In other words, we need to see the e-mails stream. E-mail traffic from Susan Hedman to Gina McCarthy. We need to find out when did the head of the EPA find out that an American city had been poisoned. And then, what did she do about it?
And if she didn't know that Susan Hedman was inadequate and should have been removed, was there any conversation between the head of the EPA and the White House? That, "I have an employee in Region 5, who's not up to snuff, who shouldn't be there." Either way, it seems to me that we need to really focus on the head of the EPA instead of all the people that she's basically pushing under the bus.
DB: You make the mighty powerful point that really at the core of this, this should be a criminal investigation.
MC: At the very least.
DB: At the very least, not only of the people at the EPA, but in terms of the role of the governor and the various officials and the appointed administrators, and the decisions that were made at all levels. I'm wondering about how you might carry out that part of the investigation, who you'd want to ask what to.
MC: Well, I think the responsibility to carry out this investigation lies with Congress. I was at the hearing last week, at the first hearing on this issue. There will be a second hearing on this hopefully, fairly soon. But we need to really get to the bottom of what happened. How were these people poisoned? And, by the way, Flint is not the only city that's being poisoned. I mean there are cities and municipalities around this country who are also being impacted by lead in the water. And so if people think, "Well this is just a problem for Flint," I think they're really in a fool's paradise at this point.
DB: Examples of other cities?
MC: For example, I found out about three cities in Pennsylvania today, that also have very high levels of lead. And we're trying to track that down now, and perhaps we'll do another piece for the Guardian, on those cities. And there are obviously some municipalities that people are complaining about in California now. "
Let me just say, citizens have a right to know whether the water coming from their faucet is clean and safe to drink. I mean, it sounds like such a simple statement but it's really very powerful. Because what is it that the EPA could have done in Flint?
The reason why I'm pointing my baton at the EPA is because EPA has the power of the federal government behind it. And even if state officials, the governor and the officials in Michigan had decided to hide the information from their citizens, the EPA had the overall responsibilities as the federal government to inform the citizens of Flint that their water was not safe. ...
They could have given the governor, for example, ten days to inform the citizens of Flint that there was a possibility that there water was not safe. And they could have said, ... "Until we've confirmed the results, we advise you to drink bottled water." That didn't happen. ... If the governor decided that he was not going to inform, it was the responsibility of the EPA then, to inform the citizens of Flint ... that there was a possibility that their water was not safe.
The EPA could have ordered a cease-and-desist order. They could have told the state, "You do not have the right to poison your people. And we are now going to step in as the federal government and we're going to take over this responsibility." EPA did not do that.
They could have referred the governor to the Department of Justice for criminal prosecution; for poisoning his residents. They didn't do [that]. There were so many tools that EPA had at its disposal, to step in and really make such a profound statement about the sanctity of life. Not only the planet, but the sanctity of human life, the EPA did not use. That's the reason why I'm really pointing my baton at EPA, because that was the responsibility of the agency, that when states fail to protect their population, the federal government must step in and protect the people.
DB: As I mentioned earlier, Michigan Governor Rick Snyder is turning down a request from the House to testify about his role in Flint. His spokesperson Anna Eaton said ... that the governor won't attend ... because he's due to present his annual budget proposal that day in Michigan. Now, would you suggest that Congress subpoena him, rather than offering him the possibility of not showing up?
MC: Absolutely. In fact, that came up at the hearing any number of times, where a number of the Democratic members of Congress strongly urged the chairman of the committee, Chaffetz, to subpoena the Michigan governor. Force him to stand before Congress, and explain what happened in Michigan. So we're still waiting to see that kind of Congressional action.
In fact, there's one other person, I think he's a Michigan official, that Congress has now subpoenaed, and the chairman has actually ordered U.S. Marshal service to hunt him down. Direct quote, "hunt him down," and bring him to Congress. ... Congress can do the same thing with the Michigan governor, by the way. They could actually order the U.S. Marshal service to serve a subpoena against this governor. And to order him to stand before Congress. And that's the kind of action we're looking for at this point. Because this criminality deserves that kind of commitment to justice. And so we must, really, put a lot of pressure on Congress, to carry out its oversight responsibilities.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
3
3
1
