March, 28 2017, 01:30pm EDT
NRDC: Flint's Lead Pipes Will Be Replaced Under Settlement in Federal Safe Drinking Water Case
Citizen suit brings funding and timeline for pipe replacement, more water quality testing, transparency, and other resources to help Flint
DETROIT
Residents of Flint, Michigan will finally get their lead pipes replaced as the result of a settlement agreement approved by a federal judge today. The settlement will require the State of Michigan and City of Flint to replace Flint's lead pipes within three years, and will be enforceable by the court. The lawsuit was filed in response to the Flint water crisis, the result of failed government decisions that caused lead to leach out from aging pipes into thousands of homes in Flint.
"This hard-fought victory means safer water for Flint. For the first time, there will be an enforceable commitment to get the lead pipes out of the ground. The people of Flint are owed at least this much," said Dimple Chaudhary, a senior attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), and lead counsel in the case Concerned Pastors for Social Action v. Khouri.
The agreement requires the State of Michigan to provide nearly $100 million to the City for replacement of Flint's lead service lines. The agreement also requires the State to maintain a door-to-door water filter installation and education program, to extensively monitor Flint's tap water for lead, and to continue to make bottled water available to Flint residents.
"Concerned Pastors brought this lawsuit to heal the damage to the community from both the lead in our water and government indifference, and to take a stand for what is right for the people of Flint. The water issue must be resolved before we can make Flint thrive again, and I believe this resolution offers a path to a healthier, less traumatic future for everyone in Flint," said Pastor Allen Overton, of the Concerned Pastors for Social Action. "I remain hopeful that we have time to restore Flint to a place where dreams are made and hope stays alive," said Overton.
Melissa Mays, a plaintiff in the case and one of the parents who confirmed Flint's water was contaminated with lead through independent testing, said "This is a win for the people of Flint. When the government fails to uphold democracy, and protect our rights to clean water, we have to stand up and fight. The greatest lesson I've learned from Flint's water crisis is that change only happens when you get up and make your voice heard."
"We are thrilled that, after nearly three years of grappling with lead-poisoned water, the residents of Flint can finally look forward to a long-term solution to a catastrophe that has devastated the community," said Michael J. Steinberg, Legal Director of the ACLU of Michigan. "The Flint Water Crisis has its roots in the state's toxic emergency manager law and is a tragic example of what happens when state government displaces democracy to save a few bucks. This ground-breaking settlement marks a huge step toward restoring a long-neglected community to some semblance of normalcy."
The terms of the agreement require:
The State to provide $97 million to the City of Flint for replacement of lead and galvanized steel pipes at no cost to Flint residents; $47 million will come directly from Michigan state funding sources; and $50 million will come from federal and state funding directed to Flint by Congress;
The City to conduct the pipe replacements within three years;
The State to expand and maintain its program for filter installation and education, including by conducting door-to-door visits to residents' homes through December 2018;
The State to fund a pair of extensive tap water monitoring programs, beyond what is legally required under federal law, to test hundreds of homes in Flint. All testing data will be made available to the public, including at https://www.NRDC.org/Flint;
The State to guarantee bottled water availability at distribution centers until at least September 1, 2017 and delivery through the 2-1-1 helpline to homebound residents until at least July 1, 2017;
The State to guarantee funding for seven existing health and medical programs designed to mitigate the effects of lead exposure for Flint residents.
The Court will retain authority to enforce the agreement and to ensure that the State and City meet their deadlines and fulfil their obligations.
Plaintiffs in the case Concerned Pastors for Social Action v. Khouri are Concerned Pastors for Social Action, Flint resident Melissa Mays, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and the ACLU of Michigan. The plaintiffs will monitor implementation of the agreement and make available information related to the status of lead pipe removal and water quality reports at https://www.nrdc.org/Flint.
The Flint water crisis began when dangerous amounts of lead leached out of the city's pipes and into the drinking water of Flint's homes and schools following a decision by Flint and Michigan officials to use the Flint River as the City's primary drinking water source without first treating the water to prevent corrosion. There is no safe level of lead exposure. The toxic effects of lead on virtually every system in the body, and particularly on the developing brains of young children, are well documented and irreversible.
The summary of the settlement is available at: https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/flint-lead-pipe-replacement-agreement-summary.pdf
Visit www.nrdc.org/Flint for information related to the status of lead pipe removal and water quality reports.
Case Timeline:
On November 16, 2015, the Plaintiffs and other community groups filed a Notice of Intent to sue state and city officials for ongoing violations of the federal Safe Drinking Water Act amid the city's widespread lead-contamination crisis.
On January 25, 2016, the Plaintiffs filed a complaint that sought to compel the City and state officials to follow federal requirements for testing and treating water to control for lead and the prompt replacement of all lead water pipes at no cost to Flint residents. More at: https://www.nrdc.org/media/2016/160127
On, March 24, 2016, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary injunction, asking the court to direct the delivery of bottled water to people's homes, as many Flint residents cannot obtain water for their daily needs due to transportation or other access issues.
On November 10, 2016, a federal judge issued a preliminary injunction and ordered Michigan officials and the City of Flint to immediately ensure that every Flint household has safe drinking water. That means the City and State were required to verify that each home has a properly installed and maintained faucet filter or, if they could not, deliver bottled water to that home. More at: https://www.nrdc.org/media/2016/161110
On December 2, 2016, federal Judge David Lawson denied the State motion to stay the preliminary injunction order. On December 16, 2016, a Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals paneled similarly denied the State's motion to stay the order.
On December 28, 2016, the District Court appointed a settlement master for the purpose of mediating settlement discussions between Plaintiffs, the State, and the City.
March 28, 2017, Judge Lawson will consider approving a settlement agreement to resolve the case.
MEDIA ALERT:
The following are press opportunities related to the settlement this week:
Tuesday Telebriefing:
Attorneys and plaintiffs in the case will be available during a telebriefing for national media on Tuesday, March 28 at 3:30 eastern. To join the call, dial 1 (866) 939-3921 and use the confirmation number 44649152.
Thursday Community Meeting:
Plaintiffs will host a community meeting to discuss the latest developments in the case on Thursday, March 30, at 6 pm eastern. The Town Hall will be held at the Rev. LW and Ella Owens Educational Center at the New Jerusalem Full Gospel Baptist Church, 1035 E. Carpenter Road in Flint.
NRDC works to safeguard the earth--its people, its plants and animals, and the natural systems on which all life depends. We combine the power of more than three million members and online activists with the expertise of some 700 scientists, lawyers, and policy advocates across the globe to ensure the rights of all people to the air, the water, and the wild.
(212) 727-2700LATEST NEWS
To Push for Bold Treaty, Greenpeace Unveils Biden's Plastic Legacy Monument
"He can be the president who put an end to the plastic pollution crisis, or he can be the one who let it spiral out of control."
Mar 28, 2024
Inspired by Atlas, who in Greek mythology carried the heavens on his shoulders, Greenpeace installed a 15-foot monument outside the U.S. Capitol on Thursday to pressure the Biden administration to support an ambitious global plastics treaty.
President Joe Biden "has the chance to cement a lasting legacy: He can be the president who put an end to the plastic pollution crisis, or he can be the one who let it spiral out of control," Greenpeace oceans director John Hocevar said in a statement. "We're calling on him to stand up to plastic polluters like Exxon and Dow and put us on a greener and healthier path."
The third round of treaty talks ended in Kenya late last year with little progress—largely thanks to fossil fuel and chemical lobbyists along with allied governments. The next round of negotiations is set to be held in Canada next month.
The "Biden's Plastic Legacy" monument features the president kneeling and holding up an Earth full of plastic. The base has a written message: "Biden, the world's in your hands. Is this your plastic legacy?"
"Plastic pollution is everywhere, impacting every aspect of our lives. It affects our health, harms our communities, and fuels the climate crisis."
The statue's unveiling ceremony included remarks from Dr. Leo Trasande, a world-renowned environmental health researcher at New York University, and Jo Banner, who lives in Louisiana's Cancer Alley and co-directs the Descendants Project, an environmental justice group.
"The communities of color that live among the plastic manufacturers are first in line for the toxic mix of pollution they produce," said Banner. "Our health, bodies, and communities matter. We refuse to be treated as a mere checkmark on a list of concerns, and we cannot continue to be sacrificial zones."
"We need President Biden to truly listen to our needs and help create a strong global plastics treaty that protects communities like ours," she added. "We must ensure that Cancer Alley is confined to the past, not a part of the future we gift our children."
Trasande noted that in addition to the public health argument for cleaning up the plastic industry, there's an economic one.
"The chemicals found in plastics cost our economy hundreds of billions of dollars because of increases in disease and disability," the doctor said. "The easiest way to stop these diseases is to address plastic production, and a strong global treaty is essential, for people here in the U.S. and around the world."
Research has repeatedly shown the pervasiveness of plastic pollution. A January study found that there are 240,000 plastic particles in the average liter of bottled water. Last September, researchers discovered microplastics in clouds, potentially "contaminating nearly everything we eat and drink via 'plastic rainfall.'"
A 2022 Greenpeace report revealed that U.S. households "generated an estimated 51 million tons of plastic waste" the previous year, and the vast majority ended up in landfills or as pollution.
"Plastic pollution is everywhere, impacting every aspect of our lives. It affects our health, harms our communities, and fuels the climate crisis," Greenpeace campaigner Kate Melges said Thursday.
"The global plastics treaty is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to create a cleaner, safer planet," Melges argued. "President Biden must rise to this moment by supporting a strong plastics treaty that prioritizes human health, cuts production, and ensures a just transition for workers and communities."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Justice Is Delayed' as Judges OK Rigged South Carolina Map for Elections
"I'm disappointed it appears 30,000 people lost their political voice and nobody seems to care," said one Democratic congressional candidate from the affected district.
Mar 28, 2024
Voting rights defenders on Thursday decried a federal panel's
decision to let South Carolina use a congressional map the three judges found to be racially gerrymandered in this year's primary and general elections due to the U.S. Supreme Court's delayed resolution of the case.
The three-judge panel of the U.S. District Court for South Carolina in Columbia ruled last August that "race was the predominant motivating factor" in the Republican-controlled state Legislature's design of the 1st Congressional District "and that traditional districting principles subordinated to race."
Their ruling, which ordered the redrawing of the map, noted that "Charleston County was racially gerrymandered and over 30,000 African Americans were removed from their home district."
"Make no mistake—these discriminatory maps are a direct attempt to suppress Black voices ahead of a consequential election."
In their new decision, the judges acknowledged the awkward predicament of ordering the use of an unconstitutional map.
"But with the primary election procedures rapidly approaching, the appeal before the Supreme Court still pending, and no remedial plan in place, the ideal must bend to the practical," they asserted.
Brenda Murphy, president of the South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, said: "Make no mistake—these discriminatory maps are a direct attempt to suppress Black voices ahead of a consequential election. We will not stand idly by as the rights of thousands of South Carolinians continue to be overlooked."
"The court's ruling today, further delaying these proceedings, continues to tip the scale of justice during a crucial moment in our democracy in an undemocratic attempt to sway the outcome of the upcoming election," Murphy added. "We must strive for a system where every voice is heard and every vote counts, free from the stain of discrimination."
Last October, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case, which was filed in 2021 by the South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP and voter Taiwan Scott. They are represented by the ACLU, NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, the ACLU of South Carolina, Boroughs Bryant LLC, Arnold & Porter, and the General Counsel's Office of the NAACP.
As Democracy Docket noted Thursday: "The parties asked the Supreme Court for a decision by January 1, 2024. Nearly three months later, the court still hasn't ruled on the case, creating a dire situation for congressional candidates as the candidate filing period started on March 16 and will end on Monday."
Joshua Douglas, a professor at the University of Kentucky Rosenberg College of Law, said on social media that "someone should write an article about the number of times jurisdictions have been allowed to use an illegal map because there's 'not enough time' to create a fair, legal one."
Douglas noted states where this has occurred, including Alabama, Louisiana, Ohio, North Carolina, "and now South Carolina."
South Carolina primary voters will head to the polls on June 11.
The 1st Congressional District is represented by Congresswoman Nancy Mace, a Republican. On Thursday, she toldThe Post and Courier that the judges' ruling "makes sense."
"It's only fair candidates know what the lines are," Mace said. "For us, I just want to know what constituents I'm serving."
Michael B. Moore, a Democrat running for the seat, called the decision "regrettable."
"I'm disappointed it appears 30,000 people lost their political voice," he said, "and nobody seems to care."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Weak Biden Endangered Species Rules a 'Massive Missed Opportunity'
"Imperiled plants and animals do not have the time for half-measures, since extinction is forever," one expert warned.
Mar 28, 2024
While welcoming efforts by President Joe Biden's administration to undo Trump-era damage to endangered species protections, conservationists warned Thursday that three new federal rules are inadequate, given the world's worsening biodiversity crisis.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries, which proposed the rules last June, said that they will "restore important protections for species and their habitats; strengthen the processes for listing species, designating of critical habitat, and consultation with other federal agencies; and ensure a science-based approach that will improve both agencies' ability to fulfill their responsibilities under the Endangered Species Act (ESA)."
The Center for Biological Diversity—which had blasted the Trump administration for taking a "wrecking ball" to the decades-old law—praised the agencies for removing barriers to designating unoccupied areas as critical habitat as well as for restoring the "blanket rule" for threatened species and the ban on considering economic impacts of listing decisions.
However, the center also pointed out that "of the 31 harmful changes made in 2019 to the act's regulations, only seven are fully addressed and corrected in today's final rules," despite years of work on the new rules and nearly half a million public comments.
"We're mostly still stuck with the disastrous anti-wildlife changes made by the previous administration."
"This was a massive missed opportunity to address the worsening extinction crisis," said Stephanie Kurose, a senior policy specialist at the center. "We needed bold solutions to guide conservation as the climate crisis drives more and more animals and plants to extinction. Instead we're mostly still stuck with the disastrous anti-wildlife changes made by the previous administration."
Jamie Rappaport Clark, president and CEO of Defenders of Wildlife, similarly said that "while the regulations restore some essential wildlife protections, we were hopeful for far more than the marginal win the Biden administration delivered today."
"Our nation's threatened and endangered species are under constant attack and the Endangered Species Act is the only thing standing between them and extinction," she stressed. "We appreciate the administration's work on this matter, but at the end of the day much work remains to be done to ensure the Endangered Species Act can fulfill its critical lifesaving mission."
Experts at the environmental law organization Earthjustice also expressed disappointment that—as Drew Caputo, vice president of litigation for lands, wildlife, and oceans put it—the Biden administration didn't fully seize "the opportunity to fully reverse the damage inflicted upon the Endangered Species Act and the imperiled species it protects."
Writing about former Republican President Donald Trump's gutting of the ESA—which Biden helped pass shortly after joining the U.S. Senate in 1973—Earthjustice president Abigail Dillen explained at The Progressive on Wednesday:
The dismantling of the ESA could not have come at a worse time. Scientists around the world are telling us that we are on track to lose a million or more species in this century. We have already witnessed a staggering drop of more than two-thirds of all plant and animal life on Earth since 1970. In the United States, nearly half of our ecosystems are now at risk of collapse. It is a staggering pace of loss that climate change is only accelerating.
It would have been far worse without the ESA. The law has saved 99% of listed species from extinction, including the bald eagle, Florida manatee, and the gray wolf, one of my first "clients" when I began my career as an environmental lawyer more than two decades ago.
Earthjustice attorney Kristen Boyles declared Thursday that "we are in the midst of an extinction crisis; it is time for bold action."
"Imperiled plants and animals do not have the time for half-measures," she noted, "since extinction is forever."
The new rules—expected to provoke lawsuits from farmers, ranchers, and right-wing groups—come as Biden and Trump prepare for a rematch in November.
"One of the lingering legacies of Donald Trump is his attempt to undermine the Endangered Species Act, one of the most successful and popular conservation laws in the history of the United States," Sierra Club executive director Ben Jealous said Thursday. "At this moment, we should be listening to scientists and acting urgently to save biodiversity, not letting Donald Trump's gutting of environmental safeguards and sellouts to Big Business stand."
"President Biden has made generational investments in climate action with the Inflation Reduction Act and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, but we need him to do more to protect imperiled wildlife," he added. "The Biden administration needs to protect more habitat, not less. We need the administration to increase protections for biodiversity, not abandon them. The president has the power, and we need him to use it."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular