Opinion ID: 4536379
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: MDEQ Officials

Text: Defendant-Appellant MDEQ Officials include State agency employees who permitted the switch to the Flint River, distorted water quality tests, and resisted concerns from other agencies like the EPA and the GCHD regarding the quality of Flint River water. In Guertin, we stated that the MDEQ Officials—there, Busch, Shekter-Smith, Prysby, and Wurfel—“played a pivotal role in authorizing Flint to use its ill-prepared water treatment plant to distribute drinking water[,] . . . falsely assured the public that the water was safe[,] and attempted to refute assertions to the contrary.” 912 F.3d at 927. We have not had the opportunity previously to address the conduct of Rosenthal and Cook. The MDEQ Officials argue that they decided not to use corrosion control based on a mistaken, but reasonable, interpretation of the EPA Lead and Copper Rule. Appellant Br. (191477) at 3–4, 38, 45. But as we stated in Guertin, “[t]o the extent these defendants made ‘honest mistakes in judgment’—in law or fact—in interpreting and applying the Lead and Copper Rule, that defense is again best reserved for after discovery.” 912 F.3d at 928 (citation omitted). At this stage, we must accept the reasonable inference from Plaintiffs’ allegations that, whatever the MDEQ’s purported justifications for its actions, it rushed the switch to the Flint River knowing it would deliver contaminated water and that the decision-makers cared only about cost, not water quality. Their purported defense also does not explain why they failed to treat the water after they came under the EPA’s scrutiny, or why they lied to the EPA. Plaintiffs-Appellees plausibly allege a constitutional violation for each DefendantAppellant MDEQ Official for the reasons stated below.
Liane Shekter-Smith was the MDEQ Chief of the Office of Drinking Water and Municipal Assistance. Despite knowing that Flint River water presented health risks, see R. 620- 3 (Fourth Am. Compl. at 40, ¶ 105) (Page ID #17843), she secured the necessary administrative consent order (or ACO) and rushed the switch to the Flint River before the FWTP was ready, see id. at 45–46, ¶ 128 (Page ID #17848–49). When reports poured in from residents that something was wrong with the water and that it was making them ill, she did nothing. See id. at 57, ¶¶ 165– Nos. 19-1425/1472/1477/1533 Waid et al. v. Snyder et al. Page 28 67 (Page ID #17860). After privately suggesting that the water might be contaminated, id. at 85, ¶ 252 (Page ID #17888), she publicly combatted the GCHD’s legionella analysis, id. at 85–86, ¶¶ 252–53 (Page ID #17888–89). And she did nothing to mitigate the crisis even after the Del Toral Report blew the whistle on high lead levels in Flint’s water. Id. at 87–88, ¶¶ 259–62 (Page ID #17890–91). Her alleged role in creating, failing to mitigate, and covering up the crisis plausibly demonstrates deliberate indifference.
Adam Rosenthal was the MDEQ Water Quality Analyst. He did not stop the switch to the Flint River in spite of Glasgow’s warning that the FWTP was not ready. Id. at 46, ¶ 129 (Page ID #17849). He knew as early as May 2014 that the water contained high TTHM levels that were above regulation (and indicated lead contamination), and did nothing. Id. at 58, ¶ 172 (Page ID #17861). In July 2015, Glasgow wrote to him that “Flint has lots of lead pipe, no corrosion control treatment” and that “[t]his is an unprecedented situation and EPA needs to take this seriously. Now.” Id. at 89, ¶ 267 (Page ID #17892). Yet, Glasgow wrote, “MDEQ is still publicly insisting Flint water has tested safe, is safe, and that [F]lint has no violations of any sort.” Id. Rosenthal, apparently unmoved, soon afterward distributed a distorted water quality report that was altered to exclude high lead levels. Id. at 91, ¶ 273 (Page ID #17894). He has also been accused of manipulating and falsely reporting the test results. Id. His alleged role in creating, failing to mitigate, and covering up the crisis plausibly demonstrates deliberate indifference.
Stephen Busch was the MDEQ District Supervisor. Busch knew as early as March 2013 that Flint River water presented health risks and would require significant treatment, id. at 40, ¶ 105 (Page ID #17843), but he did not stop the switch to the Flint River even after Glasgow warned him that the FWTP was not ready, id. at 46, ¶ 129 (Page ID #17849); see also Guertin, 912 F.3d at 927. When the MDEQ came under the EPA’s scrutiny for lead contamination, Busch lied and told Del Toral that the City was using corrosion control. R. 620-3 (Fourth Am. Compl. at 83, ¶ 246) (Page ID #17886); see also Guertin, 912 F.3d at 928. Busch claims that he Nos. 19-1425/1472/1477/1533 Waid et al. v. Snyder et al. Page 29 did not lie and that, instead, he simply informed the EPA that the City had a corrosion control program in place, meaning that the City was monitoring the water without treating it. See Appellant Br. (19-1477) at 54. That is quibbling with the facts and asks us to do what we cannot at this stage—to view the allegations in the light most favorable to him. See Guertin, 912 F.3d at 916. Plaintiffs’ allegation stands. Busch also lied to the GCHD. He told them that the evidence did not support a connection between the outbreak of Legionnaires’ disease and the switch to the Flint River. R. 620-3 (Fourth Am. Compl. at 85–86, ¶ 253) (Page ID #17888–89). And according to Glasgow, Busch directed him to distort water quality tests to exclude high results for lead contamination. Id. at 91, ¶ 273 (Page ID #17894). Busch’s alleged role in creating, failing to mitigate, and covering up the crisis plausibly demonstrates deliberate indifference.
Michael Prysby worked under Busch as an MDEQ Engineer for District 11, which serviced the City of Flint. Along with Busch, he did not stop the switch to the Flint River in the face of Glasgow’s warnings, id. at 46, ¶ 129 (Page ID #17849); see also Guertin, 912 F.3d at 927; he did nothing in response to the Del Toral Report, R. 620-3 (Fourth Am. Compl. at 87–88, ¶¶ 259–62) (Page ID #17890–91); and he purportedly directed Glasgow to distort water quality tests to exclude high results for lead contamination, id. at 91, ¶ 273 (Page ID #17894). His alleged role in creating, failing to mitigate, and covering up the crisis plausibly demonstrates deliberate indifference.
Patrick Cook was the MDEQ Water Treatment Specialist. He signed the permit that was the last necessary approval for the (rushed) use of Flint River water and the FWTP. Id. at 47, ¶ 132 (Page ID #17850). Like other officials, he at first did nothing in response to the Del Toral Report. Id. at 87–88, ¶¶ 259–62 (Page ID #17890–91). Then, in April 2015, he admitted in an email to Del Toral that “Flint is currently not practicing corrosion control at the [F]WTP,” id. at 86–87, ¶ 257 (Page ID #17889–90), after Busch had lied and told the EPA that the City was using corrosion control, id. at 83, ¶ 246 (Page ID #17886). In the same email, however, Cook Nos. 19-1425/1472/1477/1533 Waid et al. v. Snyder et al. Page 30 “misled the EPA regarding the necessity of using corrosion control in Flint after the switch.” Id. at 83, ¶ 247 (Page ID #17886). Cook contends that the email itself renders Plaintiffs’ reading of it implausible. Reply Br. (19-1477) at 6–7. When a document attached to the complaint contradicts the allegations, the document trumps the allegations. Williams v. CitiMortgage, Inc., 498 F. App’x 532, 536 (6th Cir. 2012). For a document to contradict the complaint, it must “utterly discredit” the allegations. Cagayat v. United Collection Bureau, Inc., 952 F.3d 749, 755 (6th Cir. 2020) (quoting Bailey v. City of Ann Arbor, 860 F.3d 382, 386–87 (6th Cir. 2017)). The email at issue here does not utterly discredit Plaintiffs’ allegations. Though Cook admits at the start of the email that the City is not using corrosion control, he then states that there was and is no need to do so because the Flint River water’s testing results were within the regulatory limit of 15 ppb for lead. R. 735-3 (Cook Email at 2) (Page ID #20343) (“The first round of samples after switch-over from DWSD . . . had 90th percentiles of 6 ppb for Lead . . . . The highest lead result out of the 20 [samples] received [from the second round of testing] thus far is 13 ppb.”). Touting allegedly distorted water quality test results and false compliance plausibly was misleading. Therefore, the district court was right to credit Plaintiffs’ allegations. Cook’s alleged role in creating and covering up the crisis plausibly demonstrates deliberate indifference.8
Bradley Wurfel was the MDEQ Director of Communications and was instrumental in the coverup. In the summer of 2015, as concerns and criticism reached their peak, he repeatedly lied to the public and assured them that Flint River water was safe. R. 620-3 (Fourth Am. Compl. at 88–90, ¶¶ 265–70) (Page ID #17891–93); see also Guertin, 912 F.3d at 928. He told parents that “anyone who is concerned about lead in the drinking water can relax.” R. 620-3 (Fourth Am. Compl. at 88, ¶ 265) (Page ID #17891). He cited distorted water quality tests as evidence that 8 Defendant Cook notified us that the district court dismissed him from a separate Flint Water Crisis case, Brown v. Snyder (In re Flint Water Cases), No. 18-cv-10726, 2020 WL 1503256, at  (E.D. Mich. Mar. 27, 2020). He contends that his dismissal from Brown similarly warrants his dismissal here. We disagree. The district court in Brown dismissed Cook because his wrongful conduct occurred after the plaintiff’s injury in that case. Id. at , 12. The plaintiff in Brown had died of Legionnaires’ disease before Cook allegedly misled the EPA. Id. There is no similar timing issue in this case. Nos. 19-1425/1472/1477/1533 Waid et al. v. Snyder et al. Page 31 “residents of Flint do not need to worry about lead in their water supply.” Id. at 89–90, ¶ 270 (Page ID #17892–93). He even attacked independent whistleblower reports by Professor Edwards and Dr. Hanna-Attisha that stated that the City of Flint was in the midst of a major public health emergency. He accused Professor Edwards of “quickly prov[ing] the theory [he] set out to prove” and decried the “near-hysteria” resulting from Dr. Hanna-Attisha’s report. Id. at 92, ¶ 275 (Page ID #17895); id. at 94, ¶¶ 283–84 (Page ID #17897); see also Guertin, 912 F.3d at 928. Wurfel asks us to consider the context and totality of the statements he made, but points to nothing that directly negates Plaintiffs’ allegations. See Appellant Br. (19-1477) at 50–52. We will not view the allegations in the light most favorable to the defendant—and that is essentially what Wurfel asks us to do. See Guertin, 912 F.3d at 916. We also reject his attempt to reargue his position in Guertin that “mere” public statements cannot violate a person’s right to bodily integrity. See Reply Br. (19-1477) at 11–13. The Guertin court concluded that public statements like those alleged here did amount to a constitutional violation. 912 F.3d at 929. That decision controls. Wurfel’s alleged role in covering up the crisis plausibly demonstrates deliberate indifference.