The People vs. Flint vs. the EPA: Can the Flint Water Scandal Shed Light on the Lacking Remedies for Victims of Environmental Harms?

The Flint Water Crisis exposed the weaknesses in both our national infrastructure and the regulatory scheme that protects drinking water. In the wake of 12 deaths caused by official misconduct in Flint, prosecutors charged top Michigan officials with numerous crimes, including manslaughter. This raises an issue of whether criminal charges are appropriate for collective policy making missteps. In considering the appropriateness of criminal charges, one must compare how adequately it remedies the issue in relation to other available remedies. The potential remedies fall into the following categories: (1) civil suits for damages in state courts; (2) an injunctive court order requiring future compliance by a governmental entity; (3) civil rights violation claims and claims under the 5th and 14th Amendments of the Constitution; (4) a reformation of the drinking-water regulatory scheme; and (5) criminal penalties under state and federal law. In a perfect world, these remedies should cooperate to provide a holistic remedy for any particular harm. However, these remedies contain certain inadequacies and barriers to justice, and may offer no meaningful remedy to victims of environmental harm caused by government conduct. Traditional civil remedies are likely inadequate to remedy the harm done to such victims or sufficient to correct the broken regulatory scheme that allowed Flint to occur. While criminal prosecution involves its own inadequacies, the totality of negligent conduct requires a harsh remedy. Despite the inherent litigation risks involved in proving that the collective actions of state officials caused deaths, Michigan may be correct in pursuing criminal penalties here. If for no other reason, these charges should send a message to the citizens of Flint and other victims of environmental harms: from now on, the punishment will fit the crime.