[Paper name and/or number]
The water crisis in Flint, Michigan began in April 2014 and continues. The genesis of the problem was when Flint’s water source was altered from Lake Huron and the Detroit River to the water from Flint River, which was not controlled or treated for its corrosive properties. Shortly afterwards, numerous health problems were reported. The potable water supply from pipes was being corroded by the ‘new’ water source, causing them to leach lead. The leachate then found its way into household water supply. But lead leachate was not the only problem. Pathogens such as E.coli and Legionnaire’s Disease were also present in the newly-sourced water as well as a host of chemical by-products. Residents of Flint continue to face huge inconvenience, health issues and disruption to their lives resulting from the contaminated water supply. Many are filing lawsuits against Flint officials. Meanwhile, those city’s officials try to work out what to do amid a multitude of legal and political disagreements.
The officials of Flint had an ethical responsibility to provide clean drinking water to the city. Its residents pay for the water and have done so since before the water crisis began. The average monthly water bill faced by residents in an already economically-depressed city is $140 (Connor and Seville 2016). Whether or not it was ethical to continue to require the residents to to pay the water fees is an issue, given that the city’s residents have progressively been unable to use the water which is provided to them and have become gradually aware of the gravity of the situation. Ergo the residents are paying for a service that does not exist, or exists at a level that is entirely unreasonable and does not afford them the very basic service that they thought they should be entitled to. A compounding factor was the expense involved in switching water supply and that the payment for this had to come from somewhere – the residents. Further, the expense of fixing the problem also has to be sourced from somewhere.
Another ethical issue related to this matter is one of personal responsibility. The initial problem lay with the governing body led by Governor Rick Snyder as part of a fiscal cost-cutting decision that sought to cut the city’s bills overall by switching the water source. Mr Snyder was the one who held the final decision and who was responsible for all due diligence in relation to the matter in terms of fiscal savings for switching from one water source to another. Many of the legal and political ramifications that have ensued since the issues from 2014 rest with explanations from his office. Ethical responsibility is a social theory. It transcends everything else as it seeks to follow a moral path that is correct, understood and agreed by wider society. It can be described as a meta-ethical issue. Voices calling for Mr Snyder’s resignation and indeed his arrest are gaining momentum by the day. The question is: should he have acted in a more ethical way than he did? The ethic of environmental anthropocentrism could be argued in this context – i.e. that we only evaluate our environment in terms of the value it has to us (and more personally, to ‘me.’)
Should the people and children who have been damaged by the contaminated water be compensated? There are many Flint residents now seeking compensation for the suffering they have endured and for the unknown factors in relation to the damage the contamination has inflicted on their children in particular. Several reports identify quite significant issues with potential and ongoing health problems, in particular the exposure to lead which appears irreversible in terms of behavioral and neurological effects (Lurie, J 2016). The response to this by Flint officials is litigious, fraught and drawn-out. Residents simply want their plight to be recognized and dealt with. There are many very serious allegations of environmental racism being leveled at city officials.
The issue is extremely complex. The underlying problems are, in my opinion, borne out from the fact that no-one in authority wants to take responsibility or make a decision. Each person in office vehemently protects his/her position in local office and ensures that no blame can be assigned to them. In this way, the very core of ethical responsibility is undermined. Ethics per se have been a questionable element to the who issue of Flint’s water crisis. If true ethics were adhered to, the governor would have resigned and the staff he appointed to carry out the research and decisions would also have resigned. There would have been no issue in terms of upholding a basic set of ethical rules. Citizens in Flint have clearly expected a degree of honesty and integrity not displayed by the officials during this crisis. There are allegations that the poisoned water was known about much sooner than was made public. There is also a very valid accusation that the issue smacks of environmental racism – i.e. the majority of Flint residents are black and poor and so why would the story be of any interest to the wider world who cares little for this demographic?
In summary, the ethical responsibility displayed as part of the Flint water crisis has been very poor. There appears to have been limited responsibility, a shifting of blame and an inadequate response to a very dire situation faced by some of the State’s poorest citizens.
Works Cited
Connor, Tracy and Seville, Lisa Riordan. “Water Bills in Poisoned Flint an 'Outrage,' Attorney General Says.” NBC News. Jan.25, 2016. http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/flint-water-crisis/water-bills-poisoned-flint-outrage-attorney-general-says-n503851
Lurie, J. “Meet the Mom Who Helped Expose Flint’s Toxic Water Nightmare.” Mother Jones. Jan.21, 2016. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/01/mother-exposed-flint-lead-contamination-water-crisis
