Ann Arbor Water, Pt. III

               In my last post, I addressed more concretely the problem of the 1,4-dioxane, and how the local government has been trying to pressure the state to clean it up to little success. So, what are the implications of this? And does this issue tell us more about our government?

               Before I elaborate, however, I want to briefly explain that the local government is trying to do something. The Washtenaw County Environmental Health Department has been charged in facilitating help between the state and the company responsible, Pell-Gelman. I was able to interview Kristen Schweighoefer, the director of the department, and she went into some detail about what they actually do to prevent the plume from spreading. “We’ve formed this organization, CARD, which is a coalition between our department, the local cities affected [by the dioxane], and local citizens. We help look at the data taken from water samples and through our meeting we provide local recommendations.”

Kristen Schweighoefer, the director of the Washtenaw County Department of Environmental Health. Credit: Mazie Hyams- Michigan Daily

When asked about the differences between federal, state and local ‘safe’ levels of dioxane, she replied, “the problem is there really isn’t a ‘standard,’ only a guideline. The differences in numbers come from what kind of criteria that organization is using in determining the cancer risk, like the number of years someone is exposed to the dioxane and how often they are exposed to it.”

               Another problem this plume brings with it is the potential timeline: the plume is not going away but is slow in its movement, so the plume could make its way to Barton Pond or the Huron River in 30 years or 300 years, there’s just no way to know. So, what can government do if it can’t clean it up? Instead, CARD has made recommendations to drill more wells to monitor the plume and has pushed for changes to Ann Arbor’s infrastructure to be prepared in case the plume does spread. But, the local government cannot do anything else, and is frustrated by that.

               Now, what can citizens do about this democratic failure? According to John Locke, the relationship between people and government is a fiduciary trust, essentially a relationship that is based on the faith that the other party will honor its commitments, and if that trust is broken, the people can and should take action to restore government to fulfilling their interests. The appropriateness of the response can vary from simply electing new leaders to a full-scale revolution, but regardless it is the people’s duty to wrestle government back under their control. Now, am I advocating for a large revolution? No, but, according to John Locke, a revolution could be justified.

               So, what do I think should happen? This issue has been around a while and won’t go away; it’s going to linger for decades. And, for now, the state government is content with limiting and monitoring the plume until it could possibly move. Does this work for politicians in Lansing that probably won’t be around when the plume moves? Sure, probably. But how about for the people? No, especially those who have already been affected by it or whose homes down the road could be threatened. At the very minimum, compensation for the affected (from both health issues and property loss) should be provided, and a plan should be drawn up to alter Ann Arbor’s water infrastructure in case the contamination spills into Barton Pond. To my knowledge only the latter has happened in early stages, and I find that to be further proof that government has failed. 

              Our politicians today have a bad habit of delaying and responding to issues, oftentimes leaving them for their successors to handle. From the debt ceiling, to the war on ISIS, and now, to contaminated water, our representatives at all levels of government have failed to act in the interests of the people and have waited on issues to become crises before acting; government is reactive rather than proactive. Can we do anything to fix this? My answer is yes, but you may not like the explanation. We won’t fix democracy by simply electing new leaders, because all they’ll do is pass their problems down to the next leaders. While people argue American democracy is a corrupt system, I happen to believe it’s not the system that’s corrupt, but the people in the system. What I mean is that our leaders are a representation of us, so if we are unhappy with them, we must change ourselves before our leaders will. Think about it, if Americans today stopped trying to pass their problems onto someone else, and instead held themselves accountable as citizens in society, wouldn’t our country improve? At the end of the day, we as Americans all want the same thing: a free, safe, prosperous country where anyone who is willing to work can succeed. Until we stop blaming each other and hold ourselves accountable, our nation’s democracy will continue to disappoint and frustrate us. 

Locke, John. Two Treatises of Government. Edited by Peter Laslett. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.