The people of Flint, Michigan, have been experiencing contamination problems with their water supply for almost a year after the supply line was switched from Lake Huron to the Flint River as a cost-saving measure, according to an article by CNN.

The city switched back to the Lake Huron water supply in October 2015, according to CNN, but the damage had already been done to the lead pipes.

Protesters in Flint were upset their complaints weren’t being heard or taken seriously by the state government after the contaminated water severely affected the health of residents in the area, according to CNN.

The Daily Orange interviewed Sharon Moran, associate professor of environmental studies at the State University of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry; Sarah Pralle, associate professor of political science at the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs at Syracuse University and senior research assistant at the Campbell Public Affairs Institute; and Henry Lambright, professor of public administration, international affairs and political science at the Maxwell School.

The Daily Orange: How do you think the situation has been handled? 

Sharon Moran: There are lots of places in the system where the people in charge could’ve and should’ve acted differently because of their responsibilities as civil servants and scientists.

Sarah Pralle: I think up to this point it’s been handled poorly, and the reason it’s being handled at all is because of the national media attention … From what I’ve read, local and state officials who had receivership over Flint did a very poor job of trying to handle the complaints of local residents and didn’t take them seriously and could have intervened sooner, but by delaying, they have compounded the problem and the economic cost too.

Henry Lambright: Somewhere between a mess and a disgrace … the disgrace lies in the failure of the government doing what they’re supposed to do, which is to take care of the people.

The D.O.: Do you think Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder should resign?

S.P.: I do think it’s important to hold officials accountable because perhaps it would deter this kind of inaction or neglect in the future, so I’m not opposed to it. It would be sending a strong signal to other officials that we have to maintain infrastructure in order to provide citizens with basic goods and services, and clean water is certainly at the top of that list.

H.L.: Gaining back the trust of the people will be almost impossible until all of the key players are gone, especially the governor. The trust is broken, so you have to get entirely new players in the system who are not tied to the decisions from previous officials.

The D.O.: How does something like this happen when there are systems in place?

S.M.: There’s more than enough blame to go around. If the system was working the way it should, this wouldn’t have happened … it’s maddening and disappointing. It’s coming out that several professionals intentionally misled people. They minimized dangers — when their job was actually to communicate them, rationally and objectively.

Running a city’s water system is complex and a huge responsibility, and many of us don’t even think about what goes into getting our clean water. But the reality is that infrastructure is important, even if it’s not super exciting. Politicians are always involved in the opening of things, but keeping old and complicated things working is a thankless job.

The D.O.: What steps can be taken to try to mend the situation?

S.M.: From what I’ve read, there’s already minimal trust in local government in Flint, and maybe they can make changes to restore that — new elected officials, new positions, citizen review boards. People will need to be involved, to help ensure it’s done effectively. The future requires apology, explanation and remediation. People need to have transparency and immediate action. Good policies are essential. So is good implementation. People have to be able to see that both of those things are in place, and working correctly.

H.L.: I think there’s a larger question that needs to be addressed wholly aside from Flint, because the real question is: how many Flints are there? I think there’s the immediate Flint situation, and then there’s the larger problem of what Flint represents. Flint is a symptom of a national problem that needs a national solution. The federal government needs to work on these problems of infrastructure, even after the media and politicians move on.

The D.O.: What environmental effects will this have on Flint?

S.M.: The future will demand lots of monitoring to make sure the bad things we know about aren’t happening. And to check and make sure that new-and-different bad things aren’t developing. There could be weird secondary effects within the system too — like in D.C. some years ago, even after lead pipe removal, they noticed levels hadn’t dropped and discovered that other household pipes (made of galvanized steel) can take up lead from the water. The consequences of short-sighted and deceitful actions will be felt by many people for a long time.

The D.O.: Hillary Clinton brought up the fact that this might’ve been handled differently, had the city been of different demographics. What is your opinion on this thought?

S.P.: That’s a fair critique. Clearly if this had taken place in a white and more affluent neighborhood, then complaints would’ve been heard a lot sooner and actions would’ve been taken. We tend to neglect the most vulnerable populations because of their lack of political power.

H.L.: I think that’s definitely true. You had a city that no one was paying attention to, a Democrat city in a state with a Republican government. It was also black and poor and it was not part of their constituency, so you had a gap between the city and the state government. Had the complaints come from a mostly white city, I think it may have been handled a lot better and sooner.

Published on January 25, 2016 at 11:38 pm

Contact Caroline: cbarthol@syr.edu