One of the fundamental aspects of public health is promoting clean drinking water free from pollution. The United States relies heavily upon the government to regulate and oversee this responsibility. As a result, the government must maintain a clean water supply for the public. This duty, spread between the local, state, and federal governments, is delineated in legislation such as the Clean Water Act of 1972 and the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974. The Environment Protection Agency (EPA) is a federal agency that ensures compliance with federal regulations by conducting on-site visits and inspections. The Clean Water Act of 1972 regulates water pollution giving the EPA authority to set standards and implement programs to sustain a clean water supply. The Safe Drinking Water Act ensures safe drinking water supplied from above-ground or underground sources. The EPA requires water samples to be collected during on-site visits and then analyzed to ensure high standards set by the government to maintain a clean water supply. The EPA has set maximum containment levels for more than 90 contaminants. When results indicate a contaminant level that exceeds these standards, the EPA works with states and local governments to remove the contaminants. The EPA has also published a regulation designed to prevent lead and copper from entering the water supply to the water taps of consumers. A corrosion control plan is needed to bring states into compliance with the law to prevent the leaking of lead and copper from pipes into the water supply. In understanding the duty owed by the government in maintaining a clean water supply, the question becomes; what is the government’s culpability when there is a breach in duty that results in injury to the public?
Criminal negligence is the failure to perceive a substantial risk that will result from an aggravated deviation from the established standard of care, putting others at risk of injury or illness, or death. Recent events in Flint have arguably risen to such a deviation from the standard of care owed to the public in maintaining a clean water supply. Government officials in Flint began sourcing their water from the Flint River that proved to be contaminated; lead levels in the water supply exceeded the standards set for contamination, resulting in the lead poisoning of residents. The injury to the public could have been avoided if proper control methods were used before switching the water sources. Water samples collected by the City of Flint before switching the water supply show the pH levels of the water were more acidic than what is required to comply with federal law. An acidic water supply signals ineffective corrosion control methods. Thus, the breach in duty results from knowingly not utilizing a corrosion control plan compliant with federal law before sourcing from the Flint River. As such, culpability should be found if there is evidence of a reckless disregard for the federal law requiring a corrosion plan to prevent lead from seeping into pipes used to source drinking water to the public.
