So we are clear, this was the info | shared to some media Friday. Apologies | didn’t send it to you. |
started getting calls within 24 hours of ihe depertrnent responding to this FOIA request. in the interest
of full transparency, | shared our full file to make sure inquiring media hac the full set of docurnents.
we nave beer slow responding io your request, apcingies (and im the person you should call). As
you might imagine, we're getting a growing line of folks subrnitting FOIAS on this issue for various
interests.
You have been quite fair in your reporting, and ido appreciate 4. Did not mean to loop out the Freep.
iwas al home enjoying my Sunday when the News called to signal they intended to report Sunday
evening. | carne into the office io make sure we were responsive to their inquiry. Know Pd do the
same for you or Jann.
On that ... got 8 weird email frorn Wisely late Friday afternoon. I was a Vcard with my own mame and
email address on il Eshot him @ note back and asked if he needed something ... no reply.
Here's ihe essential responses we shared with the News. The announcement was intended for early
this week, but their story pushed us up by @ DE.
What has become clear in recent weeks is that staff believed they were handling the situation in accordance with
the proper protocol for a water provider using a new source, but the federal Lead and Copper rule has a
particular provision for communities over 50,000 people; that the system operator must continue treating with
full corrosion control even as they test the water.
What the staff did would have been the proper protocol for a community under 50,000 people. None of the
DEQ staff in this division had ever worked on a water source switch for a community over 50,000 people — it’s
uncommon for our big communities to switch sources.
It’s increasingly clear there was confusion here, but it also is increasingly clear that DEQ staff believed they
were using the proper federal protocol and they were not.
The Governor will soon announce an independent, third party, after-action review to detail what happened and
why, and offer steps to make sure Michigan’s drinking water program is on a better course in the future.
There is substantial controversy over the lead and copper rule — the EPA has been working for years on ways to
update and strengthen it, and Michigan will be an active part of that conversation going forward. The situation
in Flint is a snapshot of an issue affecting cities around the state and the nation. More than a dozen states
reportedly use the sampling protocol Michigan uses — that’s not a defense of the protocol, but rather an
indication that even experts on the issue disagree about the most effective testing methods.
What everyone can agree on is that lead is a serious issue. And I think everyone can agree that when the state
came to recognize that there could be a health threat in the city, we took appropriate action.
We are now engaged in an unprecedented effort to protect kids and families in Flint, develop more knowledge
about what has happened and how people were affected, and take steps to make sure it doesn’t happen again —
in Michigan, or anywhere else.
xxxEND_PAGE:deq15_b266_0981_0982_1
All who brought this issue forward deserve credit for bringing it to us. Our actions reflected inexperience, and
our public response to criticism was the wrong tone early in this conversation. But the best we can do with the
situation going forward is represented in our present course — the Governor’s plan represents all the suggestions
outlined in the draft EPA memo, the Virginia Tech report, and the guidance we’ ve gotten from EPA.
We will learn from this. We will make necessary changes to see to it that our program becomes a national
leader in protection.
xxxEND_PAGE:deq15_b266_0981_0982_2