 Again, for those just hopping on, my name is Cynthia Gordy-Gewa, Marketing Director at ProPublica, and your host for tonight. Thank you for joining us. This conversation grew out of a recent article by ProPublica reporter Anna Clark called The Unfinished Business of Flint's Water Crisis. In the piece, Anna says that criminal charges against public officials and appending class action settlement may seem like the last chapter in Flint's story, but many of the most important reforms at the root of the city's water crisis remain undone. So we'll talk about this and much more with a terrific group of experts you see on your screen who I'll introduce now. The first we have Anna Clark, a ProPublica reporter based in Detroit, Michigan, hovering issues in the Midwest. She is the author of The Poison City, Flint's Water and the American Urban Tragedy, which won the Hillman Prize for Book Journalism and the Rachel Carson Environment Book Award. We have Jaquanda Johnson, a veteran journalist and founder of Brown Impact Media Group, a publishing company that develops media products in underserved and marginalized communities. She is the founder and publisher of Flintbeat, a new site covering Flint City Hall, neighborhoods and public health issues. E. Yvonne Lewis is the founding director at the National Center for African American Health Consciousness. As a community health advocate and consultant, she translates complex information in order to answer community questions and meet community needs. And Benjamin Pauley is an assistant professor of social science at Kettering University. He's the board president of the Environmental Transformation Movement of Flint, a member of the US EPA's National Environmental Justice Advisory Council and the author of Flint Bites Bath, Environmental Justice and Democracy in the Flint Water Crisis. And finally, we have our moderator, Tilia Buford. Tilia is the talent development director for ProPublica, where she oversees staff development and recruitment efforts. And before that, she was an environmental reporter. You're at ProPublica, Politico, and for other outlets covering disparities and environmental impacts. In addition, Tilia was born and raised in Flint, Michigan. So our panel will also answer some of your questions tonight. If you'd like to submit a question at any point during the webinar, click the Q&A icon at the bottom of your screen. And now I'll throw it over to our moderator, Tilia Buford. Tilia. Great. Thank you so much, Cynthia. First, thank you to everyone who is joining us and watching us from wherever you are in the country or in the world, possibly. We're glad that you're a part of this conversation and I want to say thank you to the panelists. I'm really excited to get into conversation with you. So let's hop right into it. Yeah, I'm going to assume that most of the people tuning in here know at least generally of the Flint water crisis, which started in 2014 when the city switched a source of water from Lake Huron to Flint to Flint River, and eventually switched back, right? So, but even within Michigan, there are a lot of confused narratives about what's been happening since the crisis rose to national infamy. First off, can you give us the lay of the land and help orient where we are today? You're muted. Yep. Hello. Of course, I'd be very glad to. So, as you suggested, so the Flint water crisis happened, you know, here in the Great Lakes state and there's a whole lot of reasons why it was a purely man made disaster and that goes both in for the realm of the reasons why the city was vulnerable in the first place as well as a series of decisions that happened during the time of this ill fated water switch. So this switch happened in 2014 under, while the city was under a series of emergency managers, the idea was that they were going to treat the Flint water at the rebooted old water plant using water from the local river, but the problem is this old water plant did not get the staffing or the resources it needed to treat the water properly in some ways as that violated the law. So this led to highly corrosive water being sent through the pipes, breaking down those pipes, a problem that gets worse the longer it's ignored. And it also led to toxic lead being getting into the water as well as E. Coli bacteria and other contaminants. There was also a two year outbreak of Legionnaires disease connected to the water which is actually what killed people and is what's related to most of the most recent criminal charges. It took 18 months of pretty extraordinary community organizing and citizen science before the city returned to Detroit's water but the crisis didn't end there not least because the pipes, the citywide infrastructure was corroded. There's also been this long tail of a search for accountability for the choices that caused and prolonged this that's kind of an open question right now in this second wave of criminal charges that we've recently seen. We're at the brink of a probable class action settlement being finalized soon. I understand you, some of our panelists folks in Flint have just gotten some papers today about registering for that. There they are. So it seems in a lot of ways we're at this last chapter of the water crisis but the there are systematic reforms that caused and prolonged this crisis that have not yet been addressed. And of course a lot of people have questions doubts concerns about about the charges about the terms of the settlement that they're wrestling with right now. Thank you so much for that. I took one I'm going to turn to you now so as Anna just mentioned you know we had the first round of charges that were announced back in 2017. I remember there being sort of you know widespread outrage that Governor Snyder had not been among those charge during that period. He's a part of this indictment you know that we've recently heard about, albeit it's a misdemeanor that carries like a maximum, you know one year sentence and you know so that's that's a whole other story, but as a journalist, specifically someone who is covering this community and in touch with you know the this community and kind of the pulse of it. Can you talk a little bit about the public perception of the recent indictments and whether community members see this as a step toward justice. I think that a lot of us are were even surprised that standard was charged right. We really thought that it would it would never happen. And it happened, but there's still no real sense of justice there, you know, we're still going through the court process he's been charged, but there's still nothing right. No one has been sentenced to anything. No one has come out of pocket for anything the community is still suffering and they're living through that every day, no matter what's happening in the court systems. And so we still have people who are, they don't trust their water. Right. They're paying some highest water bills in the nation. I think our average Flint residents can pay $140 per month in water and fees alone in an economically depressed community. Right. So, there, there's still no from what I'm getting from community community members. There's still no real sense of justice here. And the settlement itself, everything, there's too many questions. There's not a specific dollar figure. Like if you do go for this, what do you get? We really don't have the answers, even as journalists is it more doors we open and more confusing it becomes as we're trying to explain this thing to residents. Right. And so there's definitely a lot of questions and a lot of distrust, and we're still trying to figure it out in no sense of, yeah, I feel like I was made whole, like that's not happening at all. Um, then I want you to pick up on the settlement and the, and the, that whole issue. Obviously, in addition to the settlement, there is this class action lawsuit. Can you tell us what's happening, what that, let's say that settlement rather would do for impacted residents and as Chiquanda is mentioning, you know, kind of your assessment of whether or not these remedies are actually meaningful in any real way. Sure. First, maybe a little history is in order in 2017, the large number of civil lawsuits spawned by the crisis were consolidated into one massive class action suit. And in August of last year, it was announced that some of the defendants in that suit, most notably the state of Michigan were prepared to settle with the state putting up the lion's share of the money $600 million. The city of Flint later decided to settle as well kicking in 20 million. So the pot stands at about 641 million right now total. Other defendants including the engineering firms viola and land as well as the EPA are opting to fight rather than settle so depending on how things go with them. There might be more money coming but for now 641 million is what's on the table, which might sound like a lot but there are some important caveats. One thing a significant percentage will be carved off for attorneys fees of course, and also whether any particular resident gets a piece and how big of a piece they get is dependent on several criteria which some say are not fair or reasonable. So first of all children are going to get more than adults and that's probably as it should be but for many maybe most adults it's going to be pretty hard to get much of anything. As a donor, you might get $1000 if you're lucky for property damage, but beyond that, you're going to have to prove that your health was detrimentally impacted by the water and that means you need documentation. And there are a whole lot of people who don't have doctors notes linking specific ailments to the water. So many adult residents are going to end up with what will seem like an insultingly small compensation for the expense hardship and harm that they've endured. For kids, the settlement proposal is notable in that it considers exposure to the water alone to be grounds for at least some compensation. And it also provides a little more money if the child lived in a home with a lead service line. If you want more than that though again you need documentation of health harm that means a blood lead test or a bone lead scan or a psychological assessment demonstrating a developmental delay. If you're like me you didn't manage to get your child's blood tested in time for it to matter, and you haven't been able to get a bone lead scan because until recently these haven't been available to the vast majority of residents. And so now there's a big long line. The psychological assessments have also been hard to get so aside from the people who are who are going to fall through the cracks because they simply can't document harm for whatever reason. Even those who have a chance of doing so using these methods probably aren't going to have the data prior to the opt in deadline at the end of next month. So it's hard to make an informed decision about whether whether this settlement is likely to put the kind of money in your pocket. You think you deserve. So, you know the most practical thing might end up being to take what's on the table. I mean even to get this settlement proposal took years worth of legal battles and negotiation and opting out of it means an uphill fight, but the people are understandably reluctant to settle for less than what they think is just. And at the very least a lot of folks are feeling trapped between a rock and a hard place, and also kind of disrespected all over again to some extent because even though the settlement proposal has some good qualities. I think it seems to a lot of residents like the institutions that harmed them are still trying to wriggle out of taking full responsibility. Thank you for that. Yvonne, I want to have you, I saw you nodding. I want to hear what you're thinking about. I mean, especially since, you know, as a health advocate and a community member, you know, you have been, you know, able to see, I mean, as all of you have right, so much of this up close right you know, we saw a lot of the, you know, the crisis like you know the distribution lines and the pallets of water but you know you guys had to live it so I guess as from your perch can you tell us a little bit about what you think about this settlement and and whether it addresses the actual, you know, financial mental or emotional needs of the people of Flint. Yes, Talia, thank you so much and I'd like to first say yes I'm naughty, because it is the lived experience and sometimes we're asked that question. Now that it isn't so popular and we're not in the national media every day, you'll get the question is it over yet, and absolutely, it's not over yet. We still have people in long lines, every week, couple times a week, getting food and water from help centers that were set up during the water crisis to make sure that they can get the resources that they need so no. It's not over yet when we think about the fact that you know we're still having bottled water you know I have water in my cabinet right now, because I'm not comfortable with the water in the tab, because it's more than just did they switch the water flag, but the infrastructure still has a lot of things that need to be repaired. And that's question blue flag outside of my house right now that reminds me every day that it's not over yet. And so then, when you think about having to cook and brush your teeth every day you constantly reminded that this is not over. And so when you talk about the water settlement. I agree with the other panelists know it isn't sufficient will once say something is better than nothing I think that's the point been is making. However, people have died. Children are ill. And at trauma that you cannot walk away from. So is it over. Absolutely not and I think I said this and thank you and for an interview just a few weeks ago. And I said it and I will continue to say it. Every single physical emotional issue that arises will take you back to 2014 to the water switch. Is this the result of something that happened during that time, because even when we were told to boil the water, not knowing that there were contaminants and lead in the water that you cannot boil away a heavy metal. So you've concentrated now the metals that you put in your body but it isn't alone that alone either. So the other contaminants, there's still questions out there. So it's the what if what's going to happen next in the back of my mind and in the back of the minds of other members in this community. What is the impact of that exposure. We have no idea. Will a settlement remedy that I don't think so. Especially a certain indictments that have no teeth. Surely nobody wants to act just as you know we're not hoping and wishing somebody goes to jail in some cases, but there is this sense of justice that is missing in these conversations. So is it over. Absolutely not. It's an ongoing story that I think it's important for us to continue to share, because our lives every day are impacted by what happened. Thank you for that. Um, this is a random question but for I guess our panelists who live in Flint do you do you guys drink the water out of the tap. No, that's why I say you got water on your counter and you got water in your bathtub anything you have to eat or ingest or any way. Now there are people I will say there are people who have become comfortable to the extent that they will use a water filter because we have had that conversation and use the water filter. To the extent that people are comfortable using a water filter but I do think this has created an ongoing question that even when you go to another city. For some of us, you flush the flush the faucet before you use it, and you would opt for a bottle of water than opting to drink out of the faucet. It's it's it's it's dependent upon where a person is in their comfort levels are, but I think you'll find that many people are still greatly concerned about what's happening with the Flint water to quantity or muted. I remember interviewing a young lady who she had Legionnaires she was one of the people who contracted Legionnaires but didn't know it. And she had moved in North Carolina and she said she was still scared to drink water out of the tap. So she still drank bottle water. I know people who have filters, who had pipes replaced and they're still using bottled water, some of them are using bottled water to cook. Still brush your teeth. They just don't trust the water and I completely understand that no matter what the government says, they were poisoned by the government right. And that's a level of distrust there, that it'll take years and years, you know, to forget or tuck this away like the trauma itself years before people trust water here in Flint. I'll just say really quickly, although I do personally drink the filtered water, you know, I've had to make choices about whether to give that to my kids depending on their age. The filters are not a one size fits all solution for a variety of reasons and so I think it's it's worth pointing that out and that's one of the reasons why residents continue to insist upon having access to bottled water. My family who still lives there, they didn't want to put the filter on because you know it would have required a whole new faucet and all this. It just was like, you replaced our whole faucet to get it on that that's an expense and that a lot of people can't afford it's a lot of trouble to go to there all kinds of reasons why filters don't work for everyone. I want to remind folks that we are accepting Q&A questions if you have questions as we're having this conversation to pop them into the Q&A chat we'll get to them at the end of this conversation. Now, I'm kind of, you know, kind of going along with this idea that you know there are lots of people outside of Flint, saying, Oh, this this whole crisis is over. Jacqueline, I want to talk to you or have you talk a little bit about the tension between, you know, not people like me but you know news organizations nationally that are not based in Flint, you know kind of coming in and saying that you know this is the end of the water crisis and and obviously you know everyone on this on this conversation is saying that no it's not. I'm wondering you know what's at the root of this disconnect and really who gets to decide when or if this ever will be over. The people get to decide when it's over. That's just how I feel. They might have to accept the decisions that are made, but they do not have to declare this over like their struggles their trauma, whatever they're going through they do not have to say that this is over that is there every day right. I recently put somebody on blast and I can't remember what news agency it was because I was on Twitter and they said water crisis over something that tells them this is, you know, bad reporting it was reckless. It was political. It was. Oh, that's, I can't remember. Okay, that's why I put on blast. It was the headline, to be honest. I felt that the story spoke to a lot of truths but we do know that people really don't get beyond headlines. And in the industry we call this parachuting a parachuting for story it's like the hot thing right and you look up media is everywhere I remember when this got national attention it was what 2000 and what 15 and I was standing at City Hall and was reporters everywhere, everywhere, you know, and we locally we have been covering water, we have been covering water main breaks boil advisory alerts, you know, like we were following water. And next thing you know every news outlet in the nation was in Flint. And I just remember telling the police at City Hall like look there on my spot man. Like, you know, for them to go move them. But I get offended as a journalist, you know, as a person a community person as a journalist, because I felt like people before stories. And you parachuting and you try to have tell the story because it's not the whole story, which can be damaging to us. And it's also disrespectful. You know, I really want journalists to put some time into this or partner with local news agencies to tell this story like agencies that are already here boots on the ground that have a more clear picture of what's going on here. This time, but I don't know what to do about it. I just get furious. And I do things like I did on Twitter in my anger, and I'm a Flint resident I mean I was just before this call I was saying I got my letter in the mail. You know, for this class action suit I don't know what I'm going to do with it but I got to. So, um, I'm part of this community. I, I hear the comments and I feel like they're not telling the story. Like I'm looking at comments now from people with stories. The things they say when you report on it the things they say on social media. Some of the things are still going through hair loss. Some of them are saying they're still having skin problems. They are complaining about how high the water bill is, you know, I've watched people die, literally get Legionnaires hit hard health just completely fell apart and a lady a young lady in her 20s deteriorated. You know, and so I was part of that I spoke at her funeral. It's just those stories I feel like they're not spending enough time here to tell. You know they want the clicks, and they want the metrics and the audience and then they're gone off to the next thing and we're still here. Every Monday, heading to a community center I drive past a waterline. You know, and it's the same church that's given COVID testing. So now we're going through that too right. So I just, I just don't feel like they, they do us a disservice. That's how I feel to do us a disservice I find it to be highly disrespectful. And I can't imagine myself parachuting into another community, trying to tell a story like this, and hurting them even more. So that's how I feel about it. Yeah, yeah, completely understand that. Thank you for sorry if I get emotional. This is this I think that's the thing like you know this is, you know, your life right like that I think that that's part of the conversation that we're having right like there are people that come in and parachute in and you know they come in only just for the story but it's like no no no people live here like Flint is a place where people live right. And I want to turn to you because you know part of the reason why you are here is because you know you are based in Michigan right like we wanted to make sure that you know when we covered Michigan that we were having you know people who are in community with the people that they're covering. And so I want to have you bring you into this conversation a little bit about, you know the accountability that we're talking about right like it's it, whether it's you know with, you know, charges or with you policies or even with you know the national narrative you know this is all kind of you know rolling toward accountability and so we talked about some of those steps that are currently moving forward but some of the underlying problems are still in place and in your recent story you mentioned open records legislation to make the state government more transparent as a needed reform. What would that legislation actually do and you know kind of why is it important, you know for this story, and then you know kind of what have been some of the barriers to making those changes. Yes, this is something I have been thinking about for years I think one of the first articles I wrote specifically about Flint and its water crisis involved open records stuff. This is because Michigan is one of only two states in the country, along with Massachusetts where the legislature and the governor's office are totally exempt from open records request so they don't have to abide by basic transparency standards they can opt in or opt out as they can opt out as they please which makes it hard for journalists, or citizens or community organizers or scientists or anyone else to get access to information on the critical decisions that powerful people are making that affect our lives and in the case of Flint as we can see it the stakes are literally life or death. There are two lawmakers in Michigan, a Democrat and a Republican who have been working together for years really to bring transparency to the legislature in the governor's office in Michigan, and just to be clear that's not the only issue with secrecy in Michigan but it's a big one. There are several attempts to push forward this open records bill, but it didn't get traction initially, because it just didn't have this support of the Republican leadership in the legislature who just simply did not want to do it it was just dead. Now the lawmakers who are championing this are both in the Senate, there's been change in leadership they're really optimistic about getting it passed this last year they plan this huge unveiling for Sunshine Week in March. As you can imagine that ended up getting postponed because of COVID. They did have another chance to bring it forward in the fall but it was delayed by a lot of other backlog legislation and then by the hearings that the Senate held on Michigan's presidential election, and the clock just ran out. So that's unfortunate but both senators have told me that they plan to introduce it yet again in this coming year to bring transparency to our legislature and to our governor's office which hopefully can help make a rising emergency like Flint. Solve it before it escalates basically. Yeah. And then obviously one of the maybe not obviously but one of the things that you know kind of got us here is you know the emergency manager. That was in place in Flint. And so for years they've been calls to repeal Michigan's emergency manager law. And that law obviously pans political authority over from cities to state appointed officials. Is there any movement kind of to address that now or is that just kind of like out of the out of the public sphere right. It's a good question because you would expect this to be an area where we saw the crisis leading to some real change, especially with former governor Snyder himself admitting that the law failed. And yet we've seen basically nothing up to this point. I mean, since December 2015 a variety of Flint inspired bills were introduced to repeal the law, or at least reform it. Not just from one side of the aisle but they didn't go anywhere and that's especially striking when you consider that the water crisis did lead to some substantial policy reform in another area, namely to the State Safe Drinking Water Act. So you know Michigan now has some of the most progressive water regulations in the country, but it's notoriously draconian emergency manager law is sitting there untouched and it seems like nobody's even talking about it anymore, at least not publicly. That doesn't mean nothing has changed I mean the law came in for such criticism after Flint became big news that it became politically unviable to make much use of it so all of the cities and school districts that were under emergency management have had local control restored. We haven't seen any new emergency managers appointed, but the law is still there ready and waiting to be used if the political climate changes so why is that to get to your question. I mean my understanding is that at the state level it's it's two things first of all, too many Republicans who've supported the em law over the years are reluctant to admit they were wrong, even after Flint. And even for those who are open to the idea of reforming it. It's not exactly the issue of the moment. So there's not a lot of political will there. Having said that I've heard that there's at least some conversation going on behind closed doors about about making reform a priority again, and that as soon as it reaches a critical mass and Lansing it will become a public conversation. So of course what many people in Flint and other communities affected by emergency management have called for is outright repeal of the law and this could become an opportunity to mobilize again around that demand. You can't repeal it by referendum as was done in 2012 with an earlier version of the law. For those who continue to believe that the state needs some way of intervening in cities that are struggling financially. There are any number of proposals for how to make those kinds of interventions more accountable. How to ensure that local interests and considerations of public health are prioritized and so on. So, for example, some people have proposed requiring EMS to post $5 million bonds when they take their positions that they would forfeit if they engaged in gross negligence. Others have proposed putting financial management teams in place rather than individual autocrats, including local ombuds people. We could look at mandating some kind of public participation process within the response to financial emergencies, and requiring popular votes on certain kinds of proposals for example, changing a drinking water source. Over the years, we've accumulated quite a few ideas about what to do instead of having the state take cities over unilaterally and appoint what amount to dictators to govern them by fiat, but we just haven't done much with those ideas yet. So hopefully we're right on the cusp of some kind of reinvigoration of that conversation. But just like with anything else, you know, public pressure of some kind would be helpful if the issue is going to be made a priority. And we know that a lot of public pressure usually comes in the form of academic research and books and things like that. Not only I've been obviously you wrote a book and a wrote a book, but also some of the research that people like you are doing right like in the academic sector or in the health sector. And so I want to turn to Yvonne really quickly before we get to our last question for the panelists and then we hop into the Q&A, which the Q&A is popping. So Yvonne, what do you think the role of researchers is in helping communities get justice? I mean you talked so eloquently earlier about, you know, kind of this idea of justice and what it would feel like for the people of Flint. Is there a role? You know, like if there were no constraints on, you know, your time, obviously there are, and resources. What would you study? What research would you do? And what do you think that other cities should be studying and paying attention to, you know, kind of as a part of like learning from what happened in Flint? Thank you, Talia. One of the first thing I think should happen is relates to research is that there is a clear pathway to engage communities in what the research will be, how the research will be conducted, and in what ways it will be conducted, right? So we've stood up here, we have what we call the Healthy Flint Research Coordinating Center, which is a partnership between our community and academic partners. We believe, if in fact, if we just take the water crisis as an example, when the citizens saw, saw the water look different, smelled the water look different, and we could have partnered and done research and all it with, then you've got the issue. The community understands what the issues are that they're facing. We need our academic partners to come and walk along beside us and work with us. We don't necessarily know and really want to do all of, you know, understanding research jargon and all of that. There are ways to communicate the important things about research so that we understand how that research is conducted and why. Research is simply saying, I've got a question that I need an answer to. Our academic partners have been trained and prepared to do the necessary studies, put the surveys together to get at those answers. The research team also needs to have community voices involved in that. So the questions are relevant to what the communities needs are. And we're sure then that not only is the research being effective, but the outcomes that that research will really resonate and make a difference in communities. There has to be clear, important partnerships, open and transparent communication. And most of all, once the research is done, it can't just sit in the book. It just can't sit on the shelf. It just can't go into a journal for somebody's next level of academic pursuit. It must come back to the community in a way that something can be done that will make an ongoing change for the residents in those communities. Flint is one example, but there are many communities who need the same type of investment that we're calling for here. And we trust that the work that we're doing will be an example that other communities will be able to follow. And that's why our academic partners are so important because the data drives the question, the data drives policy, the data drives the resources. And so together, community and academic partners, working together, identifying what the issues are and working collectively to resolve those issues and then utilize results from those, those investigations. Thank you for that. I want to make sure that our audience gets a chance to be in conversation with you too. I'm going to ask you a rapid fire question so that everybody else can jump into this great conversation. So also for people, if you're, if you're watching, make sure you're adding your questions in and we're going to pick a couple to try to go through. So we've talked through all these different actions, you know, kind of thinking about research, thinking about, you know, policy changes, thinking about, you know, kind of money and, you know, the settlement issues that could possibly happen. I'm wondering for you, what would true justice look like? And what are the big changes that maybe are not widely discussed but that you think should be on the table? Rapid fire, so I'm going to go, I'm going to go, Ben, Yvonne, Jakwanda. Okay, so one thing really quick that I really don't think has received nearly enough attention. When we talk about making decisions about water more transparent and accountable and democratic, we can't just be talking about emergency management. We also need some reform in the way that water is managed right here in Flint. We need reform of our local water utility. We need to make sure that the people who are actually dispensing the water on a daily basis are doing it in a way that, again, is transparent so that when issues arise, we know who to go to. We know we'll get a response. We need to have, you know, residents overseeing to the extent that that's possible. The way in which that water is managed, we're supposed to have a water system advisory council in place here in Flint. It's now a matter of state law should have been in place already. We're still waiting on that. And so, you know, it's things like that that would allow residents to exercise an everyday oversight of how their water is actually being managed. And those are steps that we're not even close to taking yet here in Flint in any meaningful way. Okay, and then Yvonne and Anna, sorry. What does justice look like equal opportunity equal right equal access to what is a human right clean affordable drinking water. Jaquanda, for me, justice for Flint is equity. When we started the water crisis, we was already behind decades. And that's because we just do not have an equitable community. And so we need to bridge gaps. We need equity. They need resources. They need education here. We have high illiteracy. I feel like if we can build an equitable community. We can prevent things like the water crisis from happening to communities like Flint. So that's what I'm working towards equity. This is a bit of an echo of that but I would love, I don't think it's up to me to say what's justice for Flint but I would love to see a broader conversation of the context for why we have gotten so accustomed to these chronically disinvested cities in Flint and all over the country that we have come to think of it as normal. It's not normal. And I think that I think we it is beyond time to start reckoning with the choices that have caused and prolonged that state of being. I'm coming back. Hi. All right, so let's get to questions from the audience. We actually have a bunch of questions sort of related to the class action suit that Ben was speaking about earlier and detailing. Just wanting to know the extent of like what it really would cover. Does the settlement provide compensation for property damage from corrosion of interior plumbing, or if you have a lead service line, and do these amounts cover lifelong health care related to people's exposure to lead. So does it cover you know lifelong health care and also like infrastructure of their homes. So I can follow up on that real quick. Again, if you're a homeowner in Flint, then you can get up to $1,000. You know I had my hot water heater burst in the middle of all of this. I mean that alone is, you know, several hundred dollars. I think about other kinds of damage that might have been done to interior plumbing and appliances and so forth, it could easily get beyond $1,000 so I know there are people who would like to see that number raised. As far as long term health needs. I mean, basically you take what you can get from a settlement like this I mean. People who have suffered the most say who got Legionnaires disease and have had their bodies compromise long term they're probably going to see the biggest payouts, and it might be enough to fund some of the care they need long term, but for most people know I don't think that it's going to be anything like that. Okay, thank you. I have a question about what remedies are available at the federal level. Why did the environmental protection agency fail to enforce title six of the Civil Rights Act. And to me I'm going to start with you because I know you've done some work reporting there. So, I haven't done anything super recent but I'm in the past I've written about title six of the Civil Rights Act and how EPA one it was, it was not recent not used a ton by environmentalists and because partially it was a slow wheel to kind of turn to get justice. And then EPA, once you can finally got your title six case into title six of the Civil Rights Act basically ensures that you know any entity that gets, you know, state or government funds can't do anything that would be like racist essentially. And so, what would happen is that EPA, even if they got these cases, they wouldn't really find any any discriminatory impacts which really meant that there was no remedy for the people even if there was some harm there just was there was no remedy for the people didn't use it. I'm not. I don't think that there was a title six case and someone can correct me if there was but there was, then you're sorry about that. Yeah, so there was I mean, it's a long story, we probably don't have the time to get all the way into it but yeah there were there were complaints lodged with the EPA that went through the Civil Rights Office and and so there wasn't anything decided about the Flint crisis case specifically but there were issues with the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality going back to the 90s that the EPA said needed to be addressed and that in and of itself was a historic ruling. Right, right, exactly and that was like one of the only ones that they ever did, but yeah, so no absolutely so I think the part of it is that you know title six is an imperfect remedy, and it's not well used it's not a great. It's an easy kind of road to go through either so I think that's part of it. Okay we're also seeing a lot of questions about infrastructure. So is replacement of the municipal water supply piping complete or still ongoing and if it's ongoing like where in the process are we. Well yeah, I was going to say it's still ongoing, and I think that's one of the big issues when we talk about where we are. And again this is a long story has been said we have to go all the way back and start talking about Karagande and understand what that is there needs to be transparency about the process being utilized to get to a really improved infrastructure. We've got lots of we got large spaces of land where there's no one flushing. And so even if you do your best you got you got to, you've got consideration of contaminants in your in your water, even if it's not let it let's be clear the flat river in and of itself is not bad and it's got a bad rat. It's a process that was used so when people think about Flint and they think about the river. No we're not on the Flint water with the Flint River is no longer the municipal source so that isn't the issue now. The issue now is the infrastructure is larger than we have really useful right now with the city of this size. There are some things that need to be corrected so I will just to make it simple. I think it can be very transparent about what the process is, because if we are not clear about what's going on, it's going to be very difficult to get to a place of trust. Cynthia you're muted. Thank you. I have questions sort of taking a step back a bit. What do people usually get wrong, or what common misconceptions do you run into when covering or discussing the water crisis and Jaconda let's, let's start with you on that one. I think people always assume it was just lead. They didn't take in consideration like all the bacterial things that we had going on in the city, including Legionnaires. People assume that by now the pipes are fixed, which you just heard Miss Yvonne they're not, you know, some of the homes with the highest level still haven't had their pipes replaced. I know that for fact. So there's an assumption that it's over. You know it's done. They don't hear anything about it anymore and then I have to say no we're still going through a water crisis. And there's also assumption that everybody has an awful story. And I'm a young lady that I know and she said that she gets nervous. Anytime someone asked her about the water crisis because her story is different. Her children didn't have rashes their hair didn't fall out. You know, the herd. The she's a higher income bracket than most here. Right. And so she didn't face the same challenges. So it's assumption that everybody in the city was impacted the same way, but they weren't. So those are the main things that I go through. And can I can I echo that just quickly because when we first started off in the water crisis we we really set up some places in the community for children to get lead tested. And I was helping to set up one of those events reporter comes in and ask about it and he says I need a story. And I said, Okay, I'm a resident of Flint and he looked at me and said I don't mean you. There's a stereotypical view of what our community looks like and who was impacted. But I say to you the water in the pipes, don't get to a resident that has a high education attainment and has a recent has resources and say oh I'm not going to go there. It goes to everybody's house. So everybody in this community is affected and sometimes when we talk about inequities. And then it is viewed that only one segment of the community is affected. It's easy for others to be dismissed, but all of us are affected by this and that's the story that should be told the story of all of us. Good, bad, and the ugly to ensure that we get the remedies that this community needs. So the next question is, what is the best path to achieving water confidence in Flint and what partners or assistance would most benefit the community in its journey to water confidence. Maybe Jaconda or even or or Ben. In my head, I know, I think that only that's time. Right. You know, I think that we can expect this community to trust in what government says to them after they've been poised and like, okay, your pipes are replaced. Your water is good. Get to drinking it. Right. That's the expectation for some reason like I see all these different comments from people who don't live here. And that's the expectation. But if, if someone's wife cheats on them or husband cheats on them and they say look I'm not cheating anymore I'm all yours. Do you just start trusting them tomorrow. So, it's time, and some people may die with that distrust. It is what it is, you know the damage is done and that I think has to be accepted. It has to be accepted that people do not trust be okay with it, because it was a, it was just it was a horrible situation that you could not go to your tap and turn on water. You know you were poisoned something that you wake up every day and you don't even think about you don't think your government is going to do this to you right. And people expect you to get over it. You know, I think that time will tell. And I don't meet personally. I don't think I ever would trust water again like I just don't, you know I think I'm going to take that to my death bed, you know, be somewhere traveling still drinking bottled water because I'm terrified of what might come out of the tap. So, it could be 10 2030 years from now and people may still not trust the water and it's nothing you can do about it, except do your job. You know, do your job, be transparent. And maybe just maybe one day, things will change and stop expecting it to happen overnight. And I would support that by saying that consistent action. Let's let's see what the plan is. And then let's follow the plan. And if we if there is something put in place is that these are the things that we're going to do, then let's see that action happening and see it on an ongoing basis. Let's, we've got to move beyond the start and stop, and hope that somebody's going to start it again and next time, but let's put that plan in place, make it available to the residents, and then let's continue to move it forward. And the quick thing if I if I can just add on. I also think we need to get beyond just talking about trust and start talking about the trust worthiness of the people in institutions who are asking for trust because sometimes, you know, when we talk about trust it's almost as if the residents have some kind of problem right that you know the water is just fine now what's wrong with them for continuing to distrust it. Whereas, in fact, a lot of the people in institutions were talking about have yet to prove their trust worthiness a lot of these people who came in, saying they were all about rebuilding trust and Flint, after they finally acknowledged the problem, ended up doing things that only generated more distrust. Right. So, again, we have to be really careful about this whole trust narrative, degenerating into kind of a victim blaming narrative, whereas, where it's the problem of the residents for not trusting, rather than the institutions for not being trustworthy. Okay. Next question. The US food and drug administration's limit for lead and bottled water is five parts per billion. Does Michigan have such a help have such health based standards. Yvonne or Ben maybe you could take this one. Well, so bottled water is regulated by the food and drug administration, as opposed to tap water which is regulated by the environmental protection agency so you have to totally different regulatory standards that apply to those different kinds of water with bottled water. Yes, it's five parts per billion but you've got other issues with the way bottled water is actually monitored. You basically are dependent upon the bottled water providers to monitor their own product and report out the data. So bottled water has a higher threshold for lead but it's very regularly monitored. And so we know a lot about it, at least in a general way at a system wide level. One of the issues we've learned a lot about in Flint is that you can have one thing going on and you know system wide on average and you can have a very different thing going on in any particular home. So we have to be really careful about relying on these kinds of general standards to make sweeping claims about water safety in any water system. Now as for Michigan there has been. I think that that it's we're supposed to go from 15 parts per billion to 12 parts per billion if I'm not mistaken. I don't remember by what year that's supposed to go into effect officially it's it's, but there has been talk about bringing that that threshold down even lower because we know that there's no safe level of lead and ideally you want the amount of lead in your water to be zero but you know they're all kinds of logistical complications involved in bringing the levels down that low. So we have to realize these aren't public health based standards, right. There's a lot to do with just the feasibility of realizing, you know those levels within a water system. How likely are similar water crises to hit other American cities, and does the country need to be thinking about what does the country needs to be thinking about in terms of water quality as it reopens schools and other institutions, where water has been stagnant over the past year. Anna, take a shot at that. Yeah, the shorter answer is that it already has. Just in the last few years there have been water crises in Pittsburgh and Newark, New Jersey and Trenton and other communities besides I mean, well before Flint there is a huge water crisis in Washington DC. The problems with drinking water safety and infrastructure are systematic and as are the problems with concentrated poverty and some of the other issues that we saw in Flint story and well, what happened in Flint escalated and an unusual way for a lot of reasons it's not a singular story I mean this is a broader. We have a broader challenge to deal with us as a country. And one thing that I think it's important to mention is that well it's very much true that communities that are chronically disinvested are much more likely to bear the brunt of this making it an environmental justice issue it's communities that are more privileged are not immune and I think that sometimes people make that kind of a simple thing I've come across this a lot when I talk to people they think if they live in a kind of a wealthier community then this won't touch them and we have to show we have lead pipes everywhere we have some drinking water regulation problems like everywhere and when people, especially now are returning to schools and other institutions where water has been shut off for a long time. You're going to run into a lot of the same problems that you saw in Flint which has as Ivan was kind of mentioning like a lot of vacancy issues which means the water sits stagnant in pipes or moves more slowly through pipes. This lets the water get more contaminated, because it just gets saturated while it like just sort of sits there you need to be moving the water to keep it healthy. There are strong flushing protocols that are out there and water testing protocols that are out there that would be wise for people to be looking into well before they're inviting students back into school schools or employees back into their other institution and I think folks should definitely be looking at that. Certainly if they're a decision maker at these institutions but also if they're a community member in them. And Cynthia that's a very interesting question because a lot of times people will say they've got a problem but it's not like Flint, but a lead problem, an infrastructure problem is a problem. And so what we again and encouraged to think about it, the issue of cross this nation, we have an aging infrastructure. And if there is a national mandate and national conversation about what do we do with an aging infrastructure because at some point, all of our communities will be affected by something very similar, even if it didn't happen as a result of an emergency manager. Thank you. I have a question I think would be interesting to hear from everyone on if they have some advice here. And that is, what is one piece of advice you would give to communities fighting for safe drinking water. Keep fighting. Yeah, that exactly that's what I was going to say because this this fight was led by passionate residents, mothers who saw something wrong with their water, right. And they just kept fighting and fighting until someone listened. So you have to keep fighting is in it. I can't tell you how long their journey will be. But, you know, if you don't fight, then we're worse off for it. Then we have to continue the fight. And I'm pretty sure if you talk to any activists around here. It wasn't easy. It's not easy. You know, even a ridicule and how tired they are I said I was going to throw up, throw a gathering just for the activists alone so they could get a break like some self care right because they're still fighting seven years later. They're still out here stumping water and trying to be heard about these issues. So, I'm with Yvonne like keep fighting. There's no simple remedy. There's no book on it of how to go about this fight, but you just have to keep fighting. I want to add something not about obviously citizens but I think one thing that I think that Flint could show is that maybe the federal government or election officials need to consider other ways and other other I guess standards of science as a burden of proof because I think that so much of so many people in the community were kind of dismissed when they came with their bottles of water because they hadn't met the scientific standards of EPA or the Michigan environmental department or whatever. I think that as we, you know, citizen science and citizen, you know, kind of accountability has a place, I think in in governmental decisions and I think that maybe there should probably be some conversation among some elected officials about you know kind of okay well what is the standard that we're interested in and what is, and even if you know it doesn't meet our standard, what's enough to say okay you know well this feels like there's something there maybe we should look into it. One more thing to add to that you know in these struggles often it is the case that scientific evidence of some kind is really crucial for getting people in positions of power to take you seriously and to take action. It often involves some level of collaboration relationship between people within communities and people from coming in from the outside people in academia, people who are quote unquote experts. We really need robust relationships like that but we've learned in Flint that you know communities have to be really careful about how they structure those relationships. And if you're going to bring people in from the outside know that those relationships can easily go south and result in some real abuses and so we really need robust institutions within communities that ensure that residents who enter into those kinds of relationships have some protection when things start to go wrong and Yvonne is doing great work in in that respect. And you know when you have academics coming in respecting that that infrastructure and working within it and so forth and really putting the community first, then it can work well but it can also go very badly and so this is something that people in other communities should know so that they can take steps to protect themselves. I also feel like we need to get back to elected officials work for us. You know, all too often we forget that, you know, we vote and we put people in place, and we elect them so they will listen to us and that we can make change in our communities and for some reason, it seems like we're working for them. You know, we forget that we have the power, right we have the power. And I think we really really really need to lean on that power that we have in communities, you know and come together when elected officials are not listening. You know, show up when they're not listening show up to council meeting show up at city hall and be heard. You know, we have a tendency to just kind of complain amongst ourselves about problems and not really take it to them in a way where we can really really be heard and, you know, I think that's an ongoing battle. Well, on that note, that is our time for tonight. I want to thank our speakers for this informative discussion. I'd like to give a special thank you to our sponsor for tonight's event McKinsey and company and also our co presenters for this event Flint beat and Michigan radio video of tonight's event will be available on pro public as YouTube channel.