WaterWired

Racism Report Redux: 'The Flint Water Crisis - Systemic Racism Through the Lens of Flint'

I originally posted this report a few years ago and promptly forgot about it. The times dictate that I repost it with an addition and ask you to read it. It's by the Michigan Civil Rights Commission: The Flint Water Crisis: Systemic Racism Through the Lens of Flint'.

Thanks to friend and colleague Lisa Beutler for calling it to my attention. I will give it another platform.

Download The Flint Water Crisis- Systemic Racism Through the Lens of Flint'

The opening comments...

February 17, 2017

Dear Reader,

On January 25, 2016, the Michigan Civil Rights Commission unanimously passed a resolution to hold a series of hearings to determine if any civil rights had been abridged by the contamination of the Flint water distribution system.

At all three hearings, we heard of the many challenges and hardships faced by residents unable to access clean drinking water. We also toured several Flint neighborhoods, meeting with residents and hearing how their lives had been affected and changed immeasurably. The July 14th and September 8th hearings included expert testimony focusing on the history of Flint’s economy and housing, environmental justice, and the application of the current emergency manager law.

Reviewing the historical governmental actions impacting the living and health conditions of Flint residents, i.e., the legacy of Flint, was sobering and left a deep impression. We must come to terms with the ongoing effects of "systemic racism" that repeatedly led to disparate racial outcomes as exemplified by the Flint Water Crisis. This can no longer be ignored.

We also offer recommendations intended to ensure that “another Flint” does not happen again – in Flint or anywhere in Michigan. We urge those with authority to carefully consider and act upon these recommendations.

On behalf of the Michigan Civil Rights Commission and Michigan Department of Civil Rights, we wish to thank everyone who testified and submitted written testimony, as well as those who provided additional insight and information for inclusion in this report.

Sincerely,
Michigan Civil Rights Commission

Rasha Demashkieh, Co-Chair
Mumtaz Haque
Deloris Hunt
Linda Lee Tarver
Laura Reyes Kopack JD, Co-Chair
Arthur M. Horwitz
Ricardo Resio
Bradley Voss

Let me add this June 2020 open letter (thanks Lisa Beutler) from current Flint mayor Sheldon A. Neeley:

Flint has throughout its history been a guiding force for our country. It is again.

As the world watches our peaceful protests, they are seeing the Flint we know and love. Flint is a city of champions, not because of the actions of any one of us — but because of the collective spirit we embody. We are descendants of innovators and great business minds, factory workers who sat down for what was right and single-handedly built the American Middle Class, the women who built tanks to lead us to victory in WWII, and the masses who selected a black man mayor in 1966 and by popular vote became the first city in the nation to adopt a fair housing ordinance.

We know when we protest that it is about the past and the future. We know that protest is about building, not tearing down.

We are devastated by the death of George Floyd. The gross injustice cuts to the core of this community that has long defined itself as social justice leaders.

When the people rightfully began gathering to protest in response to Mr. Floyd’s death, I too relied on those lessons I learned growing up in Flint: The only appropriate response to protesters is to listen and the only appropriate answer is action.

I personally met with protest organizers as did Flint Police Chief Phil Hart and other key members of my staff. Those discussions led to development of a six-point action plan for the City of Flint to start our work — including development of a Black Lives Matter Advisory Council to continue our work for the long term.

To elected leaders across the country, I say: As we continue to see violent protests in our state and in our country, I urge you to please just stop and listen. We have work that needs to be done.

Work with the protesters. Work with each other. Together, we will make this country a better place.

And, to the protesters, I say: Thank you.

A majority of us living in Flint today also are the descendants of slaves, the descendants of someone who survived shackles, the descendants of someone who despite all odds saw the country take its first somewhat reluctant steps toward equality. In your protests on the lawn at Flint City Hall and around the world, we have seen every shade of skin join in a universal fight for humanity. Thank you.

Thank you for fighting for justice. Thank you for sparking a national conversation. We need to keep talking — and to keep voting — until those in positions of power are willing to listen.

Together, let’s build the tomorrow we deserve today.

For the love of our community,

Sheldon A. Neeley

Mayor of the City of Flint

Important reading...

Enjoy!

"While we almost universally recognize that racial discrimination is wrong, this consensus has not translated into decision-making or policies that reflect those values." - from the report, p. 3

CRS Insight Report: 'U.S. Funding to the World Health Organization (WHO)'

I missed this important CRS Insight 4-pager report (30 April 2020) by Luisa Blanchfield and Tiaji Salaam-Blyther: 'U.S. Funding to the World Health Organization (WHO)'. 

The online version (click on the title) may have some hot links that the PDF does not have.

Download CRS_Insight_US_Funding_WHO_30April2020

Introduction
On April 14, 2020, President Donald Trump announced that the United States would suspend funding to the World Health Organization (WHO), pending a 60- to 90-day review, because of WHO’s “role in severely mismanaging and covering up the spread of the coronavirus.” The United States, the largest government contributor to WHO, is currently assessed 22% of the organization’s core budget (an estimated $112.6 million for FY2020). The United States also provides voluntary funding to WHO, with amounts varying per year depending on U.S. priorities and global health needs. U.S. voluntary contributions from FY2012 to FY2018 averaged $254 million per year. Congressional views on the Administration decision to suspend funding are mixed. Some Members share the President’s concerns regarding WHO and support the decision, while others oppose the action and have urged the Administration to fully fund WHO and its ongoing Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) efforts.

Background 
Established in 1948, WHO is a United Nations (U.N.) specialized agency that directs and coordinates health efforts within the U.N. system, including engaging international partners on global health issues, shaping the international health research agenda, and establishing health-related norms and standards. The United States has historically supported WHO’s mandate and activities. It played a key role in the organization’s establishment and is a member of WHO’s plenary body, the World Health Assembly (WHA), and the 34-member WHO Executive Board. U.S. officials are also seconded to the organization and serve in a number of advisory capacities, including a committee related to COVID-19.

WHO is funded through assessed and voluntary contributions from governments and other donors. Assessed contributions are required dues a government agrees to pay when it becomes a member. Voluntary contributions fluctuate annually and are often earmarked for specific projects. WHO’s total proposed program budget for 2020-2021 is $4.84 billion. Voluntary contributions represent more than 80% of the budget. Top assessed contributors in 2020-2021 are the United States (22%), China (12%), and Japan (8.5%). Governments providing the largest voluntary contributions in 2019 were the United States, United Kingdom, and Germany.

In February 2020, WHO released and updated a $675 million Strategic Preparedness and Response Plan to address COVID-19. The plan aims to provide international coordination and operational support; bolster country readiness and response capacity, particularly in low-resource countries; and accelerate research and innovation. As of April 29, private donors and over 20 countries had contributed $405.7 million to the plan, including $30.3 million from the United States.

Skipping a bit...

Selected Congressional Issues
Members of Congress might consider the following issues:

•   Executive branch allocation of WHO funding. Because Congress does not appropriate funding specifically for WHO in appropriations acts, the executive branch has some flexibility to decide how and if funds are allocated to the organization. Some Members of Congress might support proceeding with the status quo, while others may consider legislative options such as directing how appropriations for WHO are allocated by agencies and Administrations.

•   Treaty obligations and possible loss of voting rights. Some policymakers are concerned that suspending funding may violate U.S. obligations under the WHOconstitution. Some also debate the potential impact of the United States accumulating arrears and the possible loss of voting privileges. Congress might consider how such implications could affect U.S. efforts to advance its priorities and global health commitments in WHO fora.

•   Possible impact of funding suspension on WHO. The impact of the suspension on WHO operations, including its efforts to address COVID-19 and other health issues, remains to be seen. The level and extent of the impact will likely depend on the type of funds being withheld (assessed or voluntary) and the duration of the funding suspension.

•   U.S. role and influence. Some observers are concerned that the funding suspension could affect U.S. influence and leadership in WHO fora. Specifically, some have raisedconcerns that such actions might enable other countries, such as China, to gain greater influence in the organization. Supporters of the funding suspension counter that the United States is using its role as the WHO’s largest financial contributor to express its concerns regarding the organization’s handling of COVID-19, while at the same time funding other U.S. global health priorities. Some also suggest that the funding suspension might improve the overall efficiency and effectiveness of the organization and lead to substantive reform supported by the United States.

Don't cut WHO funding.

 

Enjoy!

 

"I think the people in this country have had enough of experts..." - Michael Gove, UK politician

CRS Report: Indian Water Rights Settlements (Updated: 26 December 2019)

From Charles V. Stern comes this updated CRS report: 'Indian Water Rights Settlements'.

Great topic!

Download CRS_Report_Indian_Water_Rights_Settlements_26Dec2019

Summary
In the second half of the 19th century, the federal government pursued a policy of confining Indian tribes to reservations. These reservations were either a portion of a tribe’s aboriginal land or an area of land taken out of the public domain and set aside for a tribe. The federal statutes and treaties reserving such land for Indian reservations typically did not address the water needs of these reservations, a fact that has given rise to questions and disputes regarding Indian reserved water rights. Dating to a 1908 Supreme Court ruling, courts generally have held that many tribes have a reserved right to water sufficient to fulfill the purpose of their reservations and that this right took effect on the date the reservations were established. This means that, in the context of a state water law system of prior appropriations, which is common in many U.S. western states, many tribes have water rights senior to those of non-Indian users with water rights and access established subsequent to the Indian reservations’ creation. Although many Indian tribes hold senior water rights through their reservations, the quantification of these rights is undetermined in many cases.

Tribes have pursued quantification of their water rights through both litigation and negotiated settlements. The settlements involve negotiation among tribes, the federal government, states, water districts, and private water users, and others. They aim to resolve conflict between rights holders and allow the parties to determine specific terms of water allocation and use with certainty. Over the last 50 years, negotiated settlements have been the preferred course for most tribes because they are often less lengthy and costly than litigation. Additionally, many stakeholders have noted that these negotiated agreements are more likely to allow tribes not only to quantify their water rights on paper but also to procure access to these resources in the form of infrastructure and other related expenses, at least in some cases.

After being negotiated, approval and implementation of Indian water rights settlements require federal action. As of 2019, 36 Indian water rights settlements had been federally approved, with total estimated costs in excess of $5.8 billion. Of these, 32 settlements were approved and enacted by Congress and 4 were administratively approved by the U.S. Departments of Justice and the Interior. After being congressionally authorized, federal projects associated with approved Indian water rights settlements generally have been implemented by the Bureau of Reclamation or the Bureau of Indian Affairs (both within the Department of the Interior), pursuant to congressional directions. Congress has appropriated discretionary and mandatory funding (and, in some cases, both) for these activities, including in recent appropriations bills. In the 116th Congress, H.R. 1904 proposes to extend in perpetuity the Reclamation Water Settlements Fund, which is currently scheduled to provide $120 million per year in mandatory funds for these settlements through FY2029.

Several individual Indian water rights settlements have recently been considered and approved by Congress, including three that were enacted during the 114th Congress. In addition to opposition to some proposed settlements, one of the primary challenges facing new settlements is the availability of federal funds and the related question of cost-shares among federal, state, local, and tribal interests.

At issue is under what circumstances (if any) Congress should approve new Indian water rights settlements and whether Congress should fund (and in some cases amend) existing settlements. Some argue that resolution of Indian water rights settlements is a mutually beneficial means to resolve long-standing legal issues, provide certainty of water deliveries, and reduce the federal government’s liability. Others argue against authorization and funding of new settlements, either on general principle or with regard to specific individual settlements and activities.

How about a conclusion?

Conclusion
Long-standing disputes over water rights and use involving Indian tribes continue to be negotiated and settled by the executive branch and are thus likely to be an ongoing issue for Congress. This matter includes implementation of ongoing Indian water rights settlements, negotiation of new settlements, and consideration of these settlements for potential enactment and subsequent funding. As of the end of the 115th Congress, 32 settlements had been enacted since 1978, and four settlements had been approved administratively. Additional funding for ongoing settlements and authorization of and appropriations for new settlements are likely to be requested in the future. In considering Indian water rights settlements, primary issues for Congress may include the cost, contents, and sufficiency of federally authorized efforts to settle tribal water rights claims, as well as the circumstances under which these settlements are considered andapproved by authorizing committees and others (i.e., whether the settlements are accompanied by formal statements of Administration support, cost estimates). In addition, the preferred extent of federal involvement in implementing settlements, including the question of whether the federal government or tribes should take the lead in developing and constructing projects, may be a central question under consideration in future settlements under consideration by Congress.

Enjoy!

“Like a man who has been dying for many days, a man in your city is numb to the stench.” - Chief Seattle

CRS InFocus Report: 'Role of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in Environmental Justice' Updated: 29 August

Robert Esworthy authored this CRS InFocus 2-pager (29 August 2019) on a topic that is too often ignored: Role of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in Environmental Justice.

Download CRS_InFocus_EPA_Env_Justice_29August2019

The first two sections:

Executive Order 12898
The role of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in environmental justice is rooted in Executive Order (E.O.) 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, signed by President Bill Clinton on February 11, 1994. E.O. 12898 directs each executive department and agency, including EPA, to “make achieving environmental justice part of its mission.”

The consideration of environmental justice across federal programs and activities is not mandated in statute. E.O. 12898 more generally directs executive departments and agencies to integrate environmental justice into their respective missions to “the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law.” Some departments and agencies have incorporated the consideration of environmental justice into their respective regulations to carry out the E.O.

E.O. 12898 itself does not establish federal law but is a presidential directive for the management of executive departments and agencies that instructs the implementation of existing law. (See CRS Report RS20846, Executive Orders: Issuance, Modification, and Revocation, by Todd Garvey.) The E.O. is not judicially enforceable and explicitly precludes “any right of judicial review involvingthe compliance or noncompliance of the United States, itsagencies, officers, or any other person with this order.”Although amended by E.O. 12948 in 1995, E.O. 12898 has not been revoked or further amended under the current or previous Administrations to date and continues to apply to executive departments and agencies. E.O. 12948 amended time frames for certain actions directed in E.O. 12898, but all other provisions have remained unchanged.

Under E.O. 12898, executive departments and agencies are responsible for interpreting the statutes that authorize their respective programs and activities to determine the extent to which environmental justice may be incorporated as a facet of implementation. Some agency programs or activities may not incorporate environmental justice or may incorporate it in a more limited capacity. Although the authorizing statutes do not explicitly preclude consideration of environmental justice, some implementation criteria may be inconsistent with such considerations. For example, federal environmental laws that authorize the permitting of industrial facilities do not allow the denial of a permit solely because of proximity to a particular community based on its demographics, although, during permitting actions, certain communities may cite proximity as an environmental justice concern. From a scientific standpoint, potential health risks in such situations would depend on exposure to pollutants, not proximity alone.

What Is Environmental Justice?
What constitutes environmental justice has been an ongoing issue for many years. There is no definition of environmental justice in federal law. Some have interpreted the terms “environmental justice (or injustice)” and “environmental equity (or inequity)” broadly to describe theperceived disproportionate impacts of pollution across populations that possess different demographic characteristics (e.g., age, gender, race, national origin, occupation, income, or language). Some have also raised concerns about environmental justice in terms of access to natural resources and recreational opportunities as part of a broader focus on the environment than just pollution from anthropogenic sources.

Stakeholder concerns about the consideration of environmental justice in the implementation of EPA programs and activities have generally focused on the protection of certain populations that may be disproportionately exposed to potentially hazardous or toxic substances. Economic impacts may also be cited as an environmental justice concern, such as perceived effects of the presence of pollution sources on property values.

E.O. 12898 refers to environmental justice in terms of disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental impacts specifically on minority and low- income populations. In its role under E.O. 12898, EPA has generally defined environmental justice as the “fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income, with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies.” Other federal departments and agencies may tailor their definition of environmental justice to their respective missions.

Enjoy!

“The more clearly we can focus our attention on the wonders and realities of the universe, the less taste we shall have for destruction.” ― Rachel Carson

CRS Report: 'Indian Water Rights Settlements' (16 April 2019)

Here is an updated (16 April 2019) CRS report by Charles V. Stern, Indian Water Rights Settlements.

Download CRS_Indian_Water_Rights_16April2019

Summary

In the second half of the 19th century, the federal government pursued a policy of confining Indian tribes to reservations. These reservations were either a portion of a tribe’s aboriginal land or an area of land taken out of the public domain and set aside for a tribe. The federal statutes and treaties reserving such land for Indian reservations typically did not address the water needs of these reservations, a fact that has given rise to questions and disputes regarding Indian reserved water rights. Dating to a 1908 Supreme Court ruling, courts generally have held that many tribes have a reserved right to water sufficient to fulfill the purpose of their reservations and that this right took effect on the date the reservations were established. This means that, in the context of a state water law system of prior appropriations, which is common in many U.S. western states, many tribes have water rights senior to those of non-Indian users with water rights and access established subsequent to the Indian reservations’ creation. Although many Indian tribes hold senior water rights through their reservations, the quantification of these rights is undetermined in many cases.

Tribes have pursued quantification of their water rights through both litigation and negotiated settlements. The settlements involve negotiation between tribes, the federal government, states, water districts, and private water users, among others. They aim to resolve conflict between rights holders and allow the parties to determine specific terms of water allocation and use with certainty. Over the last 50 years, negotiated settlements have been the preferred course for most tribes because they are often less lengthy and costly than litigation. Additionally, many stakeholders have noted that these negotiated agreements are more likely to allow tribes not only to quantify their water rights on paper but also to procure access to these resources in the form of infrastructure and other related expenses, at least in some cases.

After being negotiated, approval and implementation of Indian water rights settlements require federal action. As of 2019, 36 Indian water rights settlements had been federally approved, with total costs in excess of $5.8 billion. Of these, 32 settlements were approved and enacted by Congress and 4 were administratively approved by the U.S. Departments of Justice and the Interior. After being congressionally authorized, federal projects associated with approved Indian water rights settlements generally have been implemented by the Bureau of Reclamation or the Bureau of Indian Affairs (both within the Department of the Interior), pursuant to congressional directions. Congress has appropriated discretionary and mandatory funding (and, in some cases, both) for these activities, including in recent appropriations bills. In the 116th Congress, H.R. 1904 proposes to extend certain mandatory funds for these settlements in perpetuity (the funding currently expires in FY2029).

Several individual Indian water rights settlements recently have been considered and enacted, including three that were enacted during the 114th Congress. A primary challenge facing new settlements is the availability of federal funds to implement ongoing and future agreements. Indian water rights settlements often involve the construction of major new water infrastructure to allow tribal communities to access water they hold rights to, and obtaining federal funding for these projects can be difficult. As a result, some settlements have been renegotiated to reduce their federal costs.

At issue is under what circumstances (if any) Congress should approve new Indian water rights settlements and whether Congress should fund (and in some cases amend) existing settlements. Some argue that resolution of Indian water rights settlements is a mutually beneficial means to resolve long-standing legal issues, provide certainty of water deliveries, and reduce the federal government’s liability. Others argue against authorization and funding of new settlements, either on general principle or with regard to specific individual settlements and activities.

Here is the map from the 17 July 2018 report (R44148):

Figure 1. Indian Reservations with Water Rights Settlements or Negotiations

Cutting to the chase...

Conclusion

Long-standing disputes over water rights and use involving Indian tribes continue to be negotiated and settled by the executive branch and are thus likely to be an ongoing issue for Congress. This matter includes implementation of ongoing Indian water rights settlements, negotiation of new settlements, and consideration of these settlements for potential enactment and subsequent funding. As of the end of the 115th Congress, 32 settlements had been enacted since 1978, and 4 settlements had been approved administratively. Additional funding for ongoing settlements and authorization of and appropriations for new settlements are likely to be requested in the future. In considering Indian water rights settlements, primary issues for Congress may include the cost, contents, and sufficiency of federally authorized efforts to settle tribal water rights claims, as well as the circumstances under which these settlements are considered and approved by authorizing committees and others (i.e., whether the settlements are accompanied by formal statements of Administration support, cost estimates, etc.). In addition, the preferred extent of federal involvement in implementing settlements, including the question of whether the federal government or tribes should take the lead in developing and constructing projects, may be of interest to Congress.

Enjoy!

"I like being over the hill. I've discovered there's a whole new landscape." - @Janefonda (quoted in @thesundaytimes via @TheWeek)