The city of Flint, Michigan has brought to the center of attention in recent months although the crisis has been ongoing. Neurotoxins have been found in resident’s water which alone raises concerns, but it has been entangled in a web of politics.
Flint resident’s yearly water bill came out to a total of $844.32 which is about $500 more than the average U.S. household. Over 40 percent of residents in Flint live below the poverty line were granted relief from this burden and the city had to cut the rate by a third because of an illegal 2011 rate hike.
In 2014, the water source was changed from Detroit to the Flint River which was cost-cutting, but it caused corroded pipes that lead to lead poisoning causing a Legionnaire’s disease outbreak which killed nine people and sickened 78 people, and many children have been suffering from a slew of medical issues as well.
Officials at the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality made decisions that caused many of the issues being faced today. They did not make it a requirement for the Flint water plant to use optimized corrosion control, even though they had told the EPA that they did. They also took samples which used a protocol that missed important sources of lead. It is said this protocol does not comply with a 25-year-old law that prevents lead exposure. Two samples were thrown out and had they’ve been included would have caused the DEQ to warn residents about the lead in the water earlier than the summer of 2015.
But when we discuss the tragedy of Flint, Michigan, we need to look at the bigger picture- the class divide and the neglect of the poor. The city is majority black at 56 percent, but the population is still 37 percent white. Unlike most cities across the country, Flint’s low-income population doesn’t suffer from a significant racial gap. Although there are significantly more black residents (which speaks volumes to those who are overwhelmingly affected by poverty), this particular issue is very reflective on the class issues in America. Yet it is almost impossible to understand the issues of Flint and not see it as a product of environmental racism.
Environmental racism is the placement of people of color and low-income communities in environments that are subject to toxic waste, pollution, and urban decay. Being that Flint Michigan is made up of 56 percent black people and 41 percent of people living in poverty, the levels of lead levels seem to be no coincidence. The reason for the change of water was to help save Flint from financial collapse in 2014. The emergency manager appointed in the times of the financial crisis, who supported the switch, was black. This still is not dismissive of this being a case of environmental racism. Darnell Earley’s place of power grants him a class privilege that those in poverty have no benefit from. Which is exactly why class plays a major factor alongside race in the decisions governments make regarding developments and environmental decisions. In the case of Flint, the financial burden of the entire city was put on the health of its residents rather than being responsibly handled and perhaps taken to federal level sooner.
It is not a mere accident that what happened in Flint happened where there was an overwhelmingly black and low-income population. Our conversations on environmentalism are along the lives of saving the planet, saving the rainforests, switching to renewable energy, but constantly ignore the environmental issues that are solely felt by people of color due to their socioeconomic status. The EPA even came out acknowledging that “black children twice as likely to be hospitalized for asthma and four times as likely to die from asthma as white children.”
Environmental justice is an issue that is especially important and immediate for communities of color. When talks about global climate change arise, they seem to diminish the issues of environmental racism, although it is still prominent and dangerous but neglected because race and class privilege prevails more times than not.