Michigan court deliberates Flint water system switch and state actor involvement

The Court of Claims hearing on May 7, 2025, focused on the case of David Krieger versus the Department of Environment, Great Lakes and Energy. A significant discussion centered on the legal implications of state actions regarding water resource management, particularly in relation to the Flint water crisis.

During the meeting, it was noted that the affirmative act in question involved the authorization of higher water levels, similar to a previous case involving a switch in water sources. The discussion highlighted the role of the state of Michigan, specifically referencing the Emergency Manager Act, which allowed for the appointment of an emergency manager in Flint. This manager was responsible for the decision to transition from the Detroit water system to the Flint water system.

The timeline of events was outlined, indicating that Flint was notified a year in advance about the switch in water sources. The court found that the senior leadership involved in this decision were acting as state actors, which raised questions about the nature of state responsibility in this case. Judge Boonstra, along with the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court, concluded that the actions taken constituted sufficient state action.

However, the discussion also pointed out that there were no allegations that the Department of Environment, Great Lakes and Energy was directly owned, operated, or controlled by state actors, which complicates the legal arguments being presented.

The implications of this case are significant, as they may influence future legal interpretations of state responsibility in environmental management and public health crises. The court's decisions in this matter will likely set important precedents for how similar cases are handled in Michigan and beyond.