On January 16, 2016, President Barack Obama declared the city of Flint, Michigan to be in a state of emergency due to the widespread lead poisoning of the city’s residents that later became known as the Flint Water Crisis (Southall 2016). The crisis began in April of 2014, when the officials of Flint decided that, in an effort to conserve dwindling funds, the city would switch their main water source from Lake Huron, to the Flint River (Southall 2016). Almost immediately, the residents of Flint began expressing their discontent of the new water.
People complained about the smell, taste and color of the Flint water; and on top of that, some started reporting rashes, hair loss and abdominal pain (“Flint”, 2016). Officials disregarded these concerns, and even as tests detected harmful contaminants such as E. coli, total coliform, trihalomethanes and even lead in the water, made no changes to the water treatment plant (Kennedy 2016). In September of that year, a Virginia Tech research team found “serious” lead levels in 40% of the homes in Flint (Kennedy 2016).
The team attributed these high levels of lead to the fact the Flint does not have a corrosion control plan in place in their water treatment plant (Kennedy 2016). The Flint River naturally has high levels of corrosive chloride (Olson 2016). Without a corrosion control plan in place, the water instantly started corroding the pipes. When iron pipes were corroded, the iron would react with the chlorine in the water and prevent disinfection (Olson 2016). In addition to this, when the older lead pipes began corroding, lead and copper started making their way into the city’s water (Olson 2016)
By December, the Mayor of the city declared a state of emergency in Flint and the President follows soon after (Kennedy 2016). The improper treatment of the water supply was a maneuver meant to save the city $5 million dollars, but ended up costing them over $45 million in reparations and put the welfare of thousands on the line (Felton 2016). There were many chemicals involved in the poor quality of Flint’s water. The most notable was the observed, elevated levels of lead (EPA 2016). Lead, when ingested, can cause lead poisoning and generally results in significant damage to the kidneys and nervous systems (CDC 2007).
Children generally are affected to a greater degree than adults, which can be observed by generally lower IQ, ataxia, and death (CDC 2007). In Flint, residents are experiencing lead concentrations exceeding the standard of 15 ppb, with some levels reaching 150 ppb (EPA 2016). These elevated concentrations are due to corrosion of the water pipes, which was a result of a diminished orthophosphate protective lining on the inside of the pipes (EPA 2016). The protective lining was diminished due to the chemical concentrations in the Flint River differing from the concentrations within Lake Huron and the Detroit River.
Efforts have been made by local officials and outside entities by adding orthophosphate and chlorine into the system to provide potable water (EPA 2016). While the protective lining is being restored the residents of Flint are using the EPA recommended filters, which have a limitation of concentrations less than 150 ppb (EPA 2016). One of the larger effects from the Flint drinking water crisis was the immediate effect that it possesses on child development. Currently the lead poisoning water has affected almost 26,000 young children, which lowers their IQ, decision capabilities, and overall social behaviors.
Studies have also shown that even the slightest bit of lead exposure can be correlated to learning disabilities and impaired hearing. Lead is considered a neurotoxin, childhood lead poisoning affects mostly the biological processes. From the American Public Health Association, infants drinking formula made from tap water at 10 ppb, about 25% would experience a blood lead level above the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention elevated blood lead level of 5 micrograms per deciliter (Ahanna-Attisha 2016).
Adults absorb around 3-10 percent of water-soluble lead while young children can absorb 40-50 percent, the lead increase would ultimately have a higher effect on the children. Lead contamination usually never originates near the water source, but more near the source of consumption, such as deteriorating lead pipes. Almost 4 in 10 families live below the poverty line in Flint, MI, exposing children to more lead that are likely to be living in an inadequate home (Ahanna-Attisha 2016). Therefore, the lead crisis only added to the already high lead levels that these children were exposed to.
Some reports resulting in lead poisoning have conditions including chemical induced hypertension, depression, vision loss, hair loss and skin lesion from the unsafe exposure to lead. The ethical decisions made by politicians and government officials alike helped compound the seriousness of the Flint water crisis. Switching the source for Flint’s drinking water was purely a financial decision and as problems started to arise from that decision, officials felt the need to attempt to mask or correct these problems while using as little money as possible all while attempting to avoid any stain on their careers.
It became grossly apparent that officials had been aware and negligent of the water issues in Flint as outside agencies and research teams tested Flint’s water. Even after Dr. Marc Edwards a team of researchers from Virginia Tech released the lead contamination data in Flint’s water local officials denied the claims that lead levels were extremely high and even criticized the team for not performing proper testing. Furthermore, data obtained by local and state officials had the number of samples altered so that the city would fall within the permissible levels of lead contamination (Kennedy 2016).
It became evident that Flint officials had not included corrosive control measures when they switched water sources, either due to financial issues or lack of knowledge. Regardless, these same officials eventually became aware of the issue and instead of announcing this and taking corrective action they did the exact opposite. By trying to cover up Flint’s water crisis these officials directly harmed the public that they were charged with protecting.
Officials of all kinds are expected to act with the interest of their locale as opposed to personal gain or in this case in the attempt to have an unblemished career. This is especially important for environmental engineers, where the safety of the public is paramount. In this situation, many probes and reports have been published placing blame on various officials. When these unethical acts are done knowingly, criminal charges are often sought. As of March 2017, the Michigan Attorney General’s office has charged 13 with criminal offenses stemming from the Flint water crisis (Ganim 2017).
Because of the Flint water crisis, trust towards the community leaders decreased significantly. The community attempted multiple time to communicate with officials and express their concerns regarding the change in color and smell of the water, but to no prevail. Parents soon started noticing their children’s health deteriorating and increased levels of lead in their blood (Kennedy 2016), and upon speaking out again, nothing happened. At that point, officials were using using the method of “wait-and-see” rather than responding to public concern (Kennedy 2016).
Many believe this may be due to the fact that the majority of the population in Flint, Michigan is African American and live below the line of poverty. The victims termed this as “environmental racism” (Martinez 2016). Officials such as Brad Wurfel continued to say that there was nothing wrong with the water and that “anyone who is concerned about lead in the drinking water in Flint can relax” (Kennedy 2016). The issue with poor communication not only proved to be problematic for the officials who ignored the obvious signs of contamination in the water supply, but also for the residents of Flint.
It could prove to be difficult to convince residents that the water supply is safe, or the opposite of anything they think is unsafe in the future. The people of Flint may not want to rely on their town to resolve any future community issues. Trust in federal organizations and officials, such as the EPA, may still be intact, since they have been raising millions of dollars to install new pipes and improve water quality. The water crisis was a product of the government’s effort to cut spending by switching water sources.
The governor of Michigan, Rick Snyder, appointed two emergency managers to oversee the city of Flint’s transition from getting water from The Detroit Water and Sewerage Department to a new pipeline that would take water from Lake Huron (Jacobson 2016). Because Detroit planned on shutting off the water supply before the pipeline project was finished, temporary plans had to be made. This caused Flint to begin to draw water from the Flint River until the pipeline project was complete. This temporary solution would have worked had the proper chemical corrosion inhibitors been used to prevent the pipes from leaching lead into the water.
While the governor and his appointed officials were a huge part of the problem, some blame does lie in the financial decline of the city. It is a very poor area leftover from industrial decline and in turn, many budget cuts were made (Jacobson 2016). Unfortunately, the temporary water supply from the Flint River ended up being part of those budget cuts. The local government also bears some of the blame. The EPA was very soft on the issue and some claim even tried to cover up the damage. The local government supported the EPA decisions that did not come down hard on the problem as it got worse.
Politically speaking, the Flint water crisis was a failure by the government from the smallest locality all the way to the most powerful man in Michigan. This crisis has brought light to the fact that politicians do not always have their constituents’ interest nor safety as priority. While there is no single person to bear all the blame, this incident has been a learning experience for people to stand up for themselves and take matters into their own hands when the government fails to do what they are supposed to do.
