Can we build systems in which public benefit can go hand-in-hand with personal rights and freedoms? Can we live in a just and equitable society that nurtures just some, or everyone?
As a nation, we know that our freedom to thrive – having access to health care, housing, a healthy environment, and sanctuary from trauma, violence and addictions – depends on having a consistent set of vital conditions for all people and places.
The COVID-19 pandemic is a prime example of public versus private rights. Other examples include early work around infant car seats; legislation ensuring housing equity; environmental regulations on business; and cleanup of toxic waste and water sites. Motorcycle helmets remain an issue; in states without helmet laws, tax dollars pay for years of skilled nursing care for riders in vegetative states.
Our legal system has an important role in ensuring these vital conditions for all. Legislation is the first step, but when people’s right to thrive is violated, we have the courts to turn to.
One of the most important case studies is that of Flint, Michigan.
The majority of Flint’s 100,000 residents are African-American; 45% of them live below the poverty line. Still, these are the people who gathered multiple partners, including the courts, to force government officials to clean up the city’s toxic, lead-laden drinking water.
How did things get so bad? For more than 100 years, the Flint River served as an unofficial waste disposal site for treated and untreated refuse from the local industries along its shores. The waterway also received raw sewage from the city’s treatment plant, agricultural and urban runoff, and toxins from leaching landfills.
Then in 2013, the city stopped piping in treated water from Detroit. They opted to temporarily pump untreated water from the Flint River. Lead from ancient pipes leached out into thousands of homes.
Lead exposure is linked to serious health issues, and can impair the brain development of fetuses, infants and young children. The damage can reverberate for a lifetime.
Residents showed jugs of their contaminated drinking water to officials, and even though the water showed high levels of lead, the city, state and even the Environmental Protection Agency would not address the danger, citing budget issues.
Ultimately, the people of Flint garnered a major settlement that required the city to replace thousands of lead pipes, guarantee further funding for water testing, and continue health programs to help residents deal with the residual effects of Flint’s tainted water.
In addition, a 2016 independent legal review resulted in 15 people — including city officials, the state’s chief medical executive, and the director of Health and Human Services — facing criminal charges for causing or contributing to the crisis.
There is evidence that the water is improving, with lead levels remaining below the federal action level. But the work of Flint residents and their advocates isn’t finished yet. Ensuring that the provisions of the 2017 settlement are met is an ongoing task. Still, members of the lawsuit have already returned to court to see that the city meets those provisions, properly manages its lead service line replacement program, and provides filters for faucets.
The legal system can be an invaluable resource to protect public health.
Dora Barilla has a doctorate in public health. She is president and co-founder of HC² Strategies, Healthy Connected Communities in Rancho Cucamonga. Reach her at dorabarilla@hc2strategies.com or 909-758-1326.
