You Don’t Have a Right to Safe Drinking Water, US Court Rules

Please follow & like us :)

URL has been copied successfully!
URL has been copied successfully!
You Don’t Have a Right to Safe Drinking Water, US Court Rules
URL has been copied successfully!

Article By Sophie Hurwitz

A Trump-appointed judge also said Americans have no “constitutional right to truthful information” during a public health crisis.

On Friday, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of a lawsuit against the city of Jackson, Mississippi, which alleged the city knowingly let residents drink lead-contaminated water. 

The lawsuit, first filed in 2022, says the contamination violated Jacksonians’ constitutional right to bodily integrity. Donald Trump-appointed judge Kurt Engelhardt disagreed. “The Constitution does not provide redress for every governmental wrongdoing,” Engelhardt said. “Defendants’ actions allegedly deprived Plaintiffs of clean water and guileless information. These deprivations, while grievous, do not infringe upon any deeply rooted constitutional right.” 

That may be true in Mississippi—but on the state level in at least nine US states, and in more than a dozen other countries, clean drinking water is in fact a protected right. In countries including Uruguay and South Africa, a right to clean water is enshrined in the constitution. New York’s state constitution, as of a 2021 amendment, states that “each person shall have a right to clean air and water, and a healthful environment.” So too in Massachusetts, where “the right to clean air and water” has been constitutionally protected since 1972.

But according to the Fifth Circuit ruling, the US constitution is too narrow for such a claim. The Jackson plaintiffs alleged that their city government deliberately withheld information about the water’s toxicity, and exacerbated the problem through a series of boil-water notices—a practice that can eliminate some bacterial contamination, but also concentrates lead in water. Engelhardt stated there is no “constitutional right to truthful information from officials during a public health crisis.” 

Jackson is more than 80 percent Black and has a poverty rate that is more than double the national average. The city’s water system has long been in dire need of upgrades. In 2015, officials from the Mississippi State Department of Health found elevated lead levels in the water supply. Instead of immediately informing citizens, they remained silent about the issue for six months, according to reporting from Grist, while residents continued drinking toxic water. 

EPA officials ran a series of tests in 2020 and found “persistent and concerning violations” of water safety policy, including leaks, corrosion, and high lead levels throughout the system. 

But no city, state, or federal agencies fixed the problem. Meanwhile, people including Jackson plaintiff Priscilla Sterling continued drinking water with unsafe levels of lead. According to the 2022 lawsuit, several of Sterling’s children have since been diagnosed with lead poisoning, which can cause permanent brain damage. A quarter of Jackson’s residents are children, who are particularly vulnerable to the life-long effects of lead poisoning

The Fifth Circuit ruling comes as the Trump administration moves to weaken clean-water-related protections. Also on Friday, Trump’s EPA released a supplemental rule to further dilute the Clean Water Act, quickly condemned by environmental watchdogs.

“The administration is clearly struggling to craft a rule that will hold up in court while satisfying their donors’ desire to effectively scrap these protections wherever possible,” said Jim Murphy of the National Wildlife Federation. “One thing is clear: If we don’t protect our streams and wetlands, the cost of dirtier drinking water and increased flooding will flow downstream to households at a time when most Americans are living paycheck to paycheck.”

Views: 3
Please follow and like us:
About Steve Allen 3,276 Articles
My name is Steve Allen and I’m the publisher of ThinkAboutIt.online. Any controversial opinions in these articles are either mine alone or a guest author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the websites where my work is republished. These articles may contain opinions on political matters, but are not intended to promote the candidacy of any particular political candidate. The material contained herein is for general information purposes only. Commenters are solely responsible for their own viewpoints, and those viewpoints do not necessarily represent the viewpoints of the operators of the websites where my work is republished. Follow me on social media on Facebook and X, and sharing these articles with others is a great help. Thank you, Steve

Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.




This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.