An Anatomy of Resistance in Lead-Contaminated Flint

Co-authors:   Erin Lane, University of Michigan; Dana Kornberg, University of Michigan

Purpose:   Paramount to the growth and well-being of a city is the provision of clean water.  This notion, codified by the United Nations as a “prerequisite for the realization of other human rights”, was challenged in Flint, Michigan, after a series of decisions were made to save the city money at the expense of residents' health.  This presentation addresses three questions relating to the Flint water crisis.  

Context / Methods:

1) What are the policy decisions that culminated in the Flint water crisis?  We answer this question by examining historical decisions and economic trends that led to the loss of population and resources, coupled with the concentration of poverty, in Flint.  We then demonstrate the discourse that led to the 2011 implementation of an unelected “emergency fiscal manager” who was appointed by the Governor with the broad-sweeping powers to eliminate and privatize city services, cancel union contracts, and sell off city assets. We note that this policy concentrated the responsibility for Flint’s decline within the city, despite macro political and economic trends that shaped the city’s decline.

2) Why did the city change its water source from the Detroit Water and Sewer Department to the highly corrosive Flint River?  We answer this question by examining political discourse at the time, as reported in the Flint Journal, combined with original documents from state and city officials.  We demonstrate that Flint officials, including the city’s unelected, Governor-appointed emergency manager, framed the decision as one that was inevitable because the water rates from Detroit were too high.

3)  Finally, we address the question: Why, given that residents expressed concern about the quality of their water as early as August 2014 did it take fourteen months of visible and vocal organizing to finally convince the city to return to Detroit for its water?  We trace the process whereby health and safety concerns were raised by residents and supporters, countered by government officials in order to defend their cost-savings rationale, and ultimately, how the protection of vulnerable children became a dominant logic.

Results and Implications:  We conclude that the dominant narrative of cost savings and fiscal crisis shifted to one that emphasized the need to protect vulnerable and innocent people (especially children). This happened because--unlike other cuts to public services that cause slower forms of harm such as slashing education budgets or diminishing pensions—the decisions that resulted in Flint residents becoming poisoned by lead and other toxins were a singular source of immediate harm.  Furthermore, the poisoned children whose images and stories were shared nationally and even globally, could not be blamed for their misfortune. It was this narrative, and the ability of groups of organized Flint residents and faith leaders to consistently bring it to a wider audience, that was effective in cultivating power from below.  Ultimately, the Flint case matters to the social work because it helps to explain why and how social change occurs; including what facilitates and obstructs local decision-making.