lax government oversight, political officials who favor businesses over the environment and communities, criminalization of dissent, and creation of delays in addressing environmental harms are persistent in both urban and rural communities. Any person living in either Lenawee County or Flint would have been exposed to the same hazards and succumbed to the same illnesses and degraded environment. The inactions of DEQ officials, despite the analysis of scientific data in relation to the Flint water crisis, are not perceptively different than ignoring scientific data collected by Henning and other water sentinels monitoring riparian systems in rural areas south of Detroit. In both cases, DEQ personnel wilfully downplayed the impacts of water quality violations to the long-term detriment of both communities within Michigan.

The commodification of water from its status as a common resource that can be exploited for private profit reflects the ideology that creates a political and legal atmosphere by which corporations ignore environmental restraints. In 2000, Michigan water issues created community distrust and anger when then-Governor John Engler authorized a water bottling plant to Perrier (later purchased by Nestlé) for a licensing fee of less than $100 per year, in addition to substantial tax benefits totaling more than $1 million. Perrier initiated construction of its plant before permits were issued. The plant's capacity was to pump 100–300 gallons per minute out of an aquifer on a hunting preserve in Mecosta County. A collective of concerned citizens formed the Michigan Citizens for Water Conservation, sued Nestlé, and provided evidence that DEQ did not assess impacts of the withdrawal of water from the environmentally sensitive area. A federal judge agreed in 2003 but in an ironic and confusing twist, declared that the water interests of Nestlé had to be balanced with the landowners. According to the Michigan Constitution Article IV, Section 52, the natural resources of the state belong to the people of the state, whereby the health, welfare, and safety of the public are of paramount concern. ⁶ It is confounding how both executive and judicial decision making in Michigan has upheld the privatization of water in the Great Lakes basin while devaluing the impacts of pollution created by poor management of infrastructure in Flint and Lenawee County. Michigan lawmakers have followed a global trend in their treatment and valuation of water.

Conclusions

Rural populations frequently rely on local ecosystems as part of their economic sustainability. Water, whether in use for mining, fishing, timber, or agricultural production, is needed to promote not only sustainable but also stable economic outputs. In rural regions in Michigan and throughout the United States, various laws have limited protest against negative impacts of large-scale projects that are crowding out local users. Local citizen-based groups have formed to protest and engage local governance to promote laws that would protect their access to natural resources as well as restrict pollution to limit damages to required resources. Overwhelmingly, state governments have overruled local ordinances that have sought to limit or ban hydraulic fracturing, limit pollution from CAFOs, and restrict aquifer or riparian system depletion. Although state constitutions such as Michigan provide legal language that stipulates the protection of the public, enforcement has not been put in place to ensure its implementation. The poor, whether rural or urban, suffer disproportionately when their valuation of resources is not considered.

There are long-standing cases throughout modern Michigan's governance that illustrate the government's failing in abiding by its constitutional provisions. Water has been exploited and devalued, permitted to become a collection of illegal waste discharges, and used in political and money making schemes. All of these factors combined indicate the unwillingness by government officials to empower DEQ to conduct its required mission of protecting the public welfare through enforcement of environmental protections. The minority population of Flint is substantially affected by governmental inaction and indifference, and so are many communities throughout the state of Michigan. The collective viewing of environmental injustices given the state's constitutional declarations of protection of environment provides insight as to governmental priorities such as short-term profiteering schemes without any notable consideration toward long-term impacts for the state's populations or resources.