Brett Carlsen / Getty Images file https://images.app.goo.gl/bMBMvg3BqKSvAdnd7
Dangerous Water
A huge environmental issue that has occurred within the last decade in the United States is the Flint, Michigan water crisis. This issue garnered national attention due to its spread across the media, especially on social media like Twitter. Originally the city of Flint obtained their water from Lake Huron, but in 2014, in an effort to cut down costs, the city started to source their water from the Flint River. What exactly was wrong with the water that was now coming from the river instead of the lake? Well the water was now highly unsafe and therefore undrinkable due to corrosive elements that were found in the water, mainly lead. According to Bellinger, “in six of the nine city wards, the water in 20 to 32% of the homes had a lead concentration above 15μg per liter” (2016). This is a concerning amount of lead that most definitely should not have been in these homes in the first place.
The one population that is the most affected by lead in water is children. This was evident in blood tests that revealed how much lead was in children’s blood. According to the CDC (Center for Disease Control and Prevention), “during April 25, 2013-March 16, 2016, among 9,422 blood lead tests received by 7,306 children aged <6 years living in the area served by FWS [Flint Water System], 3.0% of blood lead level (BLL) test results were elevated (≥5 µg/dLL). The proportion of elevated BLLs was significantly higher (5.0%) during the early period of the switch from DWA [Detroit Water Authority] to FWS compared with the previous period when residents consumed water from DWA (3.1%)” (2016). Only 5% of elevated blood levels may not seem like much, but the consequences of having too much lead in the blood is important. The CDC may also have failed to study all the children of Flint to see just how many children had higher levels of lead in their blood. Also, they may have tested children who only had lower amounts of lead in their blood just because they were a bit older, but may have had more lead in their blood when they were younger. These two things may account for why the levels of lead in the children tested weren’t much higher than they were.
Regardless, lead has many health side effects for all people exposed to it, but mainly young children. According to Benson, Butler, and Scammell, “lead exposure in children may result in anemia, kidney damage, colic, muscle weakness, and brain damage. Exposure to the fetus during pregnancy can result in fetal death, premature delivery, low birth weight, and lower intelligence in later childhood” (2016). It is clear that lead and other contaminants like it greatly affect people but especially children whose bodies are still developing and are at risk when certain environmental toxins, like lead in water can attack them.
Old infrastructure (lead pipes that lead to homes are widespread throughout the city of Flint) are mainly to blame for the lead leaching into the water. Another factor that allowed the lead to enter into the water was the fact that the city failed to implement certain corrosion controls that would’ve stopped the lead (Bosman, Davey and Smith 2019). Both of these factors were human-caused and both should’ve been resolved by those same people that caused them, if not others who have the resources and abilities to fix them. The problem originated and was caused by not only outdated infrastructure, but also the failure of the city to do their job properly and effectively.
Over the years we’ve seen lead be taken out of things like paint and gasoline in order to minimize the human health risks associated with exposure to lead. One thing that has not been taken into much consideration is lead found in water. Understandably so, as for the most part, taking lead out of something like paint is relatively easy, while effectively getting lead out of a water source is a bit more tricky. It is much easier to blame older housing that may contain lead paint or dust on being the culprit, but it is much harder to recognize that the water supply might play a part in lead exposure, whether that be through old lead pipes or otherwise.
Lead was not the only problem with the water supply coming from the lake however, bacteria like E. Coli was also found in the water. To combat this, disinfectants were used in the water in order to control the amount of bacteria. Both the bacteria and disinfectants used in the water supply resulted in violations of the Safe Drinking Water Act (Hanna-Attisha, et al 2016). This is a major red flag since clean, safe drinking water is vital for the entire population.
To backtrack, this whole issue in Flint, Michigan began in 2014, but the city’s water source wasn’t switched away from the Flint River until late 2015, a whole year after it had begun. By this point, a large portion of the community of Flint had been affected clearly since most people use and drink water on a daily basis. Masten states that “community members contacted EPA with complaints pertaining to rashes within three weeks of the switch … complaints [also were] about the color of the water (red, yellow, orange, brown) and the smell (sewage, rotten fish)” (2016). It’s obvious that residents of Flint were aware that the water was not normal and that there was something wrong with it, and they even contacted the EPA because of it. To reiterate however, actual change was not implemented until late 2015.
Just because this issue happened a few years ago now, does not mean it is over and that the water is 100% safe to drink and that residents of Flint are happy however. Some city officials still advise residents to drink either bottled or filtered water meaning that the tap water is still not drinkable. Quite obviously residents are still unhappy about their water not being safe to drink straight from the tap, five whole years after the crisis originally started. Some residents are understandably fed up and want this issue resolved completely and efficiently.
It is important to look to the demographic characteristics of Flint in order to fully understand this issue and why it continued for as long as it did. These include the following: “62.6% people of color, 41.6% of individuals live below the poverty level, 54.5% of households with a child younger than 5years below the poverty level, 25.7% of adults older than 18 years have less than a high school education, and the median income in 2014 was less than half of the median income for the United States” (Benson, Butler and Scammell 2016). Flint is a predominantly minority group area with a large percentage of people of color as well as people who are less educated and not as well off as the average American. This is key to this issue because it plays a massive role in how the government and others responded and how quickly they did so. Minorities, the poor, and people who are less educated are so often brushed off and ignored by majority groups. Issues, like Flint, are deemed not as important as issues that may occur in more well-off places or cities that are predominantly white. The demographic characteristics of Flint are what mainly caused the water crisis to continue for as long as it did/still does. Residents may be driven to move away from Flint due to what has happened, but may not be able due to their economic situation.
One way that we can view the Flint, Michigan water crisis is through political ecology which focuses on the relationship between politics and the environment. Key elements of political ecology are power imbalances, conflict, and inequalities. All of these are extremely prevalent in the Flint water crisis. The government of Flint, city officials, and those in control of the water had power over all of the residents of the city, especially those who were less fortunate (like the poor and those who were less well educated) who may not have been able to voice how they felt about the issue. The demographics of Flint, the city being largely populated by people of color and a large percentage of people living below the poverty line, lead to inequalities that further lead to conflict when the water supply became dangerous to drink. Those who were not as well off may not have been able to access other sources of water (such as bottled water) when the crisis first began, so they may have been forced to continue using the contaminated water. Those in power could have done much more than they did when the lead was discovered in the water, but they did not and the conflict only grew. Residents fought against the city, but unfortunately the water source was not switched back until a whole year later, and there still continues to be issues with the water to this day.
Another way to look at this issue is through the theory of environmental racism/justice. The fact that Flint is populated mostly by people of color is mainly how the water crisis was so easily swept under the rug and ignored for so long. If the residents had not spoken up about the issue, it may have not gained as much attention as it did in the media and around the United States. If the population of Flint was predominantly white, I do not believe it would have gone on for as long as it did, especially if those white people were middle or upper class. The issue would have been remedied much more quickly and efficiently had the demographics been different than they were. This is why the Flint water crisis is an example of environmental racism because a minority group (the people of color in the city) were so greatly affected. It is also an example of environmental justice because the environmental harm (aka lead/contaminants in the water) were divided equally amongst the entire population, at least at first. Everyone initially were exposed to the contaminated water, though later those who were better off may not have been as exposed to it as those who were less well off due to their access to resources.
One other way to look at the Flint water crisis is through the lens of ethnoecology which focuses on people’s understandings of the environment around them. The people who originally installed the plumbing in Flint by using lead pipes greatly affected the environment and would later affect people much later down the line in 2014. This seemingly small interaction with the environment had drastic effects later down the line. When the crisis first began, residents immediately knew something was wrong with the water due to their existing relationship with the environment. They knew what the water usually smelled, tasted, and looked like, so they understood that something was amiss.
The Flint water crisis began in 2014 when the city made a quick decision to switch the water source to the river from Lake Huron. What was seemingly an easy fix, had devastating effects that were felt across the city. Lead as well as other contaminants ruined the water source, and greatly affected the city’s population, especially children who are more susceptible to consequences from these contaminants. The city’s demographics (predominantly people of color, also a large percentage of less educated and less well off people) as well as old infrastructure and the failure of city officials to act swiftly and efficiently are what caused and allowed the crisis to continue. Although the water source was switched back in 2015, there are still lingering effects, mainly a general distrust of the government and the city by residents. The water is still not 100% safe to drink straight from the tap, and residents are reasonably still upset about this. Water is important and vital for everyone and every living thing, but issues involving water are usually ignored compared to other environmental issues. Luckily this issue was able to gain quite a bit of attention thanks to the media as well as residents who spoke up about what they were going through.
Word count: 2057
The Flint, Michigan Water Crisis 