Then we examined how Michigan’s emergency manager law altered the existing legal arrangements, leading to decisions that ignored the community’s long‐term health. First, we mapped the legal authority and roles of federal, state, and local agencies responsible for safe drinking water and the public’s health-that is, the existing legal environment. Methods: We analyzed these legal arrangements to identify what legal authority state, local, and federal public health and environmental agencies could have used to avert or mitigate the crisis and recommend changes to relevant laws and their implementation. A major factor explaining why the crisis unfolded as it did is the complex array of laws regulating how governmental agencies maintain and monitor safe drinking water. Ostensibly designed to address Flint’s long‐standing financial crisis, the switch instead created a public health emergency. Laws responding to municipal fiscal distress must be consistent with expected norms of democracy and require consideration of public health in decision making.Ĭontext: The Flint, Michigan, water crisis resulted from a state‐appointed emergency financial manager’s cost‐driven decision to switch Flint’s water source to the Flint River. The Flint water crisis demonstrates the importance of democracy for protecting the public’s health.
Legal preparedness is essential to efficiently navigating complex legal frameworks to address public health threats.
Public health legal authority and intervention mechanisms are not self‐executing.Coordination across agencies is essential in dealing with multiple legal arrangements. A major factor explaining government actors’ failure to mitigate or avert the Flint, Michigan, water crisis is the sheer complexity of the laws regulating how governmental agencies maintain and monitor safe drinking water.
0 kommentar(er)
