The civic record
Read. Follow. Verify.Congressional Hearing on the Flint Water Crisis
Record date · January 1, 2017
Track this bill to get notified when it advances a stage. One tap to stop, anytime.
What This Bill Does
This document is the official transcript of a February 3, 2016, House Oversight Committee hearing regarding the federal government's role in the Flint, Michigan water contamination crisis. The hearing examined the administration of the and included testimony from EPA officials, state environmental regulators, academic experts, and Flint residents.
The hearing established the formal congressional record regarding federal and state oversight failures that led to lead contamination in Flint's public water supply, impacting the health and safety of thousands of residents.
Who It Affects
Groups the bill's text affects, as described in the record. Being affected is not a position for or against it.
Flint Residents
Residents experienced lead contamination in their public water supply, which was the subject of the oversight investigation.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
The agency's regulatory actions and oversight of the Safe Drinking Water Act were under formal review by Congress.
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality
The state department's management of water safety in Flint was a primary focus of the committee's inquiry.
Key Facts
- The hearing was held on February 3, 2016, by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
- The primary subject was the federal administration of the Safe Drinking Water Act in Flint, Michigan.
- Witnesses included representatives from the EPA, the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, academic researchers, and a Flint resident.
- The committee entered several internal EPA memos and emails into the record regarding the timeline of the water crisis.
Show all 5 facts
- Democratic members of the committee formally requested that Michigan Governor Rick Snyder appear as a witness.
Frequently Asked Questions
What was the purpose of this hearing?
Who testified at the hearing?
What else do you want to know?
News Coverage
The push to remove lead pipes is on. Thousands of water systems still don’t know where theirs are
More than 1,300 public water systems have been cited by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for missing an October 2024 deadline to submit inventories of lead service lines. Roughly 6,300 water systems nationwide have still not submitted the required lists, which are critical for communities to begin replacing lead pipes under upcoming federal deadlines.
Yacimiento petrolífero se convirtió en el primer depósito de carbono de California. ¿Quién será responsable si algo sale mal?
California has failed to meet its 2025 deadline to establish state-level safety and financial responsibility regulations for carbon storage projects. Consequently, the Elk Hills carbon injection site—the first of its kind in the U.S.—is currently operating under federal oversight without the stricter state-mandated standards intended to protect the public and ensure long-term accountability.
An oil field became California’s first carbon vault. Who’s responsible if something goes wrong?
California's first commercial carbon-storage project is currently active despite the state missing a legal deadline to establish governing regulations by 19 months. The project operator stands to potentially receive billions in public incentives while stakeholders remain in dispute over the scope of future regulatory requirements.
Bias ratings based on AllSides / Media Bias/Fact Check
Follow the record
Votes, people, money & the original sourceFull breakdown
Who this bill affects and the strongest case for and against it, written only from the bill’s own text.
Discoveries
Patterns POLISCOPE noticed across the record. These are observations to investigate, not conclusions.
Congressional Oversight of EPA
The hearing highlights a significant moment where congressional oversight was used to challenge EPA enforcement protocols regarding lead in water.
Connected Entities
Sources
www.govinfo.gov
Analysis Score
0–100- Significance95How much this matters to a regular citizen
- Controversy85Intensity of disagreement among stakeholders
- Entertainment40Compellingness for a non-policy-wonk reader
- Buzz30Current news / social attention level
Publisher tools