    [House Hearing, 114 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

      EXAMINING FEDERAL ADMINISTRATION OF THE SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT IN
                             FLINT,MICHIGAN, PART II

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                             COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT
                             AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                                 MARCH 15, 2016

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 114-149

                                   __________

    Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

             Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
                          http://www.house.gov/reform

                                  __________

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    25-928 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2017

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
    http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
    U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
    E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

                  COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

                         JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah, Chairman
    JOHN L. MICA, Florida                ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland,
    MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio                  Ranking Minority Member
    JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee       CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
    JIM JORDAN, Ohio                     ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
    TIM WALBERG, Michigan                    Columbia
    JUSTIN AMASH, Michigan               WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
    PAUL A. GOSAR, Arizona               STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
    SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee          JIM COOPER, Tennessee
    TREY GOWDY, South Carolina           GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
    BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas              MATT CARTWRIGHT, Pennsylvania
    CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming           TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
    THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky              ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
    MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina         BRENDA L. LAWRENCE, Michigan
    RON DeSANTIS, Florida                TED LIEU, California
    MICK MULVANEY, South Carolina        BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN, New Jersey
    KEN BUCK, Colorado                   STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands
    MARK WALKER, North Carolina          MARK DeSAULNIER, California
    ROD BLUM, Iowa                       BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania
    JODY B. HICE, Georgia                PETER WELCH, Vermont
    STEVE RUSSELL, Oklahoma              MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, New Mexico
    EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
    GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin
    WILL HURD, Texas
    GARY J. PALMER, Alabama

                       Jennifer Hemingway, Staff Director
                        Andrew Dockham, General Counsel
             William McGrath, Interior Subcommittee Staff Director
                        Sharon Casey, Deputy Chief Clerk
                     David Rapallo, Minority Staff Director

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page
    Hearing held on March 15, 2016...................................     1

                                   WITNESSES

    Ms. Susan Hedman, Former Region 5 Administrator, U.S.
      Environmental Protection Agency
        Oral Statement...............................................     7
        Written Statement............................................    10
    Mr. Darnell Earley, Former Emergency Manager, Flint, Michigan
        Oral Statement...............................................    22
        Written Statement............................................    25
    Mr. Dayne Walling, Former Mayor, Flint, Michigan
        Oral Statement...............................................    81
        Written Statement............................................    83
    Mr. Marc Edwards, Charles P. Lundsford Professor of Environmental
      and Water Resources Engineering, Virginia Polytechnic Institute
      and State University
        Oral Statement...............................................    92
        Written Statement............................................    94

                                    APPENDIX

    2015-09-24 EPA Email on Flint's Financial Practices submitted by
      Mr. Chaffetz...................................................   220
    2014-06-20 Order No 15 Water Authority to Mayor Walling submitted
      by Mr. Chaffetz................................................   221
    2015-07-08 Mr. Del Toral Email Denied Milwaukee Travel submitted
      by Mr. Chaffetz................................................   223
    2015-07-15 Mr. Del Toral Email Worried EPA Giving False LCR Info
      submitted by Mr. Chaffetz......................................   225
    2015-09-22 Del Toral EPA to Poy Bair Damato Email submitted by
      Mr. Chaffetz...................................................   223
    2015-11-03 EPA Legal Memo on Corrosion Control submitted by Mr.
      Chaffetz.......................................................   237
    2014-03-07 Earley-Flint EM to McCormick-Detroit WSD-Flint Water
      Contract w Detroit re 2-12 submitted by Mr. Clay...............   239
    2016-01-25 Salon ``It's not just a Flint problem'' submitted by
      Mr. Lieu.......................................................   241
    RESPONSE from Mr. Earley to Questions for the Record.............   243
    RESPONSE from Dr. Edwards to Questions for the Record............   247

      EXAMINING FEDERAL ADMINISTRATION OF THE SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT IN
                            FLINT, MICHIGAN, PART II

                                  ----------

                            Tuesday, March 15, 2016

                       House of Representatives
                   Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
                                                       Washington, D.C.
        The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in Room
    2141, Rayburn Office Building, Hon. Jason Chaffetz [chairman of
    the committee] presiding.
        Present: Representatives Chaffetz, Mica, Duncan, Jordan,
    Walberg, Amash, Gosar, DesJarlais, Gowdy, Farenthold, Lummis,
    Meadows, DeSantis, Mulvaney, Buck, Walker, Blum, Hice, Carter,
    Grothman, Hurd, Palmer, Cummings, Maloney, Norton, Clay,
    Connolly, Cartwright, Kelly, Lawrence, Lieu, Watson Coleman,
    Plaskett, DeSaulnier, Welch, and Grisham.
        Chairman Chaffetz. The Committee on Oversight and
    Government Reform will come to order. Without objection, the
    chair is authorized to declare a recess at any time.
        Ms. Hedman from the EPA is supposed to be here. Ms. Hedman,
    are you here?
        [No response.]
        Chairman Chaffetz. I should say she's formerly from the
    EPA.
        As I said, the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
    will come to order. Without objection, the chair is authorized
    to declare a recess at any time.
        Ms. Hedman is now here. We will go ahead and start.
        Flint, Michigan was a financial disaster and had the
    highest water rates in the Nation, and yet some of the poorest
    water. In the spring of 2013, emergency manager, Ed Kurtz,
    approved a plan that was going to change the trajectory of the
    water.
        In a 7 to 1 vote, the city council also voted to support
    this, although they did not have the authority to execute that.
    They were going to move from Detroit Water to the Karegnondi
    Water Authority. It was a roughly $200 million build for
    cheaper water and associated jobs that would come along with
    it. Detroit Water canceled the contract a few days later, so
    Flint had a year to find another source of water, so they went
    with a Flint water source.
        In April of 2014, a switch is made, and the problems
    begin--bacteria, TTHM issues, Legionella, lead in the water.
    These are all some of the things that happened. Keep in mind,
    there is no acceptable level--none--no acceptable level of lead
    in any water. But these are when the problems started.
        LeAnne Walters, who is here in the audience today--we
    appreciate the brave nature in which you have stepped forward.
    She is a citizen. She is not a water expert, but she stepped
    forward. She did the difficult thing. And somehow, someway she
    found the fortitude to get a hold of the EPA in February of
    2015 where Miguel del Toral at the EPA came out to Michigan and
    actually started doing some testing.
        By June of 2015, a report was finalized. That report was
    then leaked, if you will, it was put out there. We have with us
    the mayor at the time, Mayor Walling. And look at his resume.
    Mayor Walling is a smart person. He is well educated. He has
    been very great in the community. And he went out on
    television, and I want to show a clip from that television
    because there is a reason why he actually went on television.
    And I want to show that clip now.
        [Video shown.]
        Chairman Chaffetz. That was July 8th of 2015. The report
    was finalized by Miguel del Toral in June. I think we are going
    to hear testimony that Ms. Hedman and EPA communicated to the
    mayor that it was safe to drink the water, and that message was
    then conveyed to the citizens. And it was not until January of
    this year that the EPA actually took some definitive action.
        Now, it is not to say that the EPA is the only one at
    fault. The Department of Environmental Quality of the State of
    Michigan is also at fault here. But if the EPA or the Michigan
    Department of Environmental Quality would have taken action in
    the summer of 2015 when the EPA Region 5 regulations manger,
    Miguel del Toral, wrote the memo to his superiors warning of
    the dangerously high levels of lead in the drinking water,
    perhaps none of this would have happened.
        What is sickening about this is it was totally avoidable.
    The former head of Region 5, Ms. Susan Hedman, who is with us
    today, dismissed and downplayed this memo calling it ``a
    preliminary draft,'' and asserting, ``It would be premature to
    draw any conclusions.'' So the residents of Flint continued to
    drink the water, poisoning them and their families.
        The next opportunity for EPA to take action came from
    outcries for help from city officials. Congressman Dan Kildee
    was also very engaged in this. It reached a fever pitch in
    September of 2015, and still no action was taken. In fall of
    2015, local Flint residents filed an emergency petition with
    the EPA. Ms. Hedman continued to dismiss the problem, and
    claimed the EPA was monitoring the situation.
        In December of 2015, the City of Flint declared a state of
    emergency. A month later, Governor Snyder declared a state of
    emergency for Flint, activated the State's Emergency Operations
    Center, and requested a Federal declaration of disaster.
    Finally on January 21st, 2016, nearly 7 months after Miguel del
    Toral's memo, the EPA issued an emergency administrative order
    citing, ``Imminent and substantial endangerment exists'' with
    regard to the high levels of lead in the Flint water supply.
        But how many more people were poisoned in those 7 months?
    How many illnesses were worsened in those 7 months? On that
    same day that emergency order went out, that same day Ms.
    Hedman rightfully resigned, but her resignation does not heal
    the sick and ease the suffering of the residents of Flint. What
    concerns me, and we will deal with on Thursday, is the action
    of resigning by Ms. Hedman was characterized by the EPA
    administrator as courageous. It was courage according to the
    administrator. But we will, like I said, deal with that on
    Thursday.
        What happened in Flint can never happen again, and it is
    almost unbelievable how many bad decisions were made.
    Government at every level--local, State, and Federal--made poor
    decisions. And our role on the committee is to ensure Federal
    agencies and employees do their job. According to the EPA's
    website, its mission is ``to protect human health and the
    environment.'' They failed at every single level. Instead the
    EPA seems to be working on other things, other priorities.
        I am going to enter some things into the record, and it is
    going to make some people uncomfortable. There have been a lot
    of accusations about was this driven by race. Was this driven
    by the fact that this was a poor city? Is this because they are
    under served? There are a lot of accusations out here.
        This is an internal memo, and before you put it up, I want
    you to understand who this is going back and forth with. This
    is Jennifer Cooks, EPA Michigan program manager, Region 5,
    Debbie Baltazar, EPA Region 5 branch manager, Timothy Henry,
    EPA Region 5 associate director of the Water Division, and
    Steve Marquardt--I do not how to pronounce his name--EPA
    environmental engineer.
        This is an internal memo. Go ahead and put it up. September
    24th. ``Perhaps she already knows all this, but I'm not so sure
    Flint is the community we want to go out on a limb for.'' Are
    you kidding me?
        The EPA administrator says that Susan Hedman was courageous
    for resigning. It did not take us but a couple of hours once we
    got these memos to find the problem here. You can take down
    that.
        Why is Flint not the community they go to? You know, of all
    the communities out there, the one that is having the toughest
    time is the one that needs the most protection. And you can
    shake your head and say, oh, yeah. But the EPA had every
    opportunity to make the right move here, and they did not.
        And the Department of Environmental Quality, do not think
    you get off the hook either because of the one the things that
    is fundamentally and totally wrong here is they had the
    information and they would not release it to the public. The
    Congress now, at least the House, has passed a piece of
    legislation saying when you have this information, you have to
    release it within hours. That is just common sense. It should
    not take an act of Congress to tell the EPA that they need to
    make this information public.
        We are going to a good, vibrant hearing today. So I would
    unanimous consent to enter this into the record.
        Without objection, so ordered.
        Chairman Chaffetz. I also would like to enter into the
    record a Darnell Earley directive, an Order Number 15, dated
    June 20th, 2014, turning over to Mayor Walling form Darnell
    Earley, the emergency manager at the time, the day-to-day
    operations for the Department of Planning and Development and
    the Department of Public Works.
        Without objection, so ordered.
        Chairman Chaffetz. An email from Miguel del Toral. This is
    correspondence back and forth dated July 8th, 2015. And one of
    the concerns is you got a Miguel del Toral. He is pretty much
    on the line, right? He is right there on the front lines. One
    of the things I have heard that is probably the most disturbing
    is that he felt like he was retaliated against. In fact, we had
    a hearing last year about the actions of Susan Hedman in Region
    5 and the retaliation, three whistleblowers coming up talking
    about retaliation efforts.
        And here you have Miguel del Toral on July 8th, finally
    gets fed up. One of the things he said is, ``It almost sounds
    like I'm stuck in a corner holding up a potted plant because of
    Flint. One misstep in 27-plus years here, and people lose their
    minds.'' A guy who was not allowed to travel. He suddenly had
    to go to ethics training. He had to do all these other things.
    That is how Region 5 and the EPA was operating.
        This guy should be put up as getting a raise. You want to
    give a bonus to somebody? Give it to Miguel del Toral. He was
    doing the right thing. Instead he is being reprimanded. And I
    would ask that this be entered into the record as well. Without
    objection, so ordered.
        Chairman Chaffetz. On July 15th, 2015, I will enter this
    also into the record. Without objection, so ordered.
        [The information follows:]
        Chairman Chaffetz. And then finally, Miguel del Toral gets
    fed up on September 22nd of 2015. This is how he starts the
    email: ``This is no surprise. Lead lines plus no treatment
    equals high lead in water, equals lead poisoned children.''
    This is how it starts in September, and the EPA did not do
    anything until January. I do not understand that. This is the
    kind of thing that has to immediately get out into the public.
    Immediately.
        Let me read another paragraph from this email. ``At every
    stage of this process, it seems we spend more time trying to
    maintain state and local relationships than we do trying to
    protect the children. I said this from the very beginning, and
    I will say it again. You do not have to drop a bowling ball off
    of every building in every city to prove that gravity and
    science will work the same everywhere. It is basic chemistry.''
        I ask unanimous consent to enter that into the record.
        Without objection, so ordered.
        Chairman Chaffetz. And I ask unanimous consent to enter
    into the record an EPA internal memo, November 3rd, 2015.
        Chairman Chaffetz. ``After reviewing the rule with our
    Office of General Counsel, it appears there are different
    possible interpretations of the lead-copper rule with respect
    to how the rule's optimal corrosion control treatment processes
    apply to this situation, which may have led to some uncertainty
    with respect to the Flint water system.''
        The law, something already passed out of this Congress, the
    Lead and Copper Rule is supposed to be updated every 6 years.
    We are now being told it will not be updated until 2018, 12
    years after it was supposed to. And you will hear back and
    forth in the correspondence about concern from the State, and
    the Department of Environmental Quality what are they supposed
    to do? And this is the general counsel--I am sorry--the
    director of the Office of Groundwater and Drinking Water
    saying, yeah, this continues to be a problem. Mr. Edwards has
    highlighted this as an ongoing problem.
        So there is a lot here to discuss, okay? This should never,
    ever have happened in the first place. With that, I will now
    recognize the ranking member, Mr. Cummings.
        Mr. Cummings. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for holding
    this hearing today and for agreeing to our request to obtain
    documents as part of this investigation, and for calling the
    person who has not been mentioned yet, Governor Snyder, to
    testify on Thursday. Some people in your position might have
    shied away from this investigation, but you came through on
    your promises, and I thank you for that.
        I also want to thank you for agreeing to our request to
    conduct transcribed interviews of key witnesses. Last week our
    staff traveled to Michigan to interview Dan Wyant, the former
    director of the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality.
    He, too, has not been mentioned yet.
        Mr. Wyant resigned on December the 29th, the same day the
    governor's task force issued its damning report. The governor's
    task force. According to that report, Mr. Wyant's staff told
    officials in Flint that corrosion control treatment was, and I
    quote, ``not necessary.'' Mr. Wyant said that.
        Mr. Wyant's staff also misinterpreted the Federal Lead and
    Copper Rule, and their failures, and I quote, and this comes
    from the governor's task force now, ``Led directly to the
    contamination of the Flint water system.'' Again, this is all
    according to the governor's own task force.
        Mr. Wyant was a very difficult witness who evaded many of
    our questions. Last December he apologized to the people of
    Flint, but he was not remorseful or apologetic in his interview
    with the committee. In fact, he disputed almost everything the
    governor's task force concluded about his failures.
        Despite this obstruction, Mr. Wyant did tell us an
    interesting fact, and this was very, very interesting. He said
    in all the time he served as director, and despite all of the
    public outrage about the State's inaction, the topic of Flint
    water was never raised in any cabinet meeting, not by Mr.
    Wyant, not by the governor, and not by anyone else. Ladies and
    gentlemen, there is something wrong with that picture.
        That was all the way through December of last year. I do
    not know if this is accurate, but if it is so, it is absolutely
    astonishing. In addition to interviewing Mr. Wyant, our staff
    also interviewed one of Governor Snyder's emergency manager for
    Flint, Jerry Ambrose. The State law that Governor Synder
    championed in 2011 gave him authority to basically
    disenfranchise local officials, overrule their votes, and
    appoint his own emergency managers with complete power over the
    city's decision making.
        City employees were required to obey their orders. During
    his interview, Mr. Ambrose told us that his number one
    priority--his number one priority--and the top priority of all
    of the governor's emergency managers was to cut spending. Cut
    spending. Everything else was viewed through the lens of cost
    cutting, and public health and safety clearly suffered as a
    result.
        This is why in March of 2015, when the Flint City Council
    voted to reconnect the clean drinking from Detroit, Mr. Ambrose
    used his power to overrule their vote. He thought it was too
    expensive, and it was cheaper to keep using corrosive water
    from the Flint River. Something is wrong with that picture.
        Even though the State of Michigan had major budget
    surpluses, and Mr. Ambrose told us that he never once--not
    once--asked for funds to help Flint switch back to clean
    drinking water from Detroit.
        Mr. Chairman, our investigation is not complete. We have
    another interview coming up with Edward Kurtz, the governor's
    second emergency manager in Flint, and there are key questions
    he needs to answer. For example, there was a general agreement
    that shifting from Detroit Water to the new pipeline being
    built by the Karegnondi Water Authority, or KWA, could save
    money. But the KWA pipeline was still under construction, and
    there was going to be a gap of about 2 years. Genesee County
    chose to stay on Detroit Water during this period, but Mr.
    Kurtz hired an engineering firm to use the Flint water as the
    primary source of drinking water.
        We have yet to see any detailed studies before this switch
    analyzing what would need to be done to ensure that the water
    coming out of the taps would be safe, and how much that might
    cost. Where are the analyses? Where are the documents? We have
    not seen them.
        Finally, we have heard Republicans focus their criticism
    almost extensively and exclusively on the EPA. I agree. The EPA
    officials could have done more, and I agree that everyone at
    fault must be held accountable. If you will recall, Mr.
    Chairman, when you asked me about bringing the head of the EPA,
    I said bring every single person that might have anything to do
    with this. I am not trying to protect anybody except the people
    of Flint.
        But under Federal law and regulations, States have the
    primary responsibility to enforce the Safe Drinking Water Act.
    In this case, Michigan officials displayed, and I quote, ``an
    abysmal public response.'' That is according to the governor's
    task force. I did not say that. The governor's task force said
    that. The actions were, and, again, the governor's task force,
    ``Simply insufficient to the task of public protection.''
    Again, those are not my words. They are the words of the
    governor's task force.
        And the task force concluded with this as I close, and I
    quote. They said, ``We believe that the primary responsibility
    for what happened in Flint rests with the Michigan Department
    of Environmental Quality.''
        And so, we will continue our investigation. There are 15
    people that Congresswoman Lawrence and I asked that we meet
    with and have conducted interviews of. None of them would
    cooperate, and so we still have work to do.
        And, again, Mr. Chairman, I mean it sincerely. I thank you
    for holding this hearing. I thank you for holding the hearing
    on February 3rd, today, and the one coming up on Thursday.
        With that, I yield back.
        Chairman Chaffetz. Thank you. I appreciate that.
        We will hold the record open for 5 legislative days for any
    member who would like to submit a written statement.
        Chairman Chaffetz. I will now recognize our panel of
    witnesses.
        We welcome Ms. Susan Hedman, former Region 5 administrator
    at the United States Environmental Protection Agency, Mr.
    Darnell Earley, former emergency manager of the City of Flint,
    Michigan. It is important to note that there have been a couple
    different emergency managers. Mr. Earley served for portions of
    that time, not the entire time.
        Mr. Dayne Walling is the former mayor the City of Flint. He
    was elected initially in August of 2009 in a special election,
    reelected to a 4-year term in 2011. And Dr. Marc Edwards, the
    Charles P. Lundsford Professor of Environmental and Water
    Resources Engineering at the Virginia Polytech Institute and
    State University. Mr. Edwards' contribution to this process has
    been invaluable. I appreciate his participation here as really
    somebody independent who understands the technicalities of the
    water. And his unbelievable dedication of time, and effort, and
    expertise has been most appreciated by both sides of this
    aisle.
        I know that Mr. Cummings and a number of others have gone
    to Flint. I was in Flint this weekend along with some of the
    Michigan delegation, and there was Mr. Edwards on the ground
    talking to people in Michigan answering their questions. And we
    appreciate your commitment and your perspective here.
        Pursuant to committee rules, all witnesses will be sworn
    before they testify. If you will all please rise and raise your
    right hand.
        Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you are
    about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
    but the truth?
        [A chorus ayes.]
        Chairman Chaffetz. Thank you. Let the record reflect that
    all witnesses answered in the affirmative.
        Each of your written statements will be entered into the
    record in its entirety. In order to allow time for discussion
    and questioning by members, we would appreciate if you would
    limit your oral testimony to 5 minutes.
        Ms. Hedman, you are now recognized for 5 minutes. Turn on
    the mics there.

                           WITNESS STATEMENTS

                    STATEMENT OF SUSAN HEDMAN, PH.D.

        Ms. Hedman. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
    Cummings, and distinguished members of the committee. I'm Susan
    Hedman, the former EPA Region 5 administrator. Thank you for
    this opportunity to testify about my role in EPA's response to
    the Flint water crisis and the reasons that I decided to
    resign.
        I first learned that Flint was not implementing corrosion
    control on June 30th, 2015 approximately 14 months after the
    city started using Flint River water that was not treated with
    orthophosphate. The very next day I offered technical
    assistance to Flint's mayor, assistance from EPA's experts on
    lead and drinking water distribution systems.
        The following week, we issued our first statement
    encouraging Flint residents to contact their water utility for
    lead testing, and providing information about limiting exposure
    to lead in tap water. On July 21st, 3 weeks after I first heard
    about this problem, the Michigan Department of Environmental
    Quality agreed with EPA's recommendation to require Flint to
    implement corrosion control as soon as possible, a
    recommendation that my staff had been making since late April
    when they first found out that corrosion control was not being
    implemented.
        That should've solved the problem. It did not. During the
    weeks and months that followed, MDEQ was slow to deliver on our
    agreement from July 21st, and the City of Flint was hampered by
    a lack of institutional capacity and resources. EPA responded
    the only way we could, by working within the cooperative
    federalism framework of the Safe Drinking Water Act.
        That framework assigns legal primacy to States to implement
    drinking water regulations, and give EPA the job of setting
    standards and providing technical assistance. So in keeping
    with that framework, we provided technical support to the State
    and the city to implement corrosion control and to provide the
    assistance that Flint residents needed to limit their exposure
    to lead.
        Most of the time, this cooperative federalism model works
    well, even in a crisis. In fact, it worked exactly the way it's
    supposed to work when the Toledo water crisis occurred in 2014.
    But as we all know, it did not work in Flint.
        Consequently, EPA was forced to evaluate the enforcement
    tools available under the Safe Drinking Water Act, which are
    more limited than the enforcement provisions of other
    environmental statutes. And while I used the threat of
    enforcement to motivate the State and city to move forward, we
    found that the enforcement options available to us were of
    limited utility last fall due to the unique circumstances of
    this case.
        In the end, with the help of the EPA Flint Task Force,
    corrosion control was finally implemented, and testing now
    indicates that the protective coating that prevents lead from
    leeching into tap water is being restored. That's the good
    news. The bad news is that this problem should never have
    happened in the first place, and I need to remind you EPA had
    nothing to do with that.
        Finally, I'd like to say a few words about my resignation.
    I resigned in part because of the false allegations about me
    that were published in early January when EPA was unable to
    correct the record before those allegations began to damage the
    Agency's ability to perform critical work in Flint. By the
    third week of January, I was widely portrayed in the media as
    someone who ``sat on the sidelines during the crisis and
    downplayed concerns by an EPA scientist about lead in the
    water.'' That's completely untrue.
        My testimony today and the material in Appendices 2 and 3
    make clear that I did not sit on the sidelines, and I did not
    downplay any concerns raised by EPA scientists or apologize for
    any memos they wrote. In fact, I repeatedly asked for a final
    memo about lead in drinking water in Flint in a form that EPA
    could publicly release. And when MDEQ attacked a Region 5
    scientist by calling him ``a rogue employee,'' I immediately
    called the MDEQ director to complain, and in a subsequent call
    with the MDEQ director and the governor's staff, I made it
    clear that this scientist is a valued member of the Region 5
    water team, a point which I made even clearer when I
    subsequently appointed him to the Flint Task Force.
        There wasn't time for these explanations in January in the
    wake of all the emergency declarations. Flint residents had
    lost trust in government, and the false allegations about me
    gave the people of Flint less reason to trust EPA. On the day I
    resigned, I sent a note to Administrator McCarthy saying in
    light of the allegations that have been made about me and the
    time it will take to set the record straight, I think this is
    the best course of action to ensure the effectiveness of EPA's
    response to the Flint water crisis, and to make sure that Flint
    residents get the help that they deserve.
        That was one reason for my resignation, but there was
    another. Quite simply, this tragedy happened on my watch. I did
    not make the catastrophic decision to provide drinking without
    corrosion control treatment. I did not vote to cut funding for
    water infrastructure or for EPA. And I did not design the
    imperfect statutory framework that we rely on to keep our water
    safe. But I was the regional administrator when this crisis
    occurred. Having spent my entire adult life as an advocate for
    the environment and public health and much of that time
    representing citizen groups, I knew that only one thing
    mattered to Flint residents: the water wasn't safe to drink.
        What happened in Flint should not have happened anywhere in
    the United States, and I was horrified that it happened in my
    region, the Great Lakes Region. I thought and still think that
    resigning was the honorable thing to do.
        Although I have left government service, I've not stopped
    worrying about the people of Flint. I'm very encouraged to see
    that the corrosion control treatment that was implemented in
    December is recoating the pipes and that the water may be soon
    be safe to drink. I'm even more encouraged to read that there
    is growing congressional support for funding to replace the
    lead surface lines in Flint, and to fund water infrastructure
    throughout the country.
        I'd like to close by asking all of you to support that
    legislation and, more generally, to support the long overdue
    investments that are needed in this Nation's water
    infrastructure.
        Thank you for this opportunity to testify. I welcome any
    questions.
        [Prepared statement of Ms. Hedman follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Chaffetz. Thank you.
        Mr. Earley, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.

                      STATEMENT OF DARNELL EARLEY

        Mr. Earley. Thank you, Chairman Chaffetz, Ranking Member
    Cummings, Congresswoman Lawrence from Michigan, and to the
    other members of this committee, I, too, thank you for the
    opportunity to appear at today's hearing. It gives me an
    opportunity to share with you any and all factual information
    regarding the public water crisis in Flint, Michigan.
        My name is Darnell Earley. I've been a public servant for
    nearly 40 years in Michigan fulfilling roles as a city,
    township, county manager and administrator, as well as a state
    government appointee. I've also served as acting mayor Flint
    during the time I was city administrator, and I would hope that
    you would glean from my comments this morning that I have a
    deep affinity for the City of Flint and for the people that
    reside there.
        I recently served as one of four emergency managers
    appointed to Flint by Governor Rick Snyder during the period
    discussed, and that was between 2011 and 2015. My appointment
    was October 2013, and I served until January of 2015. And some
    on these committees, as I listened to the hearing before,
    expressed concern about the emergency manager law and its
    negative effect on communities. The law certainly does not
    provide for limitless disenfranchisement and total disregard of
    the community, its elected officials, and certainly not its
    people.
        During my tenure as a city manager and as a township
    manager, I've always--always--involved the elected and
    appointed officials in the management of the day-to-day
    operations of the city. I did no different in Flint. Indeed as
    the chairman has just shared with you, I signed an order
    delegating day-to-day operational authority over not only the
    Department of Planning and Development, but over the Department
    of Public Works, which included the Flint water treatment
    plant.
        I assigned that to the mayor. The mayor served as part of
    our core team, as part of our administrative staff, and had
    day-to-day responsibilities that I consulted with him as well
    as other members of our core team about the day-to-day
    operations of the City of Flint. That's what city managers do.
        As the crisis in Flint has unfolded, we've all now
    witnessed some very difficult and inexcusable actions on the
    part of governmental agencies, delay, some inexplicable
    miscalculations about protocol. And in the midst of all this
    crisis, I must tell you that I believe that I have been
    unjustly persecuted, vilified and smeared both personally and
    professionally in the media and by some local, State, and
    Federal officials, as well as by a misinformed public. It's
    important for me to state that because part of my main reason
    or being here today is set the record straight, and to make
    clear that people understand that the role of an emergency
    manager is designed to benefit a community and to help it
    regain its financial solvency and stability.
        There are four clear points I want to make regarding my
    comments with you. The first is that the decision to switch
    from DWSD, the Detroit Water and Sewage Department, to KWA was
    a local decision. As the chairman has just shared with you, the
    city council voted to move from the DWSD to the KWA. This was
    not an immediate kind of decision made in a vacuum. There have
    been discussions about leaving the Detroit Water and Sewer
    Department and building its own water system since the time
    that I was there as city administrator, from 2001 to 2004. So
    this is not new discussion.
        The second point I want to make is that I made no decision
    about the use of the Flint River. That was all a part of the
    discussions of moving from DWSD to KWA, having a 2-year period
    within which we had to find water. The city had to have water.
    In the notice from the Detroit Water and Sewage Department that
    they sent, they terminated the contract which left the city
    with no viable options for water. The Flint River had served as
    the backup for the DWSD water system, and it also served as the
    primary water source for the City of Flint prior to the mid-
    1960s. So this was a known commodity.
        The fact that I was EM at the time that the switch was made
    does mean that it was my decision. And that's an important
    point to make because there were four emergency managers
    appointed during that time. I had the responsibility of having
    it happen on my watch because the contract terminated, but in
    that process I involved everyone in the discussion. We did all
    that we could in order to move the city forward towards a new
    water system.
        And that brings me to my third point, and that is during my
    tenure as emergency manager, when complaints were raised
    regarding the water, the water treatment staff, everyone worked
    diligently to address those issues. The issues we were
    addressing, however, and I must make this very clear, we were
    related to the treatment and the chemistry of the river. Within
    the treatment of the chemistry of the river created residue
    that caused a lot of negative impact on the water. But those
    impacts had nothing to do with lead leeching into the pipes. We
    were not told of that as an issue. We were trying to create a
    situation of treatment for the TTHM, or the residual, if you
    will, for treating the water. So we did those things that were
    necessary.
        We gave two boil water advisories at the direction of the
    Michigan Department of Environmental Quality. Boil water
    advisories are common in the administration of water systems,
    but after two of those boil water advisories, I began to feel
    that we were not getting to the heart of the issue, and had
    asked that we bring in a separate water consulting authority,
    the Viola National Group, to take a look at this and find out
    what was going on. Even in their analysis, there was not
    mention of the lead leeching into the water.
        So we were treating water contaminated based on TTHM and
    other residual chlorides, not the lead issue. The lead issue
    surfaced after I completed my term as emergency manager in
    January of 2015. As we all know, we were grossly misled by the
    experts at MDEQ and EPA. And while I don't have any great pride
    in knowing that, I do think it is important because not only
    does the City of Flint depend on the regulatory agencies, but
    every city in the State of Michigan as well as the United
    States of America.
        Let me just also state, Mr. Chairman and members, know that
    I am sad and that I am very, very deeply hurt by what has
    happened on my watch as emergency manager. I'm disappointed in
    the water crisis in Flint. As I said earlier, I have a special
    affinity for the community and the people residing there. I
    used to live in Flint when I was city administrator. I have
    relatives there now. I have family members there. I've
    worshipped in the churches alongside the parishioners in the
    City of Flint. I've patronized its buildings. I went back to
    Flint as emergency manager because I believed I could make a
    difference. I, too, drank the water.
        As a former acting mayor of Flint, I sincerely regret what
    has transpired. The human nature inside of me cries out for a
    resolution of this matter on behalf of those who are less
    fortunate and do not have the capacity to make these things
    right. Well, we do have the capacity to do that. But this is a
    water treatment issue. This is not a leadership issue. This is
    not who's responsible, who can we blame. This is how do we fix
    a bad situation and make it better for a community that's now
    only about 60 miles from where I live, where I go, and I know
    the people. And not one day goes by that I do not pray for a
    resolution of this problem.
        Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, in closing, the
    hard work and dedication of many will be needed to solve this
    problem, and to be reasonably sure that it will never happen
    again. It is, therefore, my prayer that everyone's attention
    will now turn towards solving these challenges, including
    formulating plans to address the aged and crumbled condition of
    water distribution systems that exist not only throughout Flint
    and Genesee County, but throughout urban core America, because
    until we do this, many other cities are just one expert's
    mistake away from an outcome similar to the Flint water crisis.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. I'll
    be happy to answer any questions you may have.
        [Prepared statement of Mr. Earley follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Chaffetz. Thank you, Mr. Earley.
        We will now recognize Mayor Walling for 5 minutes. You are
    now recognized.

                       STATEMENT OF DAYNE WALLING

        Mr. Walling. Good morning, Chairman Chaffetz, Ranking
    Member Cummings, and honorable members of the committee. I also
    thank you for the opportunity to present testimony and to be
    invited to this hearing.
        The drinking water crisis in Flint is a catastrophe that's
    had a devastating effect on our families, our most vulnerable
    children and seniors, our schools, neighborhoods, businesses,
    the entire community. Flint is a strong city. It's going to
    survive. With the right support it will thrive. But Flint never
    should have been in this situation.
        As a father raising my own family in Flint, I'm deeply
    concerned for the children and all the people who have been
    affected. I am sorry this crisis happened every single day. I'm
    angry more was not done to respond to the water problems,
    especially by the State which controlled both the MDEQ and the
    city. I appreciate the committee's efforts to identify what
    went wrong so problems can be fixed, Flint can move forward,
    and this never happens again in America.
        From my experience as mayor, until November 2015, I have
    three main points. One, Michigan's financial manager system
    focused too much on cutting costs without adequate safeguards
    and transparency. The regulators provided false assurances to
    us about the safety of the water and withheld risks. And third,
    Governor Synder unfortunately discounted local concerns and did
    not act with urgency.
        The problems started with the switch to the Flint River for
    the city's drinking water under the control of a governor
    appointed financial manager mandated to cut costs. The switch
    was decided by EFM Kurtz in June 2013 who signed an engineering
    contract to upgrade the water plant, and who adopted a 2-year
    budget for the river water implementation without any public
    input or involvement from us as local elected officials. I was
    there. That's what happened.
        The actions taken by myself and the city council in March
    of 2013 to support the long-term use of a new Lake Huron
    pipeline did not include using the river as an interim source.
    The finance director's projections--finance director, Jerry
    Ambrose, who later became emergency manager--showed payments
    for Detroit Water being made until the new pipeline became
    operational.
        But the reality was the State and financial managers had
    full control of the city's budgets, finances, and personnel for
    nearly 4 years. And even as I and the city council were granted
    some responsibilities, the appointed managers continued to
    parcel out information and make all of the purchasing,
    personnel, and legal decisions in consultation with the State.
    I didn't sign one city contract or purchasing resolution during
    the time that the emergency managers were in place.
        From day one with the river, the State regulatory agency,
    the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, provided
    assurances to us that the Flint water was safe and met the
    standards of the Safe Drinking Water Act. When I reached out to
    the EPA for guidance, I did receive information and assistance,
    but the full risks were not shared.
        I had my own concerns about the river, was hearing concerns
    from the public, but I did rely on the information provided
    from the MDEQ and the appointed public works leadership. My
    family and I drank the water in our home. I echoed these
    assurance to the public, which I wholly regret and will never
    do again.
        We know now that we were getting bad information and,
    worse, water. Children were poisoned with lead, and we found
    out because local doctors analyzed health data themselves
    despite continued resistance from the Michigan Department of
    Health and Human Services in October of 2015. I pushed for the
    return to Detroit Water as the fastest way to bring corrosion
    control in, and the county declared a public health emergency.
        Tragically, there were opportunities missed and dismissed
    that could have averted the water crisis. I called for reforms
    and programs in January 2015 to make the water safe with all
    test results publicly released. The city was releasing
    operational reports, but the lead tests were not being shared
    and disclosed.
        I contacted the governor directly with my plan as I believe
    any mayor in a crisis should do regardless of the emergency
    managers. My initial request was for $20 million, yet we
    received only $2 million in grants. Now the costs are hundreds
    of millions with an unknown number of children and families
    affected.
        The governor discounted the complaints, even of concerned
    pastors and parents, apparently from his office's emails
    because we were viewed as adversaries of the financial manager
    system with illegitimate claims, when, in fact, we're Michigan
    citizens with toxic water.
        As someone who continues to live and work in Flint, I hope
    more will be done to aid the city, help the city heal. Flint
    citizens have fought so hard. Our families have endured so
    much. We simply deserve the same safety and opportunities for
    our families and children in Flint as anywhere else in America.
        Thank you for the opportunity, and I look forward to your
    questions.
        [Prepared statement of Mr. Walling follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Chaffetz. Thank you, Mayor.
        And now I will turn to Mr. Edwards. You are now recognized
    for 5 minutes.

                    STATEMENT OF MARC EDWARDS, PH.D.

        Mr. Edwards. After hearing the testimony of Susan Hedman
    this morning, I can't help but comment on the qualities that
    seem to be valued in administrators at the EPA. Willful
    blindness, in this case to the pain and suffering of Flint
    residents, unremorseful for their role in causing this manmade
    disaster, and completely unrepentant and unable to learn from
    their mistakes.
        Ms. Hedman said EPA had nothing to do with creating Flint.
    EPA had everything to do with creating Flint. Malfeasance at
    the U.S. EPA from 2001 to the present has harmed cities all
    over the United States. And incredibly even as National Guard
    walked the streets of Flint distributing bottled water and
    installing filters on taps, Michigan and the EPA are able to
    say that Flint has never failed the Lead and Copper Rule.
        And this is possible because the EPA has effectively
    condoned cheating on the Lead and Copper Rule monitoring since
    2006. This is because EPA and other agencies caused a similar
    lead and crisis in Washington, D.C. from 2001 to 2004, that
    actually was 20 to 30 times worse in terms of health harm to
    children in Washington, D.C. And the completely covered that up
    for 6 years and wrote falsified scientific reports. And it
    created a climate in which anything goes across the United
    States, anything at all to cover up health harm from lead in
    drinking water.
        Since 2006 when we realized that this cheating was
    occurring, I worked with a small group of people who tried to
    expose these practices to EPA, and we failed. We failed to get
    EPA to take lead in water risks seriously, and because we
    failed I was not surprised when Flint occurred. I was expecting
    a Flint to occur.
        If a landlord were to engage in similar practices and
    through their negligence to allow even a single child to be
    exposed to lead paint risk, the EPA would argue for prosecution
    and incarceration. Yet EPA has allowed entire cities to be
    unnecessarily exposed to elevated lead in their drinking water,
    and they've covered up evidence of their unethical actions by
    authoring these falsified scientific reports.
        And they never apologized for what they did in Washington,
    D.C., and incredibly to this day they have not apologize for
    what they did in Flint, Michigan. No apology from EPA.
    Completely unrepentant and unable to learn from their mistakes.
    I guess being a government agency means you never have to say
    you're sorry.
        And yesterday I have to say I was dumbfounded to read an
    op-ed by EPA administrator, Gina McCarthy, that effective
    absolved EPA of any wrongdoing or any role in creating the
    Flint disaster. Aside from creating this climate in which a
    Flint was allowed to occur, I purposely observed, witnessed,
    and uncovered wrongdoing by Ms. Susan Hedman at the U.S. EPA in
    covering up this problem.
        Ms. Hedman at every step aided, abetted, and emboldened the
    unethical behavior of civil servants at the Michigan Department
    of Environmental Quality. She allowed Flint's children to be
    harmed. And why should she not suffer the same or a worse fate
    than a common landlord who does the same thing?
        Had Flint residents not fought for the truth with the
    assistance of compassionate outsiders, it's incredible the harm
    to Flint's children never would've been exposed. And so, to
    quote Ms. McCarthy's closing op-ed statement, I do agree with
    her, ``It's tragic it took a disaster of this sort to get this
    issue the attention it deserves. Let's do something about it.''
        Ms. McCarthy, you could start by acknowledging EPA's
    failure over the last decade to enforce the provisions of the
    Environmental Protection Agency Lead and Copper Rule. This is a
    critical and necessary first step to make EPA once again worthy
    and deserving of the public trust and its noble mission.
        Thank you.
        [Prepared statement of Mr. Edwards follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Chaffetz. Thank you, Mr. Edwards. We appreciate
    it.
        We will now go to questioning, and we will first recognize
    the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Walberg, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Walberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate the
    fact that we have had a hearing. We are now having this hearing
    and another hearing, and I know that we are intent on getting
    answers and ultimately addressing the concerns of people,
    children, the faces that are in the room that we had the
    privilege to see this past Saturday in Flint standing alongside
    our colleague, Dale Kildee, as well.
        We want answers, but we want action, and ultimately we want
    solutions.
        Ms. Hedman, you say in your testimony, and I will reiterate
    it again. You read it. ``The bad news is that this problem
    should have never happened.'' And looking at the faces of the
    children, the community members there in Flint on Saturday,
    they would concur with you. As I would concur with you as well.
        But you went on to say as did Gina McCarthy, administrator
    of EPA in her article just referred to that I read with shock
    and awe that she would make the statements in the Washington
    Post that she did. But you made them today as well when you
    said, ``And I need to remind you EPA had nothing at all to do
    with that.''
        To be clear, you actually think the EPA had nothing with
    the crisis in Flint?
        Ms. Hedman. No.
        Mr. Walberg. Okay. Ms. Hedman, I have here in front of me
    Section 1431.
        Ms. Hedman. Yes.
        Mr. Walberg. It is the law. 1431 of the Safe Drinking Water
    Act pulled from the EPA's Web site this this morning, which
    describes the emergency powers authority given to the EPA ``in
    the event of an imminent--let me state that again--``an
    imminent and substantial endangerment to public health.'' Do
    you believe the people of Flint have at any time faced an
    imminent or substantial endangerment to their health?
        Ms. Hedman. Yes.
        Mr. Walberg. Then was this endangerment to the people of
    Flint not evident when the EPA learned of the high lead levels
    in June 2015?
        Ms. Hedman. Well, Section 1431 requires that there be both
    substantial endangerment and that the State fails or the city
    fails to take action.
        Mr. Walberg. Well, did they fail to take action?
        Ms. Hedman. Well ----
        Mr. Walberg. I think the answer is yes, do you not?
        Ms. Hedman. The legal advice that I got was that once the
    State had issued the order directing the City of Flint to
    implement corrosion control, and the mayor stepped forward to
    indicate that he would do as soon as possible, that it was
    likely that the State of Michigan would argue that there was a
    jurisdictional bar.
        Mr. Walberg. Well, I mean, argument is one thing. Dealing
    with the job that you have is another thing.
        Ms. Hedman. Yeah, and ----
        Mr. Walberg. The issue was we had seen so far the action
    was not being taken. Mr. Edwards and others, community members
    and others that we have all heard from thankfully, they pressed
    it. It was not happening. Why did the EPA not intervene and
    take control of the situation as soon as it learned of the
    Flint water crisis? This is a crisis to human health.
        Mr. Edwards, do you think Ms. Hedman's response was
    adequate?
        Mr. Edwards. Completely unacceptable and criminal frankly.
        Mr. Walberg. How soon should she have taken action
    according to law and according to human decency as well?
        Mr. Edwards. I do not know the law, but as a human being
    she should have told people immediately.
        Mr. Walberg. Ms. Hedman, in July 2015, you told Flint's
    mayor to disregard Mr. del Toral's preliminary memo that found
    high levels of lead in Flint water supply. Why did it take
    another 5 months for the final report to come out?
        Ms. Hedman. I never told the mayor to disregard that memo.
    In fact, if you look at Appendix 3 to my testimony, you will
    see what actually occurred during the conversation that I had
    with the mayor ----
        Mr. Walberg. There is great dispute on that coming across
    the board.
        Ms. Hedman. Yes. I wrote the email, and I know what I said.
    And if we could take the time to take a moment to talk about
    that, I think we could clear that up.
        Mr. Walberg. I am not sure we could. Mr. del Toral
    certainly has a different recollection of it, as well as
    responses to him. And I had the opportunity to talk with him in
    Flint this Saturday as well. Very different from what we are
    being told here, and that is the concern.
        Again, the human decency act. When the issue was brought to
    you by authorities in the field, by actual testing, the EPA did
    not do what it needed to do, even if the other entities going
    down to the local level and the State level were not doing
    their duty, and we are certainly going to ask them about those
    issues. And I look forward to their responses as well, Mr.
    Chairman.
        I see my time has expired. I yield back, and hopefully I
    can gain some other time from other individuals down the road.
        Chairman Chaffetz. I thank the gentleman, Mr. Walberg. I
    will now recognize the gentlewoman from New York, Ms. Maloney,
    for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Maloney. The Flint drinking water crisis is a national
    scandal, and it cries out for accountability from those that
    are responsible. And that is what we are trying to accomplish
    today.
        I would like to begin with Mayor Walling. Mayor Walling, in
    Mr. Earley's statement for this committee, he made several
    statements that specifically concern the involvement of
    yourself and the city council in the decision to switch to the
    Flint water. First, Mr. Earley alleges, and I quote, ``The
    concept of using the Flint River an interim water source was
    inherent in the city council's KWA water authority vote, and
    Kurtz's March 2013th order.''
        So, Mayor Walling, at any time did the city council ever
    vote on using the Flint River as an interim source of water?
        Mr. Walling. No.
        Ms. Maloney. Now, Mr. Earley never says that the city
    council voted on this issue. Rather he implies, he very clearly
    implies, that somehow their vote to join the KWA Water
    Authority meant that they approved the use of the Flint River
    as an interim source. So Mr. Walling, in your prepared
    statement today before the committee, I quote, ``The decision
    in June of 2013 to switch to the Flint River was contrary to
    the water plans and financial forecasts provided to me and the
    Flint City Council in March of 2013.''
        I am going to put on the screen a document entitled,
    ``Original Projection Summary Comparison: The KWA and DWSD
    Water Authority to the Detroit Authority.'' And what is notable
    to me when you see this, this is a seamless movement. Never
    does this document mention the taking of water from the Flint
    River. Is that correct, Mr. Mayor?
        Mr. Walling. That is correct.
        Ms. Maloney. And this was what was put before the city
    council. Is that correct??
        Mr. Walling. That is right. That was March 2013.
        Ms. Maloney. And if I were a member of that city council, I
    would think that was a seamless movement, and that the Flint
    River was never touched, and that the KWA and Detroit Water
    would be what was there. Is that your interpretation of it?
        Mr. Walling. That was what was provided in the documents.
    That is what took place in the city council meetings, the
    comments that I and others made.
        Ms. Maloney. Now, Mr. Earley also alleges that he,
    ``delegated all day-to-day operational responsibilities of the
    Department of Planning and Development and the Department of
    Public Works to Mayor Walling as of June 2014,'' which notably
    is after--after--the switchover. So, Mayor Walling, it appears
    to me that Mr. Earley is attempting to deflect blame for this
    crisis onto you and to the city council of Flint. What is your
    response to that?
        Mr. Walling. I was surprised when this statement was first
    made. It was made through an op-ed, I believe, in October of
    2015. And, you know, first of all, Mr. Earley at the time was
    serving as city manager in the City of Saginaw. He was not
    serving in the City of Flint. I was, and I know what happened
    and what the process was.
        The first frequently asked questions that the City of Flint
    provided in early February of 2015 when so many of the issues
    came out about the TTHM crisis was that the finance director
    and the city's public works director provided that
    recommendation to EFM Kurtz in June of 2013.
        Ms. Maloney. So in reality, to cut to the chase of it, who
    actually made the major decision related to the water issues in
    Flint? Who made those decisions?
        Mr. Walling. They were in place by Emergency Financial
    Manager Kurtz in June of 2013. That included an adopted 2-year
    budget that set the equipment, and purchasing, and personnel
    for the Department of Public Works for the next 2 years. That
    is what Mr. Earley later inherited.
        Ms. Maloney. And, Mayor Walling, my time is up, but just
    would Mr. Early have had the power to keep clean Detroit Water
    flowing if he wanted to?
        Mr. Walling. Yes. The emergency managers often amended the
    budgets that they were working with in consultation with the
    State.
        Ms. Maloney. And they had that power, not the city council.
        Mr. Walling. Correct.
        Chairman Chaffetz. I thank the gentlewoman. I will now
    recognize the gentleman form Michigan, Mr. Amash, for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Amash. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the
    panel for being here. Thank you especially to Professor
    Edwards, who has been an extremely valuable expert in this
    area. And I share your concerns about the EPA and its role, and
    Ms. Hedman's role in this, and Mr. Walberg made many important
    points in that regard.
        I am going to ask some questions to Mr. Earley. Mr. Earley,
    you wrote a column for the Detroit News in October 2015. Is
    that correct?
        Mr. Earley. That is correct, sir.
        Mr. Amash. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask unanimous
    consent to enter this op-ed into the record.
        Chairman Chaffetz. Without objection, so ordered.
        Mr. Amash. You have made clear here today and in your
    column that the decision to switch over to the Flint River was
    made by the previous emergency manager and the city council,
    correct?
        Mr. Earley. That is correct.
        Mr. Amash. In your op-ed, you say, ``It fell to me to
    oversee the implementation,'' correct?
        Mr. Amash. That is correct.
        Mr. Amash. Now, also in your op-ed it says, ``It did not
    fall to me to question, second guess, or invalidate the actions
    taken prior to my appointment.'' Do you really believe that?
        Mr. Earley. I believe that based on the fact that there was
    no petition. There was no effort made to engage me to change
    what had already been implemented. When I ----
        Mr. Amash. I am sorry. So you believe as an emergency
    manager, as someone who is put in charge of the City of Flint,
    it does not fall on you to question, second guess, or
    invalidate any actions taken prior to your appointment?
        Mr. Earley. No. What I mean by that is that it does not
    fall to me to arbitrarily change that, and that is what I was
    referring to.
        Mr. Amash. Is it not the job of a city manager to question
    things? Is that not why you are brought in?
        Mr. Earley. That is part of the reason, yes.
        Mr. Amash. If as a congressman, if I took the position that
    it is not my job to question, second guess, or invalidate any
    actions that happened prior to my being here, would I be doing
    my job?
        Mr. Earley. Well, if everybody were telling you that the
    project was on course and everything was going well, there was
    nothing to second guess.
        Mr. Amash. So if Congress passes something in a previous
    term and I get elected, I am just supposed to say, oh, well,
    everything is okay. I do not have any work here. Is that right?
        Mr. Earley. What I am saying is that you would obviously
    have to do your own due diligence, but if it comes up that
    there is nothing to change, there is nothing to change. And if
    people are telling you that the project is on course. Keep in
    mind that was only one of many projects in a distressed
    community that the emergency manager was responsible for.
        Mr. Amash. So in your op-ed, you also say, ``At the time
    the decision was made, there was no way to predict such an
    unfortunate outcome.'' You also call it ``an unintended
    consequence with no blame to affix.'' So as a person appointed
    in this position or as an elected official like me, are we not
    supposed to concern ourselves with unintended consequences? We
    are just not supposed to think about those things?
        Mr. Earley. No, that is not what I am saying. What I am
    saying is that because of those unintended consequences, we now
    have what is known as the Flint water crisis. In hindsight,
    there is probably a lot more that everyone would have done, a
    lot more questioning everyone would have done. But when you
    have an 18-month window to turn around a distressed community
    going through its second round of State intervention, the
    object is to get the work done and enlist as many people as you
    can to assist you in getting that work done.
        Mr. Amash. Is it not your job to think about unintended
    consequences?
        Mr. Earley. Well, we always think about the possibility of
    hypotheticals, absolutely.
        Mr. Amash. And do you feel you did that in this case?
        Mr. Earley. Well, I believe based on the information we
    were given, we acted responsibly and did what we did knowing
    the information we had at the time. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Amash. All right. According to Michigan's emergency
    manager law, ``Upon appointment, an emergency manager shall act
    for and in the place and stead of the governing body and the
    office of chief administrator officer of the local government.
    Additionally, the emergency manager shall have broad powers to
    assure the local government's capacity to provide or cause to
    be provided as necessary governmental services essential to the
    public health, safety, and welfare.''
        What in your view is the emergency manager's role in
    overseeing the daily duties of city employees?
        Mr. Earley. Well, as I said earlier in my comments, as the
    city manager I have always involved the elected and the
    appointed officials in the work that I do. And I did no
    different as the emergency manager and involving them because
    they are the experts. They are the ones that handle the day-to-
    day operations. They were very much involved in it, yes.
        Mr. Amash. So when a city has an emergency manager, whose
    responsible for ensuring compliance with State and Federal laws
    regarding safe drinking water?
        Mr. Earley. Well, regarding anything, the emergency manager
    obviously is the person responsible for making sure that those
    things get done, and I have always accepted that.
        Mr. Amash. So you take responsibility for that because in
    your op-ed you say, the headline is, ``Don't Blame EM for Flint
    Water Disaster.''
        Mr. Earley. I am trying to draw a distinction between
    responsibility and blame, sir. And we were all responsible by
    virtue of our roles. I was very responsible in my role as
    emergency manger.
        Mr. Amash. What role did you have, and what steps did you
    take in ensuring the water treatment plant was prepared to meet
    State and Federal drinking water standards, knowing that the
    Flint River would be the primary water source?
        Mr. Earley. Well, we had regular meetings on the progress.
    We are upgrading the plant as we got up to the switching over
    to the Flint Water. I had regular meetings with the treatment
    staff. The mayor was a part of some regular meetings that we
    had. We all had discussions about the progress and the things
    that were being encountered in this switch.
        Once we made the switch and we got the complaints about the
    quality of the water, we went to the DEQ. We got boil water
    advisories, which are common in the case of treating water. We
    had meetings on a couple of occasions with the MDEQ to talk
    about what is going and what is actually being treated.
        And let me again state for the record, in none of those
    meetings were the current issues that we are dealing with no a
    problem. They were not addressed. They were not issues brought
    to our attention. But we did everything we could to make sure
    we were being responsible to the complaints and the concerns
    about the quality of the water.
        Mr. Amash. I think responsibility involves paying attention
    to unintended consequences, thinking about what might happen.
        I see my time has expired. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Chaffetz. I thank the gentleman. I will now
    recognize the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia, Ms.
    Norton, for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Norton. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Edwards talked
    about willful blindness. I want to warn everybody about the
    willful blindness that is built into the separation of powers
    system, and that is why finger pointing of the Federal and the
    State side, either on this committee or among our witnesses, is
    quite inappropriate.
        Now, this committee has recognized this. To its credit,
    this committee passed this past February a bill, actually
    passed a law that requires the EPA to notify residents of high
    levels of lead when water samples show lead levels for the
    highest 10 percent of homes tested are above 15 parts per
    billion.
        Why do you think we needed a law? Because there is unusual
    deference on the part of Federal officials. And apparently it
    took a law to say when people's lives are in danger, when their
    health is in danger, there is an obligation to speak up when
    the State is not doing its part. Mr. del Toral did speak up to
    his supervisors, but he risked being a whistleblower, and we
    know what happens to whistleblowers in our system. So my
    questions are not aimed at finger pointing.
        It is clear, though, that once you have the slightest
    evidence of lead in the water wherever you are in the system,
    you better speak up because this is irreversible. You cannot
    turn this one around, people.
        So I have a question for Mr. Earley recognizing the Federal
    responsibility as well as the State responsibility, sir. But
    let us speak to your responsibility. You know, people are not
    crazy. They began to smell odors in the water. They saw the
    color of the Flint water change. And that started a month after
    the water plant began processing, during your watch, sir, the
    Flint water.
        Now, they began to speak out. They complained even about
    skin rashes and hair loss. Those complaints, it is our
    information, continued for 8 months while you were emergency
    manager of Flint. Did you ever consider given those complaints
    switching back to Detroit Water once the public started to
    sicken and to speak out?
        Mr. Earley. Well, let me just make, again, very clear that
    the fact of the complaints, we responded to those. We sent our
    water staff out and collected samples. But keep in mind we were
    also working very closely with the Michigan Department of
    Environmental Quality on these issues. And while the water did
    have some discoloration, we were told a number of reasons for
    that, none of which raised the fact that the water was not fit
    for human consumption.
        We relied on the information we received from the Michigan
    Department of Environmental Quality as this was a manageable
    issue. And we did what we ----
        Ms. Norton. Yeah, Mr. Earley, you have extraordinary powers
    as an emergency manager. Was money ever a concern or enough of
    a concern for you to ask the governor for State funds to
    reconnect to the Detroit Water System during your time, during
    your watch?
        Mr. Earley. Again, we were trying to manage the issue.
        Ms. Norton. And the smell of the water and the constant
    complaints were not enough of a warning for you to try to do
    something beyond rely on the experts. I mean, the experts seem
    to have been, Mr. Earley, in the public drinking the water.
        Mr. Earley. We relied on the Michigan Department of
    Environmental Quality, and we got the information from them,
    and ----
        Ms. Norton. All right. Mr. Earley, I am sorry. My time is
    limited. Sue McCormack of Detroit Water wrote to you offering
    to continue supplying water to Flint, Michigan until the Water
    Authority's project was complete. But you wrote back, ``There
    will be no need for Flint to continue purchasing water to serve
    its residences and business after April 17th, 2014.'' Why did
    you reject this offer to continue using Detroit Water as a
    source?
        Mr. Earley. Just to be clear, the letter you refer to went
    to the city clerk. At the time ----
        Ms. Norton. You had no knowledge of this letter.
        Mr. Earley. I was not the emergency manager at the time
    that the letter came in. By the time I got there, we had
    already been notified that the contract had been terminated,
    but we could still ----
        Ms. Norton. But you were the emergency manager before the
    switch was implemented on your watch. You could say, wait a
    minute, I am in charge now. Was this not your job to look at
    what should be done now now that you are in charge, sir?
        Mr. Earley. We did look at that, and, again, we followed
    the guidelines based on the information we were given. But
    importantly in that letter is that ----
        Ms. Norton. What about the warning that came, now, imagine
    receiving a warning from somebody in the line who says, ``I
    have people above me making plans to distribute water as soon
    as possible. I was reluctant to go before, but after looking at
    the monitoring schedule and current staffing, I do not
    anticipate giving the okay to begin sending this water out any
    time. If any water is distributed from this plant in the next
    couple of weeks, it will be against my direction.'' What more
    did you need, Mr. Earley?
        Mr. Earley. That did not go to me, ma'am. That did not go
    to me. That email went to the director of the Department, I do
    believe. It did not go to me.
        Ms. Norton. Your name is on the letter, Mr. Earley.
        Mr. Earley. You are talking two different things.
        Ms. Norton. What is the other thing, sir?
        Mr. Earley. Well, the letter from the DWSD and an email
    that came from one of the operators that talked about the
    distribution of water.
        Chairman Chaffetz. The gentlewoman's time has far expired.
    I will now recognize the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Micah.
        Mr. Mica. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I
    think this hearing is going to be known as the great finger
    pointing hearing. And we have got the Flint mayor throwing
    people under the bus. We have got the Flint emergency manager
    throwing people under the bus. And we have got Ms. Hedman,
    former EPA administrator for that area, throwing people under
    the bus. But somewhere it seems like people were asleep at the
    tap and not doing their job.
        Now, if the locals failed, and the mayor failed, and the
    emergency managers failed, and there were failures there, Mr.
    Edwards, what role would the Federal government have?
        Mr. Edwards. They are the last resort. They are the last
    line of defense. They are the last hope of Flint residents.
        Mr. Mica. And the reason we put EPA together was to protect
    people, right, in cities, in communities, and States where they
    did not act to protect the water of the people, right?
        Mr. Edwards. That is correct.
        Mr. Mica. Okay. Were they notified? Well, there are some
    heroes in this. First, the hero is, and she is here today, is
    Ms. Walters and her family because they notified the local
    people, and the Federal people, and everybody they could that
    they were poisoning their kids. Mr. del Toral wrote an
    incredible memo. He acted. Ms. Hedman, was he not an EPA
    official?
        Ms. Hedman. He is an EPA scientist.
        Mr. Mica. Yeah, he did a great job.
        Ms. Hedman. Yes, he did.
        Mr. Mica. A higher schooler could read his memo, which he
    produced. Here is a copy of his memo, June 24th. It tells you
    the violations of the city. It tells you the incompetence. Then
    it tells you the poisoning of their children. It is documented
    and all the steps, and the violations of Flint are listed here.
    Not just this, but they have a history. They are listed on the
    back. A higher schooler could read this and evaluate it.
        Now, you got that memo, right, Ms. Hedman?
        Ms. Hedman. I am not sure when I got that memo, but I did
    get it.
        Mr. Mica. Well, you got it, right? Okay, June. And, Mayor,
    you were aware of this, and you two talked, did you not? Did
    you talk to her about this memo, Mayor?
        Mr. Walling. Yes.
        Mr. Mica. You did talk to her. But, sir, I went back and
    checked to see if you talked to your constituent, the woman and
    family whose kids were being poisoned. We knew this early in
    2015. They knew it at the end of 2014. We had the tests here
    that proved, and he went in and he tested the pipes. He did
    everything.
        First they said the pipes were lead into the house. They
    were not lead. They were plastic. They were PVC. There was no
    lead in there. So you told her at the library on March 31st you
    were aware of it. You went to Ms. Walters and told her you were
    aware of the situation, and you would take care of it, right?
    You would do anything. Did you not tell that to your
    constituent?
        Mr. Walling. Yes.
        Mr. Mica. She showed up April 2nd, 2015 at your office, and
    they said you were gone for Easter, but they would be back with
    her on Monday, right? That is what they told her, I am telling
    you. And that is what she told me.
        Today is, what, 2016, March 15th. You have not been back
    with her since. But you were aware of this memo. You read this
    memo. They tried to suppress this memo. This was not a pretty
    memo because it said your constituents were being poisoned.
        So this is an incredible failure, I believe, at all levels,
    particularly the Federal level. That is our responsibility.
    When we get a memo like this from someone with the EPA doing
    their job, and a constituent who reports it, and we have the
    evidence of the poisoning. This Mr. del Toral is a hero, and
    the things he did, every test possible. He conducted every test
    possible, is that right? You read it, Mr. Edwards. Did you read
    this?
        Mr. Edwards. His memo has proven to be 100 percent accurate
    in every way, shape, and form.
        Mr. Mica. And yet ignored at the local level, ignored at
    the emergency management level, and then the worst thing. That
    is our responsibility. When all these levels fail, EPA. You
    never acted for, what, 5 months after this memo, Ms. Hedman?
        Ms. Hedman. That is incorrect. In fact, the following day I
    offered lead experts to the mayor.
        Mr. Mica. Yeah, what they did.
        Ms. Hedman. And within 3 weeks we had concluded an
    agreement with MDEQ to order Flint to issue corrosion control.
        Mr. Mica. And what did they do?
        Ms. Hedman. They issued an order ----
        Mr. Mica. Did they do it?
        Ms. Hedman. They did eventually.
        Mr. Mica. Eventually when?
        Ms. Hedman. They issued an order on August 17th directing
    the City of Flint to implement corrosion control on September
    3rd.
        Mr. Mica. And the time is ticking, and nothing is done, and
    you never went back on them. There was really no plan in place
    for more than 5 months.
        Ms. Hedman. That is not true.
        Mr. Mica. It was ignored. It is the whole truth and nothing
    but the truth, I hate to tell you. And, again, I think EPA also
    failed. So we had failure at multiple levels. Mr. Edwards, you
    have seen cases. You said this is not uncommon of how they
    failed across the country. Is that not the case in Flint?
        Mr. Edwards. Well, I mean, there is a climate out there
    where lead and water problems are covered up, people are
    cheating on the sampling, and that climate allowed Flint to
    occur. It allowed these unethical civil servants at MDEQ to
    claim that there was no problem in the water whatsoever, even
    when they were breaking Federal corrosion control law.
        Mr. Mica. Thank you.
        Mr. Jordan. [Presiding.] Thank the gentleman. Mr. Clay is
    recognized for his 5 minutes.
        Mr. Clay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, there were
    numerous red flags that should have led the State to agree to
    return to the Detroit Water System. Bacterial contamination in
    the water as early as summer 2014, the Legionella outbreak, the
    astronomical lead readings in LeAnne Walters' home, all of
    these early signs should have been reason enough to consider
    returning to a safe water supply. But the response was always
    the same. It was not in the emergency manager's financial plan
    for the city to return to the Detroit Water System.
        On January 9th, 2015, in response to concerns that had been
    raised about the safety of Flint's water, Mr. Early, you wrote,
    and I quote, ``Suggestions have been made that the City of
    Flint should return to using water purchased through the
    Detroit Water and Sewage Department.'' For many reasons,
    financial and otherwise, the City of Flint can ill afford to
    switch courses at this point.
        You also said it is not financially prudent to spend $18
    million to purchase water that meets the same DEQ standards as
    the water now available from the Flint River. Mr. Earley,
    obviously now we know that the water from the Flint River was
    not meeting the same standard as water coming from Detroit
    Water. Is that correct?
        Mr. Earley. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Clay. And then did you consider changing course at any
    point after serious concerns had been raised about the quality
    and safety of the river water?
        Mr. Earley. Well, at the time that you referenced, we had
    already enlisted the aid of another water expert to determine
    exactly what the causes were. We were trying to diagnosis the
    causes. Again, we were dealing with the issue of coliform,
    TTHM, E. coli, and other issues. We were not talking about lead
    at the time.
        The point is simply this. The City of Flint did not have
    the money.
        Mr. Clay. Yeah, but sometimes, I mean, look, common sense
    should take over. The General Motors plant stopped using the
    water when it started to rust new parts. What would that tell
    the average person? That means they need to stop drinking it. I
    mean, come on. Is that that difficult to determine?
        Mr. Earley. We continued to rely on the Michigan Department
    of Environmental Quality, and until such time as they deemed
    the water unsafe to drink, we were doing all that we could to
    manage the contamination and to also make the water accessible
    and potable.
        Mr. Clay. Okay, look. Look. After that January 15th letter,
    a few days later the director of the Detroit Water System sent
    you a letter offering to reconnect the City of Flint to the
    Detroit Water supply. Why did you reject the director's offer?
        Mr. Earley. I did not do that. I was gone from Flint. I had
    left Flint by that time that letter came out. That rejection
    was written by my successor. Again, there were four emergency
    managers during this period. That letter of rejection came from
    my successor.
        Mr. Clay. Okay. And so, it came down to you or your
    successor trying to save $18 million?
        Mr. Earley. No, it came down to the fact that the city did
    not have $18 million. They were already paying some of the most
    exorbitant and the highest water rates in the country. We have
    litigation pending now from the customers who are fighting the
    rates for the water, even before the contamination issues.
        Mr. Clay. Okay. Going along with your line of thinking
    then, when do we say, okay, public health and safety matters?
    And it is the responsibility of the State of Michigan or the
    EPA to step in and say we are endangering lives. We are
    damaging people for the rest of their lives. And when does that
    occur?
        Mr. Earley. From day one, sir. From day one.
        Mr. Clay. Yeah, but you did not do it.
        Mr. Earley. The issues of lead contamination came out in
    2015. They came out after that. The issues we were dealing with
    in terms of contaminated water were the TTHMs, the E. coli, and
    the coliform materials that were found in the water. And that
    was a result of the distribution system age. It was the result
    of the number of water main breaks that we had at that
    particular time.
        I mean, this was the perfect storm for things to happen
    while we were switching from one water source to another. But
    we tried to manage those.
        Mr. Clay. Well, I mean, but did not common sense tell you
    what General Motors did when they changed the water system that
    they were using because it was rusting the parts. What did that
    say to you?
        Mr. Earley. What we were told regarding that situation was
    because of the raw nature of the machine parts that General
    Motors was producing, the treatment materials we were putting
    in to treat the water was indeed having a negative impact on
    their products. But it did not correlate to a negative impact
    on consumption of the water according to the MDEQ.
        Mr. Clay. Mr. Chairman, for the record, I have a letter in
    response signed by Darnell Earley rejecting the Detroit Water's
    offer to change back. So make this part of the record, too.
        Chairman Chaffetz. [Presiding.] Without objection, so
    ordered.
        Mr. Clay. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Chairman Chaffetz. And before the gentleman yields back,
    Mr. Edwards, I will give you an opportunity to respond to this
    inquiry as well. It sounded like you wanted, okay.
        The gentleman yields back. I now actually recognize myself
    for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Hedman, when did you first know there was a problem
    about water in Flint?
        Ms. Hedman. The first time I was briefed was December of
    2014. I was briefed on the TTHM issue, the disinfection
    byproduct issue. My staff have instructions that when there is
    a significant violation in a system to bring it to my
    attention. And they briefed me shortly before ----
        Chairman Chaffetz. So you knew about it in 2014. When did
    you have your first conversation with Mayor Walling?
        Ms. Hedman. My first conversation about TTHM, about the
    disinfection byproducts, occurred in late February. He
    requested a drinking water expert in that area, and I supplied
    him with an expert from the EPA lab in Cincinnati.
        Chairman Chaffetz. So, Mr. Walling, you went on television
    in July of 2015 and told everybody that it was safe to drink
    the water. Did you just do that on your own, or who told you
    that that was a viable thing to say?
        Mr. Walling. MDEQ had repeatedly provided assurances. We
    heard over and over again in our technical advisory meetings,
    discussions with staff that the water was meeting the
    standards, that it was safe to drink.
        Chairman Chaffetz. Did you have a discussion with the EPA?
        Mr. Walling. Dr. Hedman and I spoke around that time after
    the del Toral memo was provided to me in Flint.
        Chairman Chaffetz. What did she say?
        Mr. Walling. And it was explained to me that that memo was
    under review, that the scope of the problem was being assessed.
    And my understanding at the time was this was limited to very
    particular cases because of what was there for lead surface
    lines and plumbing in individual houses.
        Chairman Chaffetz. Mr. Edwards, what is your take on that?
        Mr. Edwards. Well, the email is very clear from Ms. Hedman
    that she apologized for Mr. del Toral's memo, and Mr. Walling
    asked her if there was anything that should be of concern to
    Flint residents. And she said, frankly, no.
        Chairman Chaffetz. Ms. Hedman, why did you do that?
        Ms. Hedman. I did not apologize for the memo. I apologized
    for taking all day to get back to the mayor. And that is
    because I was out of the office for a medical procedure. And,
    in fact ----
        Chairman Chaffetz. Okay. So that was one day, so.
        Ms. Hedman. And, in fact, during the entire time period
    that Mr. Edwards imagines I was covering up data and silencing
    scientists, I was actually out of the office. I did not return
    until July 13th. During that time period, my deputy, Bob
    Kaplan, who Dr. Edwards describes as one of the good guys, was
    actually in charge of the office.
        Chairman Chaffetz. So, Mr. Edwards, this memo from Mr. del
    Toral is pretty comprehensive, is it not? Does it tackle the
    issue? Does it inform them as to the health of this water?
        Mr. Edwards. Yes, it points out that Flint is not being
    protected by Federal law, and that the public health is in
    danger.
        Chairman Chaffetz. When should that information have been
    released?
        Mr. Edwards. Had EPA just stayed silent and not apologized
    for the memo to Mr. Walling and told Mr. Walling that Mr. del
    Toral was accurate in what he said, I doubt Mr. Walling would
    have gone on TV to drink the water and tell Flint residents it
    was safe.
        Chairman Chaffetz. Is that true, Mr. Walling? Were you
    talked out of it? I mean, the memo comes out. You are getting
    inquiries from news organizations, the ACLU, and others saying,
    hey, what are you doing about this. And you go on television
    and say it is safe.
        Mr. Walling. I did trust the guidance that I was receiving,
    and that is what I regret in this looking back. But I
    deliberately reached out. I asked the White House Office of
    Intergovernmental Affairs for a point of contact in the EPA.
    This is while the City of Flint was still under emergency
    manager because I wanted to double check on what we were
    hearing from the State regulators.
        And when we are hearing essentially the same thing from the
    State and the Federal regulators, then I relied on that
    information, and that is what I ----
        Chairman Chaffetz. So what did the White House ask you to
    do? They asked you to communicate with who?
        Mr. Walling. No, I asked the White House for a point of
    contact.
        Chairman Chaffetz. Right. And the White House directed you
    to?
        Mr. Walling. Dr. Susan Hedman.
        Chairman Chaffetz. How long did it take before the EPA
    finally confirmed, came back and said, yeah, that del Toral
    report is accurate? They did not, did they? They never did.
    That is the point. If you left office, you were there for
    months, and months, and months, and they never did come back
    and actually confirm it. Mr. Edwards, is that correct?
        Mr. Edwards. That is correct.
        Chairman Chaffetz. Ms. Hedman, you were in office. You were
    here being paid by the taxpayers until late January of 2016.
    Why did it take you so long?
        Ms. Hedman. Mr. del Toral's memo actually dealt with lead
    in one residence and two neighboring residences. And the
    conclusion of the final version of his memo was that the
    problem had been caused by a physical disturbance of a lead
    surface line, and that it was particular to that household.
        Chairman Chaffetz. Mr. Edwards, this was not a report about
    one house, was it?
        Mr. Edwards. Mr. del Toral clearly pointed out that Flint
    was not being protected by Federal corrosion control laws
    period, and that the public health of an entire city was in
    danger.
        Chairman Chaffetz. This is where you are fundamentally and
    totally wrong, Ms. Hedman, and if you do not recognize that
    now. We are in mid-March 2016, and you still do not get it. You
    still do not get it, and neither does the EPA administrator.
    You screwed up, and you messed up people's lives.
        Ms. Hedman. Mr. Chairman, Mr. del Toral ----
        [Applause.]
        Chairman Chaffetz. No, no, no. The audience, please. Ms.
    Hedman?
        Ms. Hedman. Mr. del Toral was just one of several people at
    Region 5 who were concerned about the failure to implement
    corrosion control, and had been communicating to MDEQ at higher
    and higher levels of EPA management ----
        Chairman Chaffetz. This information was out there publicly.
    It had been released. You did not like it, did you? If somebody
    released that report, did he do the right thing or not do the
    right thing?
        Ms. Hedman. I do not believe he released the report.
        Chairman Chaffetz. Okay.
        Ms. Hedman. I think we need to be clear that there was ----
        Chairman Chaffetz. Was that the right thing for that report
    to go public?
        Ms. Hedman. There were three reasons why EPA could not
    release that report.
        Chairman Chaffetz. What are those?
        Ms. Hedman. The first is that it contained personally
    identifiable information, health information, and that kind of
    information is not something that we could release. And so,
    before a report is released, that is typically redacted by our
    Office of Regional Counsel.
        Chairman Chaffetz. Okay. So a black pen would take 10
    seconds or so? Yeah, okay. Keep going.
        Ms. Hedman. Right, and secondly, the material in the report
    included enforcement sensitive information. And we do not
    release that to the targets or to the general public. Again,
    that would have been a redaction issue. And then additionally,
    there was data in the report that we neither collected nor
    analyzed, and it needed to go through a kind of standard QAQC.
        I directed that that be done as soon as possible. It was my
    expectation that the report could be finalized and put in a
    form that could be publicly released before the reporter had to
    file his story. That was my expectation at the time.
        Chairman Chaffetz. And it took 7 months. Mr. Edwards, your
    reaction to her comments?
        Mr. Edwards. I am just in disbelief.
        Chairman Chaffetz. My time has well expired. I will now
    recognize the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Connolly, for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, I was in
    local government, Mr. Edwards, for 14 years in Virginia. And my
    point of contact on the environment almost always was the
    Department of Environmental Quality. I thought you gave a very
    eloquent, passionate, and suitably outraged opening statement,
    but you focus on EPA almost exclusively in that statement.
        But when we actually get to how government works and what
    the mechanics of it are, a local government relates first to
    the Department of Environmental Quality, and the Environmental
    Protection Agency does not run water authorities around the
    country. It relies on the State DEQ.
        You know, I have heard a lot of talk about let us not
    finger point, but we do need to get to the bottom of this and
    how it works. And I do not think this EPA's finest moment, but
    I for one, coming from local government for 14 years, am not
    going to let the local DEQ off the hook because it sounds
    better for one political philosophy to try to shift this entire
    blame onto the Federal government. There is plenty of blame to
    go around, but I do not want to be an enabler to avoid getting
    to the bottom of what happened and who let it happen.
        Let me just say, Mr. Early, you said that it was your
    successor who declined the offer of Detroit Water, but my
    colleague, Mr. Clay, entered into the record a letter dated
    March 7th, 2014 addressed to Sue McCormick, Detroit Water and
    Sewer Department, signed by you. And you say in that letter,
    ``We expect the Flint water treatment plan will be fully
    operational and capable of treating Flint water prior to the
    date of termination. In that case, there will be no need for
    Flint to continue purchasing water service to serve its
    residents and businesses after April 17th.''
        Now, Sue McCormick took that letter to be a rejection
    letter of the offer.
        Mr. Earley. Okay.
        Mr. Connolly. Did you intend it to be a rejection letter of
    the offer?
        Mr. Earley. Let me respond to that letter. There were very
    distinct letters back to the Detroit Water and Sewage
    Department. One was drafted by me before the issues of lead
    were discussed. That is the letter that you are making
    reference to. And then there was another drafted by the
    successor, Mr. Ambrose, that also said the same thing.
        My letter was in response to the fact that the project was
    already underway, that the city had invested millions of
    dollars into the new water system, and they wanted a long-term
    water agreement, which was not feasible.
        Mr. Connolly. Were you aware when you wrote this letter of
    concerns about the quality of water coming from the Flint
    River?
        Mr. Earley. In March of?
        Mr. Connolly. This is March 7th, 2014.
        Mr. Earley. That was before the switch. That was before the
    switch from the ----
        Mr. Connolly. But you were planning the switch.
        Mr. Earley. The switch was already planned well before I
    got there.
        Mr. Connolly. I understand.
        Mr. Earley. Yeah.
        Mr. Connolly. Were you aware when you wrote this letter
    that there were concerns about the quality of water coming from
    the Flint River?
        Mr. Earley. We had not switched yet. We had not ----
        Mr. Connolly. I am not asking that question. Were you
    aware? Had any one brought to your attention ----
        Mr. Earley. No.
        Mr. Connolly.--that there were concerns about the Flint
    River?
        Mr. Earley. No.
        Mr. Connolly. Did you have any reason to believe there
    could be water quality concerns taking water from the Flint
    River?
        Mr. Earley. I did not, sir, because the DEQ had certified
    the water. The State had given the permits, all of the things
    were necessary to move forward with the project.
        Mr. Connolly. Okay. Your testimony today and other things
    you have written are pretty harsh about the Michigan Department
    of Environmental Quality, correct?
        Mr. Earley. Yes.
        Mr. Connolly. You say it missed its opportunity to identify
    serious pipe corrosion problems. You say that it multiple
    emphatic warnings from the EPA. Is that correct?
        Mr. Earley. Yes.
        Mr. Connolly. Is it your testimony that MDEQ ignored
    warnings from the EPA?
        Mr. Earley. I cannot speak to why they reacted the way that
    they did.
        Mr. Connolly. I did not ask that question. Factually are
    you saying by saying that they had multiple emphatic warnings
    from the EPA, the clear implication of that statement, and they
    ignored them. Is that your testimony?
        Mr. Earley. No.
        Mr. Connolly. Ms. Hedman, that statement that there were
    multiple emphatic warnings from the EPA, what is Mr. Early
    referring to from your point of view?
        Ms. Hedman. What date is the letter again, please?
        Mr. Connolly. He says in his testimony that the MDEQ
    received multiple emphatic warnings from the EPA warning.
        Ms. Hedman. I thought you were referring to the letter.
    Yes, we ----
        Mr. Connolly. No, I am not referring to the letter. I am
    referring to the Mr. Earley's testimony.
        Ms. Hedman. So in February of 2015, EPA inquired about the
    type of corrosion control that was being implemented in Flint.
    And my staff was told that Flint was fully optimized for
    corrosion control. It was not until April 24th that the MDEQ
    admitted to my staff for the first time that Flint was not
    practicing corrosion control.
        And at that time, from that day forward, at higher and
    higher levels at EPA, we repeatedly emphatically and urgently
    told MDEQ that it was important to implement corrosion control
    as soon as possible.
        Mr. Connolly. All right, my time is up. Mr. Chairman, I
    want to thank you for the hearing, and I want to thank you
    again for Thursday's planned hearing. Irrespective of our
    politics or anything else, this is a catastrophic failure with
    our citizens. And if government exists for any purpose, it is
    to protect our citizens in health and safety, and this is a
    catastrophic failure in that mission.
        Chairman Chaffetz. Thank you. The gentleman yields back. I
    will recognize the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Jordan.
        Mr. Jordan. I thank the chairman. I would yield my time to
    the gentleman from Michigan.
        Chairman Chaffetz. Mr. Walberg, sir.
        Mr. Walberg. I thank the gentleman from Ohio. Let us go a
    little bit different track. I would like to come back to Ms.
    Hedman again. But initially or first, EPA finally actively
    intervened in Flint in late January 2016. Mr. Edwards or Dr.
    Edwards, in the last few months what steps have been taken to
    make Flint's water lead free? I saw you there Saturday. I saw
    you talking with residents, talking about filters, and all of
    the rest. What steps have been taken?
        Mr. Edwards. They have switched back to Detroit Water. EPA
    has implemented very good corrosion control effective December.
    We believe the lead levels are dropping dramatically as the
    pipe coating is reestablished. And we are currently sampling
    with Flint residents last week to see house by house how much
    lower lead levels are now. And it is our hypothesis that lead
    is about 4 times better now than it was back during the height
    of the lead poisoning incidents in Flint neighborhoods.
        Mr. Walberg. How long do you think it will take for,
    reasonably speaking, for Flint's water to be safe?
        Mr. Edwards. In order to meet existing Federal standards,
    which is not a high bar as I have already said, you have to do
    a federally approved lead and copper sampling event that Flint
    has never done in its history because they have never sampled
    the right homes. And they have been using sampling protocols
    that missed lead in water risk ----
        Mr. Walberg. Do you have records even of those homes that
    they have sampled?
        Mr. Edwards. Yes, we do, yeah. But they did not have lead
    pipes as is specified like other cities around the United
    States. Philadelphia, it is now acknowledged they did not
    sample enough homes with lead pipes according to the
    requirements of the law. This is something that EPA has been
    allowing since 2006.
        Mr. Walberg. Do you believe it is necessary and reasonable
    for Flint to replace all of the lead pipes?
        Mr. Edwards. You know, obviously that is desirable. I think
    everyone wants that to happen. No one wants it more than me.
    But I think we have to consider seriously what is the best
    place to invest in Flint's future to help Flint get back on
    their feet. They have needs in terms of the water mains.
        Flint has more water main breaks per mile than almost any
    other city in the United States. That is one of the reasons
    their water bills are so high. So there is many infrastructure
    needs that have to be addressed, and that is why I am in favor,
    although I do not think it does enough, I am in favor of this
    Flint bill to get money to Flint residents for their
    infrastructure.
        Mr. Walberg. We heard, I believe, Saturday 40 percent water
    being wasted due to breaks in the lines, leaking out. That is
    amazing. And then you are talking about people having to pay
    those water bills when they are not even getting the water, let
    alone the water being safe to drink.
        Let me go back to Ms. Hedman. In your testimony, you stated
    that, ``I resigned in part because of the false allegations
    about me that were published in early January.'' You
    specifically cite a January 12th Detroit News article titled,
    ``EPA Stayed Silent on Flint's Tainted Water,'' in which Marc
    Edwards is extensively quoted saying that the people who knew
    about the lack of corrosion controls should have acted
    immediately.
        Let me ask you. Is it a false allegation to say that people
    who knew about the contaminated water should have acted?
        Ms. Hedman. No, and we did. We did. As soon as I learned
    about this, I offered lead experts to the mayor, and we reached
    out again to MDEQ. And within 3 weeks had reached agreement
    that MDEQ would order to Flint to implement corrosion control
    as soon as possible. And in the interim, we issued a statement
    ----
        Mr. Walberg. I think Mr. del Toral would not agree with
    that. And, Mr. Edwards, what is your position?
        Mr. Edwards. She did nothing to protect Flint's children.
    Nothing.
        Mr. Walberg. The article also quoted Michigan Senate
    Minority Leader, Jim Ananich, of Flint who says, ``Anyone who
    read his memo and failed to act should be held accountable to
    the fullest extent of the law.'' That is the minority leader of
    the Michigan legislature, Mr. Ananich. Is he wrong, Ms. Hedman?
        Ms. Hedman. Mr. del Toral's memo contained the same
    recommendations that I had been receiving from others in EPA
    who had followed through starting on June 10th before that del
    Toral ----
        Mr. Walberg. Yes, he was disciplined for his memo.
        Ms. Hedman. No, he was not.
        Mr. Walberg. He was disciplined for standing up as a
    whistleblower.
        Ms. Hedman. He was not.
        Mr. Walberg. He was absolutely.
        Ms. Hedman. He was not. He was not.
        Mr. Walberg. Mr. Chairman, with that disagreement, I yield
    back.
        Chairman Chaffetz. If the gentleman would yield first, did
    you make him go through ethics training?
        Ms. Hedman. No.
        Chairman Chaffetz. No.
        Ms. Hedman. No.
        Chairman Chaffetz. You really believe that. Did you limit
    his travel?
        Ms. Hedman. No.
        Chairman Chaffetz. There was no discipline whatsoever.
        Ms. Hedman. None whatsoever.
        Chairman Chaffetz. Is he a hero or a villain in this?
        Ms. Hedman. He is a hero, and to be clear I recommended him
    for EPA's highest award.
        Chairman Chaffetz. When?
        Ms. Hedman. In about September, and in his typical modest
    way, he declined to be nominated because his work was not
    finished.
        Chairman Chaffetz. You need to go back and read the emails
    and the memos that were provided to us by the EPA because that
    is not what was happening within your organization. And you
    were in charge of that organization.
        Ms. Hedman. So I can tell you that my deputy, who was in
    charge during the time period that you are concerned about, got
    wind of that, and he went down to the Water Division and put an
    end to it. And when I called him, he told me that I did not
    even have to tell him. He took care of it.
        Chairman Chaffetz. Did anybody at the EPA do anything
    wrong?
        Ms. Hedman. Are you asking me the question if I could do
    this all over again, is there something I would do ----
        Chairman Chaffetz. No. I am asking you, you were in charge.
    Did anybody at the EPA do anything wrong?
        Ms. Hedman. I do not think anyone at EPA did anything
    wrong, but I do believe we could have done more.
        Chairman Chaffetz. Wow.
        Mr. Cummings. Mr. Chairman?
        Chairman Chaffetz. Mr. Cummings.
        Mr. Cummings. Mr. Chairman, I want to clear. Ms. Hedman,
    you are under oath. Do you understand that?
        Ms. Hedman. Yes.
        Mr. Cummings. And I just want to make sure you are clear as
    to what you are saying because if you are not clear, I do not
    want you to be subjected to some kind of criminal inquiry, so I
    just want to ask you this. Did you retaliate against Mr. del
    Toral in any way?
        Ms. Hedman. Absolutely not.
        Mr. Cummings. And so, you said something just a moment ago.
    You said your deputy did something. What was that? You said he
    cleared it up. What did he clear up?
        Ms. Hedman. So after I sent an email to the mayor, the
    mayor requested that we reach out to the reporter again. And I
    replied to the mayor by saying at this point I am not inclined
    to have my staff have contact with the reporter. They need to
    finish the report because I did believe they would be able to
    get a final report out.
        I understand through a series of emails that came to me
    later, I would say around July 7th or 8th, that that was
    forwarded and interpreted as some sort of direction that nobody
    was supposed to talk to reporters. And when I saw that email, I
    called my deputy because I was concerned about the flavor of
    that interpretation. And he said, no problem, I have already
    handled it.
        Mr. Cummings. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Chaffetz. I thank the gentleman. We will now go to
    the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Cartwright, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Earley, I want
    to revisit a question with you on the decision on using the
    Flint River. You submitted an opening statement in writing. Am
    I correct in that?
        Mr. Earley. That is correct, sir.
        Mr. Cartwright. And I read it, and you said, ``It was not
    my decision to use the Flint River, nor was it a two-pronged
    decision.'' You said, ``The concept of using the Flint River as
    an interim water source was inherent in the city council's KWA
    vote and Kurtz's March 2013 order.'' Have I read that
    correctly?
        Mr. Earley. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Cartwright. So you said, ``The decision to use the
    Flint River was inherent in the city's council's vote.'' That's
    as opposed to explicit. It was not explicit, correct?
        Mr. Earley. That is correct, sir.
        Mr. Cartwright. All right. But you know what? That is not
    what Mayor Walling testified to. In fact, Mayor Walling also
    submitted a written statement, and he said on page 4 of 9,
    ``Contrary to the facts, Governor Snyder's office and former
    emergency manager, Darnell Earley, have stated and repeated
    blatantly false claims that I and the Flint City Council made
    the switch to the Flint River.'' Did you read that? Did you
    have access to his opening statement?
        Mr. Earley. I did not, sir.
        Mr. Cartwright. Okay. Well, he said that. And, Mr. Walling,
    a simple ``yes'' or ``no,'' do you stand by that remark?
        Mr. Walling. Yes.
        Mr. Cartwright. That is a yes for the record.
        Mr. Walling. Yes.
        Mr. Cartwright. All right. So here is the point, Mr.
    Earley. You were the one with the power at the time. I would
    like to clarify your powers as emergency manager at the time. I
    want to read to you the passage from the 2012 law that created
    the position of emergency manager. And it says this: ``The
    emergency manager shall have broad powers and receivership to
    rectify the financial emergency and to assure the fiscal
    accountability of the local government and the local
    government's capacity to provide or cause to be provided
    necessary government services essential to the public health,
    safety, and welfare.'' Have I read that correctly?
        Mr. Earley. That is correct, sir.
        Mr. Cartwright. Mr. Earley, do you agree that as emergency
    manager you had broad powers?
        Mr. Earley. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Cartwright. And once you issued an opinion, it was law.
    The emergency manager law says, ``An order issued under this
    section is binding on the local elected and appointed officials
    and employees, agents, and contractors.'' Have I read that
    correctly?
        Mr. Earley. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Cartwright. And you used those broad powers to cut
    about $18 million from the budget by moving away from Detroit
    Water to the Flint River, and this was the agenda from Governor
    Snyder's office to save money. That was the emergency referred
    to in ``emergency manager.'' It was not an emergency in the
    environment, or in public water, or drinking supply. It was an
    emergency about money. It was a money emergency manager that
    you were.
        In your testimony you said a proposal to stay on Detroit
    Water was ``an unsustainable financial fantasy.'' Have I read
    that correctly?
        Mr. Earley. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Cartwright. Did you at any time use your broad powers
    to request additional State funds to help Flint purchase safe
    Detroit water during the transition to KWA?
        Mr. Earley. No, sir.
        Mr. Cartwright. But that is exactly what they did after
    tens of thousands of people were poisoned by lead in the
    drinking water of Flint, correct?
        Mr. Earley. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Cartwright. Mr. Earley, it took a public health crisis
    of these proportions with thousands of victims for Flint
    finally to receive the State funds it needed to protect its
    citizens, did it not?
        Mr. Earley. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Cartwright. So I wonder what all this says about the
    governor of Michigan. The emergency manager law says this, and
    I quote, ``The emergency manager shall serve at the pleasure of
    the governor.'' You were doing the governor's bidding. In fact,
    I read the Detroit News this morning, and your pastor, Reverend
    Marlon Jennings. Is that your pastor?
        Mr. Earley. He is a pastor that I do know from the City of
    Flint, yes.
        Mr. Cartwright. He was talking about you in today's paper.
    ``It is unfortunate that he was caught up in this quagmire of
    responsibility to the governor in his position, and at the same
    time trying to serve the people of Flint, Jennings said.'' ``It
    turned out that the two were diametrically opposed. His job as
    emergency manager is to carry out the wishes and execute the
    plan and program of the governor.'' Did you see that in the
    paper this morning?
        Mr. Earley. I have not seen that yet, sir.
        Mr. Cartwright. You do not have reason to disagree with the
    pastor, do you?
        Mr. Earley. Well, I would say that the role as defined
    there is pretty narrow. It is a much broader role. I think the
    real goal is to return the city or the school district back to
    financial solvency.
        Mr. Cartwright. After all of this, the governor appointed
    you to be emergency manager of the Detroit Public Schools after
    you got done with the Flint, and your salary for that job was
    $41,000 more than what you made in Flint. Am I correct in that?
        Mr. Earley. Yes.
        Mr. Cartwright. It looks like the governor was pleased with
    your performance in Flint.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Cartwright. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Chaffetz. I thank the gentleman. I will now
    recognize the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Meadows, for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Meadows. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Hedman, let me
    come to you because the chairman and the ranking member both
    questioned, I guess, your last round of testimony. And so, is
    it your sworn testimony that you did not directly or indirectly
    retaliate against Mr. del Toral for him being a whistleblower?
    Is that your sworn testimony?
        Ms. Hedman. My sworn testimony is that I certainly did not,
    and I have no knowledge of anyone in EPA who did so.
        Mr. Meadows. And you have looked very closely at that,
    because we have been led to believe very differently, and that
    is why I am giving you one last chance to perhaps correct your
    testimony here today because you are under sworn testimony, and
    we are very concerned that we get the whole truth and nothing
    but the truth. So you have no knowledge indirectly or directly
    of any retaliation that came against him.
        Ms. Hedman. No.
        Mr. Meadows. All right. Mr. Edwards, you worked very
    closely with Mr. del Toral. How would you characterize that
    statement in light of your close working with him?
        Mr. Edwards. I do not think Ms. Hedman understands the
    climate she created at Region 5 EPA. Even before Mr. del Toral
    wrote that memo, he told me that he had to protect Flint's
    children while minimizing the likelihood he would be retaliated
    against.
        Mr. Meadows. Had he shared with you that he has been
    retaliated against? Is that your belief?
        Mr. Edwards. Well, I mean, obviously he was told not to
    talk to anyone to Flint or about Flint. A deal of some sort was
    made between EPA and MDEQ where MDEQ felt emboldened to say
    that ``they had handled Mr. del Toral.'' That Flint residents
    would not be hearing from Mr. del Toral again.
        And so, that is when we got involved. I mean, I invested
    $200,000 of my own money. A team of 25 volunteers from Virginia
    Tech had to go in and demonstrate that Flint residents were not
    crazy, and that lead in water was high.
        Mr. Meadows. So is it your testimony that somehow Mr. del
    Toral was handled by the EPA and the Department of Water
    Quality Michigan to silence him in his defense of the children
    of Flint, Michigan?
        Mr. Edwards. Absolutely.
        Mr. Meadows. Ms. Hedman, how do you respond to that?
        Ms. Hedman. I know of absolutely no evidence to
    substantiate that claim.
        Mr. Meadows. Well, let me go a little bit further because
    some of what you know and what you do not know is, I guess, the
    problem because your testimony here today says that the EPA had
    no fault. That was in your opening testimony. There is no
    fault.
        Ms. Hedman. No.
        Mr. Meadows. And so, you stand by, I mean, in light of
    everything that is coming out, that there is no fault for the
    EPA on behalf of the EPA.
        Ms. Hedman. That is not what I said in my testimony or in
    my answers to the questions.
        Mr. Meadows. All right. So the EPA is at fault.
        Ms. Hedman. I said that I thought we could have done more.
        Mr. Meadows. Listen, that is political speak. Are you at
    fault or not? Yes or no.
        Ms. Hedman. In what respect?
        Mr. Meadows. In any respect, I guess, Ms. Hedman. I mean,
    here is the problem is we have got children that have been
    harmed, and yet we are sitting here equivocating over words
    that may or may not establish blame. And I am concerned that
    what we are doing is we are just wiping our hands of it and
    saying that I had nothing to do with it. Is that your
    testimony?
        Ms. Hedman. It is not.
        Mr. Meadows. All right. So EPA partially at fault?
        Ms. Hedman. I believe we could have done more.
        Mr. Meadows. All right. So let me go on a little bit
    further. Mr. Edwards, in our last time when you were here
    before this exact same committee, I asked you about a FOIA
    request from the EPA because you had gotten lots of information
    from Michigan and zero from the EPA. Did you ever get your FOIA
    request responded to?
        Mr. Edwards. No. There are still outstanding appeals from 9
    years ago. The request that we had for Flint emails came in all
    redacted, so I hope ----
        Mr. Meadows. So when did those come in? When did those come
    in? The day after the hearing?
        Mr. Edwards. Oh, I did get one FOIA the day after the
    hearing, yeah. That was ----
        Mr. Meadows. Is it not amazing how it takes a congressional
    hearing to have the Federal law adhered to. So and it is
    redacted?
        Mr. Edwards. The emails in relation to Flint ----
        Mr. Meadows. More than personal information. Obviously we
    want to redact personal information.
        Mr. Edwards. The emails that we requested about the Flint
    water crisis from EPA were almost 90 percent redacted in terms
    of deliberative, attorney-client privilege, or unresponsive.
    Everything virtually was redacted from those emails.
        Mr. Meadows. Ms. Hedman, I mean, so redacting all of that.
    Normally when we redact it is for national security concerns.
    Do you think the EPA has a national security concern here?
        Ms. Hedman. I am not familiar at all with the emails.
        Mr. Meadows. I will yield back.
        Chairman Chaffetz. Before the gentleman yields back ----
        Mr. Cummings. No, I was going to take a turn.
        Chairman Chaffetz. I will now recognize the ranking member
    for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Cummings. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    I want to go back. I want to follow up on some of the things
    that Mr. Meadows said. The chairman introduced, Ms. Hedman, a
    document. It is an email, and it, first of all, Email Exhibit
    6. Is that right? Anyway, Mr. del Toral, he is writing a letter
    to somebody named Rita Bair. Do you know Rita Bair?
        Ms. Hedman. She works in the Region 5 Water Division.
        Mr. Cummings. And so, apparently he had been denied an
    opportunity to go to Milwaukee for some kind of conference. And
    this is what kind of struck me, and it kind of bears out what
    the chairman and Mr. Meadows has been getting to. It says, ``I
    told you about this project during the check-ins as well as in
    my performance review, so I'm not sure what you intend by your
    message.''
        This is the piece that gets me. ``It almost sounds like I'm
    to be stuck in a corner holding up a potted plant because of
    Flint. One misstep in 27-plus years here, and people lose their
    minds.'' Well, why do you think he said that?
        Ms. Hedman. First of all, I ----
        Mr. Cummings. It sounds like he feels like he's being
    retaliated against.
        Ms. Hedman. First of all, I had never heard of that email
    until this morning, and I am appalled that anything might have
    been done to make him feel that way.
        Mr. Cummings. Yeah. Well, I am kind of glad you quit. I am
    glad you resigned. Let me tell you why, and I have told the
    chairman this. There is something going on in that Region 5
    that we need to deal with. And I do not know exactly what it
    is, but there are problems. And I am determined to make sure
    that we do that.
        You know, Mr. Earley, I got to tell you, I almost vomited
    when I heard you say something a moment ago. You said that even
    after you found out that newly manufactured parts were starting
    to rust out by using the Flint water, that you did not see that
    as a problem. I mean, wait a minute now. I am confused.
        If they are going to rust out, newly manufactured parts,
    you mean that does not send you a warning that maybe human
    beings might be being harmed? Come on now.
        Mr. Earley. Well, again, I was relying on the information
    that I was getting from the MDEQ and from the staff. I mean --
    --
        Mr. Cummings. But if somebody ----
        Mr. Earley.--I am not a water treatment expert.
        Mr. Cummings. You do not have to be a water treatment
    expert. A five-year-old could figure that out. But anyway, let
    me go on to Mr. Walling.
        As you know, Governor Snyder has agreed to testify, Mr.
    Walling, before us on Thursday, and I am looking forward to
    that. And I really do thank the chairman for having him. It is
    clear that the governor had a very important role to play in
    the Flint water crisis. The governor appointed emergency
    managers who ran Flint during the crisis, and the governor made
    the belated decision to help pay for Flint to reconnect to the
    Detroit Water System in October of last year.
        Mayor Walling, I want to get your perspective on how the
    governor handled the Flint water crisis because I want to make
    sure we address everybody who may have been responsible for
    this fiasco. Mayor Walling, when did you first start having
    serious concerns about the safety of the water coming from the
    Flint River?
        Mr. Walling. I had growing concerns as the complaints were
    coming in from the citizens.
        Mr. Cummings. Give me a date. Give me a date.
        Mr. Walling. Throughout the summer of 2014.
        Mr. Cummings. All right. And when did you first reach out
    to the governor for help?
        Mr. Walling. I reached out to the governor in January of
    2015.
        Mr. Cummings. All right. And in your January 18th letter
    you wrote, and I quote, ``I am writing to convey serious
    concerns about water quality and to request your support for my
    proposed Flint water improvement plan.'' Mayor, why did you
    write the letter to the governor, and what were you hoping to
    achieve?
        Mr. Walling. I was not seeing enough being done by the
    emergency managers in Flint to address this problem. I believe
    this needed to go directly to the governor. I, of course, did
    not know what his staff were telling him or not. But he needed
    to hear directly from me as the mayor of the city what needed
    to be done to protect and serve the citizens.
        Mr. Cummings. And so, let me read an internal email from
    one of the governor's senior staff commenting on your request.
    He wrote, and I quote, ``Mayor Walling is seeking to drag the
    governor into the conflict with both hands.'' Mayor Walling,
    what is your response to that, and why do you think the
    governor's folks wrote that?
        Mr. Walling. I have read similar emails and what has been
    disclosed, and I was highly disappointed that the chief elected
    official for the State of Michigan would view my concerns as
    the chief elected official for the City of Flint in that kind
    of manner, and that staff around him would be giving him that
    counsel.
        Here is a community that is already under a financial
    manager that is now dealing with a TTHM crisis and other issues
    that are unresolved. And I come to the governor with a
    professional letter, comprehensive, and asking for him to
    respond to help invest, to come to the City of Flint and meet
    with residents, which it took him a year to do.
        Mr. Cummings. I got it. I got it. I get the gist of it. I
    do not have but so much time. You sent another letter to
    Governor Snyder about 8 months later on September 14th, 2015.
    Is that correct?
        Mr. Walling. Yes.
        Mr. Cummings. You wrote, and I quote, ``The community has
    heightened concern about lead leeching into the water from old
    surface lines and home plumbing, and also needs to be
    addressed.'' So 8 months after your first letter, you were
    still asking for help to improve the safety of the water in
    your community, and still nothing was happening. Mayor Walling,
    how did you feel when you found out that the State was not
    treating the Flint River water with corrosion control agents
    for nearly a year and a half? How did you feel?
        Mr. Walling. I was just stunned because it had been said to
    me, I know to other staff, to our community in public forums
    that it was meeting the standards, that it was comparable with
    Detroit, that it was safe. We had heard that time and time and
    time again. And this was from the Michigan Department of
    Environmental Quality that we looked to for that guidance.
        Mr. Cummings. Mr. Chairman, I just need one more minute.
    Let me read you another email that Governor Snyder's chief of
    staff, Dennis Muchmore. And by the way, do you know Dennis
    Muchmore?
        Mr. Walling. I do.
        Mr. Cummings. He will not talk to us, okay? He was the
    chief of staff, but he refused to talk to us. So Mr. Muchmore
    sent to the governor September 2015, he wrote, and I quote,
    listen to this one. ``Frankly I think we both know that Walling
    went out on a CYA effort.'' You know that means, right?
        Mr. Walling. Yes, I do.
        Mr. Cummings. Yeah, cover it, ``due to the election. But,
    of course, can't say so.'' What is your reaction to that email?
        Mr. Walling. Well, it is sickening because this is when we
    are getting the research results from Dr. Edwards, and we are
    looking for ways to respond despite getting resistance. And to
    suggest that that was a political motive on my part when I am
    doing everything I can despite the budgets that we are required
    to follow, the contracts that are in place.
        We are looking for answers. We are looking for help. And it
    appears that the governor's office did that a cross the board
    with our local elected officials, that we were all discounted
    for some reason.
        Mr. Cummings. All right. I got to quit now, but I got to
    tell you, as I am sitting here listening to all of this, it is
    sickening, all of it. I mean, there is no reason in 2016 that
    people should be, when they turn on their faucet should be
    getting poisoned water. And you know what? And somebody said it
    a little earlier. This is like the pointing of the finger. You
    did it. You did it. You did it.
        You know, we are so much better than this, and we have to
    be. This cannot be the norm. And I do not know why that is, but
    I am telling you I think there are a lot of failures, and I
    hope that we get to the bottom of it.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Chaffetz. Thank you. I will now recognize the
    gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Hice, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Hice. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Edwards, let me
    begin with you. Last month when you were here, I asked you some
    very pointed questions about the EPA's responsibility. And,
    quite frankly, I am shocked, stunned by the audacity of Ms.
    Hedman's testimony today.
        Let us begin, if we can, with a brief clip from the hearing
    last month.
        [Video shown.]
        Mr. Hice. All right. Those were powerful words. After
    seeing this clip, do you still stand by those statements?
        Mr. Edwards. Yes, I do, and I will point out that silence
    on the part of the EPA is interpreted as acquiescence.
        Mr. Hice. All right. Well, let us go further then because
    there has been more information brought to the table today. Is
    there anything you would like to add to your statement that we
    just watched based on testimonies we have heard today?
        Mr. Edwards. Just that Mr. del Toral's ``misstep,'' as
    quoted in his email, was his proudest moment and one of EPA's
    proudest moments, too.
        Mr. Hice. A few moments ago, Ms. Hedman stated that she
    responded immediately, and I noticed while she was saying that
    that you were shaking your head. In fact, when given the
    opportunity, you responded authoritatively that she did
    nothing. You said it a couple of times, ``she did nothing.''
        First of all, do you believe that Ms. Hedman has provided
    some false testimony today when you are saying one thing and
    she is saying another?
        Mr. Edwards. The bottom line is she did nothing immediately
    to get Flint's children out of harm's way. And she has that
    obligation. She is the top policeman in the region. And by
    remaining silent about what was happening, she was acquiescent.
    She was allowing Mr. Walling to believe that Mr. del Toral was
    a rogue employee that did not speak for the Agency. Mr. Walling
    was quoted in the paper on that. At no point did Ms. Hedman
    tell Mr. Walling that Mr. del Toral had done his job and that
    memo was accurate.
        Mr. Hice. So it very questionable to you when she says that
    she acted immediately whether or not that really took place.
    The ranking member, Mr. Cummings, a few moments ago stated
    that, in essence, he smells a rat in Region 5. Was the
    situation at Flint the first time that you heard of problems in
    the way that Region 5 was being handled under the leadership of
    Ms. Hedman?
        Mr. Edwards. The first time I heard of problems was when
    Mr. del Toral was thinking about how to reveal the problem. Mr.
    del Toral was afraid that he would be retaliated against, but
    he nonetheless had the moral obligation to protect Flint's
    children. And so, in that type of environment, what is an
    employee to do?
        He took the best course of action that he could to get this
    memo out both in EPA and into the hands of Ms. Walters and
    myself. A press story was written about this memo, and even
    then Ms. Hedman covered this up.
        Mr. Hice. So you firmly believe there was a cover up.
        Mr. Edwards. Nothing was done to protect Flint's children.
        Mr. Hice. Okay. Let me ask you ----
        Mr. Edwards. Until we got involved, until we started
    sampling, and I invested $200,000, and this team of volunteers
    from Virginia Tech donated four-person years of effort, they
    never would have installed corrosion control.
        Mr. Hice. So it would still be taking place had you not --
    --
        Mr. Edwards. I believe so. I believe there is no record
    that MDEQ would have been forced to meet Federal law in Flint.
        Mr. Hice. Okay. Well, Mr. Chairman, I see my time has
    expired. Thank you.
        Chairman Chaffetz. I thank the gentleman. I will now
    recognize the gentlewoman from Illinois, Ms. Kelly, for 5
    minutes.
        Ms. Kelly. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to thank the
    chairman and the ranking member for working together to bring
    those responsible for this crisis here. And I want to thank Mr.
    Edwards for coming back before this committee again.
        The crisis in Flint is an inexcusable failure at various
    levels of government, but we also have an obligation to learn
    how we can prevent further tragedy. Flint's water crisis is
    causing local municipalities and cities to take a closer look
    at their own water supply.
        Every day I hear from constituents who want to know if
    their town's water is safe. I have pregnant mothers that have
    called me from Fort Heights, and fathers in Pembroke Township
    who want to know that their local governments are not
    mismanaging their water supply given the grave public health
    and safety dangers that can arise.
        Mr. Edwards, what would you recommend to municipalities
    using lead pipes or pipes with lead soldering that are now
    concerned about their own water supply?
        Mr. Edwards. Well, I actually applaud an action EPA took 2
    weeks ago to finally close some of the loopholes in sampling
    that allow lead in water to be low when you collect samples and
    high when people drink the water. These practices are occurring
    all over the country, and we have been complaining about them,
    shouting about them for 10 years. And it took something like
    Flint before EPA Office of Drinking Water and Groundwater
    released a memo that will better meet the intent of the Lead
    and Copper Rule.
        Ms. Kelly. Anything else you would recommend along those
    line?
        Mr. Edwards. All I have ever wanted was the original intent
    of the Lead and Copper Rule to be met.
        Ms. Kelly. Okay. And what about State governments? What
    more can they do?
        Mr. Edwards. Well, you know, the State governments have
    been operating in this climate that EPA created in which
    cheating was condoned. And MDEQ exploited every one of those
    loopholes to hide the high lead in Flint's water, even to the
    point where they would not have had to install corrosion
    control. That is a fact.
        It is absolutely clear in the record they were passing the
    Lead and Copper Rule using these loopholes, and they were using
    that as an excuse to not install corrosion control. And, in
    fact, there is an email where Mr. del Toral asked MDEQ to stop
    pre-flushing, pre-cleaning the pipes the night before sampling.
    This is something we have been screaming about to stop because
    it caused lead poisoning of children in D.C. in 2006 to 2008.
    And MDEQ said, well, it is not the law yet, and we are not
    going to do that until EPA makes it the law. And so, that was
    very clear in the emails that they were going to use every
    single loophole, every trick that EPA allowed to hide this lead
    in water problem.
        Ms. Kelly. Then finally, what we can do as a Congress or as
    a committee to ensure that governments at levels are doing all
    they can to perform basic functioning and providing every
    American with safe drinking water?
        Mr. Edwards. Well, I think the most important thing is to
    create a climate in which the thousands and thousands of great
    employees at EPA all across the country and at MDEQs all across
    the country can do their job, where employees like Mr. del
    Toral are allowed to their job without fear of being retaliated
    against either directly or indirectly.
        Ms. Kelly. Okay, thank you. Ms. Hedman, you were the Region
    5 administrator for the EPA, and prior to that worked as an
    environmental attorney in the Office of the Illinois Attorney
    General. Do you agree with Mr. Edwards' assessments?
        Ms. Hedman. I agree generally that there are improvements
    to be made in sampling protocols and in the Lead and Copper
    Rule. And although I am no longer at EPA, I am very pleased to
    see that EPA is moving in that direction.
        Ms. Kelly. Okay. One thing I would like to see that we
    continue to have hearings. Like we do not have these hearings
    and just stop. It may be 6 months from now or a year from now
    that we check back on Flint so the people of Flint still know
    that we are concerned. Of course they know they have
    Representative Lawrence and Kildee and my colleagues on the
    other side from Michigan. But I want you to know that we are
    all concerned.
        And with that, I yield the remainder of my time to Ranking
    Member Cummings.
        Mr. Cummings. I want to just say to the gentlelady that I
    agree with you that we have to continuously follow up on this
    situation because the thing that I do not want, every time I
    think about Flint, I think about Katrina, to be frank with you.
    And so, after all the cameras are gone and the attention moves
    away, the question is where are the people left? Where are
    these children left? And I know we talk a lot about children,
    but I am also concerned about the adults because they, too, are
    drinking this water.
        So I am sure the chairman will work with us. I am looking
    forward that just so that we can stay on top of it. Thank you,
    Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Chaffetz. Absolutely. I concur, and I appreciate
    the gentlewoman's questions, and she has my commitment that we
    will continue to follow up.
        I will now recognize the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr.
    Grothman, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Grothman. Sure. I just have a few questions for Ms.
    Hedman. Sometimes it is good to flush out your background, and
    I see you graduated from the University of Wisconsin Law School
    with me, so congratulations.
        I want to find out a little bit how you got the job. You
    know, you used to work for Ferlice and Madigan down there in
    Illinois, and you switched over to this job. Can I ask why you
    applied for the job? Who let you know the job was available,
    that sort of thing?
        Ms. Hedman. I did not apply for the job. In fact, I
    actually wrote a number of recommendations for other people to
    take the job. And when I was first approached, my answer was
    no. I, however, was persuaded to take the job. I will tell you
    that one of the reasons I was hesitant is I recognized the
    huge, huge problems that EPA has to deal with in a period of
    declining budgets, particularly infrastructure budgets. And it
    seemed a huge task to take on, but I did.
        Mr. Grothman. Okay. Who approached you about the job? You
    said you did not want the job, but people approached and kind
    of begged you to take it.
        Ms. Hedman. I received a call from the EPA administrator.
        Mr. Grothman. Secretary Jackson?
        Ms. Hedman. Yes.
        Mr. Grothman. Okay.
        Ms. Hedman. Administrator Jackson.
        Mr. Grothman. Okay. Mr. Edwards, are you kind of familiar
    with Ms. Hedman's background?
        Chairman Chaffetz. Sorry. Mr. Edwards, we can come back to
    you. He has his own personal water issue in a moment, so he
    will be right back.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Grothman. Okay.
        Chairman Chaffetz. We will come back to you if you would
    like. Oh, there he comes. Here he comes. Sorry. He is back. We
    will not dock you the time. Go ahead, Mr. Grothman.
        Mr. Grothman. Well, I will do one more question. Why
    specifically or what was your background that caused Secretary
    Jackson to feel you would be qualified for this job?
        Ms. Hedman. I understand I had been recommended by a number
    of people to her. I have, as you pointed out, a law degree. I
    also have a Ph.D. in environmental studies, and I have spent my
    entire life essentially working to protect public health and
    the environment often representing citizen groups, like the
    good people of Flint.
        Mr. Grothman. Okay. Mr. Edwards, we just asked a question
    of Ms. Hedman. Are you familiar with her background, or could
    you comment in general about what you feel are her
    qualifications for running District 5?
        Mr. Edwards. No, I do not know anything about her
    background.
        Mr. Grothman. So in other words, okay, back to Ms. Hedman.
    So you were hired for EPA at the suggestion of Ms. Jackson.
    Other people may have recommended you. Could you give me
    examples of people that you said brought it up that would cause
    you to be a good person at District 5? You said other people
    had recommended you. Do you know who those people were?
        Ms. Hedman. I believe that some people in environmental
    groups actually recommended me for the job.
        Mr. Grothman. Okay. I will yield. Would you like me to
    yield my remaining time to you?
        Chairman Chaffetz. We will come back next I think.
        Mr. Grothman. Okay. I will yield the remainder of my time.
        Chairman Chaffetz. Thank you. I will now recognize the
    gentlewoman from Michigan, Ms. Lawrence, for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Lawrence. I want to thank the ranking member and the
    chairman for calling this hearing. You know, I am a child of
    Michigan, and have dedicated 25 years of my life to public
    service. And this issue has created anxiety, sadness,
    frustration, and right now I have knots in my stomach because
    as my colleagues have said, we are pointing the fingers at each
    other where this is a point where each of you should stand up
    and accept responsibility.
        I want to ask a few questions. Mr. Edwards, because we need
    to fix this problem. And I share with you your frustration and
    your passion about EPA, and we collectively, because everyone
    is, you know, talking about is this a partisan issue. We work
    together. First of all, we are here today because we work
    together. The Republican chair and the ranking member Democrat
    agree that this is something that is worthy of a hearing. And
    EPA should have, as we have now passed a law that does not give
    them an option. It was a loophole, and you agreed to that.
        Let us talk about the primacy issue. So the Michigan
    Department of Environmental Quality has primacy, and that means
    that they have the responsibility for the public water system.
    And something that was interesting to me, they did not provide
    the corrosion control. Why not?
        Mr. Edwards. For the life of me, I cannot figure this out.
    This is such a specialized skill. That's why we have a law that
    says thou shalt have corrosion control. We have people at the
    State, at the primary agency to make sure that law is followed.
    So for the life of me, I do not understand why it was not
    followed because every dollar you spend on corrosion control
    not only protects from lead, it saves $10 at minimum in terms
    of damage to your pipe infrastructure. And in Flint's case it
    would have saved $10,000 for dollar invested.
        Ms. Lawrence. Mr. Earley, you are an appointee of the
    State. The Michigan Environmental Department is a State. Can
    you tell me why, have you been advised or told why the Michigan
    Department of Environmental Quality did not provide erosion
    control? Was it financial? Was it, oops, we forgot, because
    there was clear documentation that EPA, although they did not
    tell the public, made them aware.
        You in your capacity as an appointee of the State, has
    anyone made you aware of why they did not provide the
    corrosion?
        Mr. Earley. No, that has not been brought to my attention.
    The issue of the corrosion control and all of that came pretty
    much after I was there. As I tried to say earlier, the issues
    we were dealing with were related to the TTHM and the other
    contaminants.
        Ms. Lawrence. And that is a good point because clearly
    water that we drink out of our faucets do not have that in
    there, so there should have been some chemical added to the
    water. It sounds as if they went to the Flint River and just
    turned on the faucet. So why did not they provide at minimum
    bacteria control?
        Mr. Earley. I cannot answer the reason why they did not.
        Ms. Lawrence. Did anyone while you were there ask that
    question? Why did they not treat the water in Flint?
        Mr. Earley. The questions we were asking during my tenure
    was how to deal with the contaminants that we knew were in the
    water, the TTHM, the E. coli, and the coliform.
        Ms. Lawrence. And at no time did anyone ask why in the City
    of Flint you would turn water on, make it go through the
    faucets for human beings to drink, and they are experts. You
    have a water treatment system, and no one treated the water.
        Mr. Earley. Well, the water was treated, but the corrosion
    controls were not there, and they were not part of the
    discussion.
        Ms. Lawrence. Sir, at first we had bacteria in the water.
    You do not have bacteria in water that is treated. So when we
    are talking about the corrosion control, that is for the lead.
    But under your leadership, it was contaminated water.
        Mr. Earley. Yes.
        Ms. Lawrence. And no one asked the question. So how do we
    know how to fix it if no one ever asked why would we in America
    in 2016 with you being in charge, and you signed the contract,
    regardless of who initiated it, and people in Flint, including
    yourself, knew that the water that was drinking had bacteria in
    it, which is unacceptable. At no time did we ask why did this
    happen.
        Mr. Earley. Of course we asked why did it happen as it
    related to ----
        Ms. Lawrence. And what was the answer?
        Mr. Earley. As it related to the issues that we were
    treating, we were told the protocols in which to treat the
    contaminants that we were working with, the TTHM and the E.
    coli, and the coliform treatments. The issue of lead treatment
    and lead corrosion ----
        Ms. Lawrence. I am not talking about lead. Let us talk
    about when you were there.
        Mr. Earley. Okay. Well, when I was there, we treated for
    the contaminants that were in the water. We followed the DEQ
    protocols for boiling water advisories on two separate
    occasions. When we still had problems with the water and we
    still were not ----
        Ms. Lawrence. In America we do not normally boil water. We
    turn on the faucet and drink it, and trust the government to
    provide us with water that is safe. If I was responsible for
    the public trust, that would have been my number one answer to
    make sure we did not have to keep boiling the water. Why did it
    happen?
        Mr. Earley. Well, when it happened the second time, I
    sought the ----
        Ms. Lawrence. The second time?
        Mr. Earley. Yes, because we were told after we did the
    things that we had done before, we were given all clears for
    the water, and that the treatment, the precautionary measures
    had worked.
        Ms. Lawrence. I served as the mayor of a local community,
    and this is my core problem with emergency managers. At any
    time did you hold a public meeting with the citizens to find
    out what their concerns were? Did you hold public input
    meetings?
        Mr. Earley. There were meetings held after the issue of the
    contamination when I left in January. There were meetings held
    after that.
        Ms. Lawrence. But while you were there, you did not engage
    the public.
        Mr. Earley. We did not have meetings ----
        Ms. Lawrence. You did not engage the public.
        Mr. Earley. The water staff did engage the public as
    complaints came in and were a part of trying to find solutions
    for the problems that we were dealing with.
        Ms. Lawrence. This is a fundamental problem with emergency
    management philosophy is that you report only to a bottom line
    and to the governor, and that the voice of the people are
    eliminated in this process.
        Mr. Chair, I know I am over, but may I ask one more
    question? I want to ask this question when it comes to primacy.
    See, I am infuriated that someone made the deliberate decision
    not to treat this water when the primacy or the responsibility
    of drinking water rests with the State. Yes, we should hold EPA
    accountable. We have passed a law now from all sides, both
    sides agreeing that this shall not, EPA must notify the public
    and stop the water.
        But before that, how do we get our arms around as a
    congressional body that no State will take the arrogance and
    the destructive criminal, I feel, criminal activity to poison
    people? How do we get there?
        Mr. Edwards. I would like to know that question myself, how
    this decision was made to not follow the law. I mean, did they
    forget? Were they trying to save money? I really have no idea.
        Ms. Lawrence. Mr. Earley, he said he was sitting there in
    charge as emergency manager. You do not know the answer. Mayor
    Walling, can you give me an answer?
        Mr. Walling. I do not have an answer because the initial
    treatment design did not include the carbon filter that later
    had to be added. That actually meant there was additional
    chlorine and the TTHM problem. So there was no corrosion
    control. There was no carbon filter. All of these warning signs
    that were going off, they all go back to the original treatment
    design that the MDEQ and the emergency manager put in place and
    budgeted for in June of 2013.
        And we are still waiting on answers as to how those
    decisions actually got made, what the considerations were. I do
    not know.
        Ms. Lawrence. I yield back my time. This is where we need
    to go because we cannot have this happen again. Thank you.
        Chairman Chaffetz. I thank the gentlewoman. I now recognize
    the gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Palmer, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Palmer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Edwards, in an
    email recently released to the public dated September 11th,
    2015, EPA's Michigan program director states the following:
    ``Just to clarify, on our call I wanted to remind you that
    Miguel's report had the DEQ cc'd. So if the legislature or
    whoever might say you were all cc'd, you can truthfully respond
    that it was the EPA's request that the report not be sent to
    the cc's. Consequently, you all never received the report from
    Miguel. Good to talk with you all.''
        The program director was referring to Miguel del Toral's
    memo that had recently been made public and is addressed to a
    number of employees with EPA.gov and Michigan.gov domain names.
    It appears to function to instruct such employees on a way to
    circumvent public and legislative accountability. It also
    portrays government collaboration to manage and a spin a
    situation.
        When you see an email like this, Mr. Edwards, what does it
    tell you about the government prioritizing obfuscation over
    protecting the public interest?
        Mr. Edwards. Well, it is very clear that MDEQ and EPA were
    working hand-in-hand to cover this problem up as reflected by
    that email with Jennifer Crooks. And this revisionist history
    where EPA was fighting MDEQ every step of the way is just
    ludicrous.
        Mr. Palmer. What does this email tell you about the EPA's
    continued disregard for Mr. del Toral's warnings?
        Mr. Edwards. I just do not know how you could have
    disregarded those warnings as they did. They just sat there
    silent.
        Mr. Palmer. Well, there has got to be a reason for why they
    did not want his warnings to get out there, why they wanted to
    apparently give cover.
        Mr. Edwards. They provided all kinds of cover for MDEQ at
    every step of the way. Every step of the way EPA was there
    covering up for MDEQ.
        Mr. Palmer. Do you believe it provides cover, that a memo
    like that was intended to provide cover?
        Mr. Edwards. Well, MDEQ actually took her advice in the
    letter responding to Kildee. They basically cited that excuse
    verbatim.
        Mr. Palmer. Do you believe this email shows at a minimum
    callous disregard for public safety?
        Mr. Edwards. Amongst a few EPA employees. The vast majority
    of EPA employees at Region 5 come to work every day and do
    their best to do their job under difficult circumstances.
        Mr. Palmer. I thank you for that clarification because I
    agree with you that most, and I believe this is true across the
    board with Federal employees. They come to work every day to do
    the best job they can, but it is that handful who do not that
    create problems like this, and that cause incredible suffering
    for the public.
        Ms. Hedman, or I should, I guess, refer to you as ``Dr.
    Hedman.'' Following up on the questions posed earlier regarding
    outstanding FOIA requests, the email I read to Dr. Edwards
    shows the EPA Michigan program director, your former colleague,
    emailing other EPA and Michigan employees to their official
    accounts to provide them cover from the legislature or whoever
    who might theoretically ask about their exposure to Mr. del
    Toral's memo. It is worth noting that the program director sent
    this from her personal Gmail account to their official email.
        EPA has a history of using such methods to circumvent
    transparency. For instance, Gina McCarthy has been called
    before this committee or, I believe, it was the Science
    Committee, for example, because of using her personal email for
    government business.
        This is email that I read today appears to me to be
    evidence of a deliberate intention to mislead going back to the
    fact that most employees try to do the best they can and that a
    handful do not. I think that this indicates that there is a
    culture of secrecy and a lack of a transparency that starts at
    the top. How would you respond to that?
        Ms. Hedman. I would respond by saying that EPA has a policy
    of not using personal email, and if there is an instance where
    it is necessary for technical reasons to copy one's government
    account.
        Mr. Palmer. Well, you know, she did that 6 weeks later. I
    have a copy of the law here, Title 44, regarding Federal
    records that requires that indicates, Mr. Chairman, that she
    did not copy this in a timely manner. You know, this is not
    about finger pointing, and that is what troubles me about this
    hearing. It is not about politics. It is about these people who
    have suffered injury because of the failure of government.
        And I just want to say this. I believe every member of this
    committee has a responsibility to get to the truth, to make
    sure that government fulfills its responsibility to serve the
    public and, in this case, to protect the public. We want the
    truth.
        I have gotten to know a lot of members on this committee,
    and I can assure you we can handle the truth, the whole truth.
    Mr. Chairman, I am just not at all confident that we have heard
    the whole truth today.
        I yield back.
        Chairman Chaffetz. I thank the gentleman. I will now
    recognize the gentlewoman from New Jersey, Ms. Watson Coleman,
    for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Watson Coleman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you
    to you and our ranking member for holding this hearing. This is
    indeed a sad day and a little bit confusing how we get to the
    bottom of something when everyone is pointing their finger in
    another direction with the exception of Mayor Walling and Mr.
    Edwards.
        Mr. Edwards, I want to ask you a question that has nothing
    to do with Flint. My State, the State of New Jersey, is
    experiencing a knowledge of high lead content, particularly in
    11 cities, but right now concentrating on one city. Do you know
    whether or not EPA is at all monitoring or getting involved in
    that situation at this early stage so that we will not have a
    Flint, Michigan situation?
        Mr. Edwards. My suspicion is that they are probably not,
    although they did send that memo. And, again, I applaud this
    that they sent the memo out that basically said thou shalt stop
    cheating on the Lead and Copper Rule monitoring. It took too
    long to get to that point, but that memo has gone out. It is
    not going to help you in the short term because it is going to
    take 6 months before those rules are changed.
        Ms. Watson Coleman. Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member
    Cummings, I believe that this issue is broader than what we are
    experiencing in this very sad situation. And I very much would
    look forward to having an Oversight Committee hearing on EPA's
    role in this whole issue across the United States, because I
    think it will be very revealing and very scary what is
    happening in our older, poorer communities. And so, I make that
    request for your consideration.
        Ms. Hedman, where is Mr. del Toral?
        Ms. Hedman. Where is he ----
        Ms. Watson Coleman. Where is he?
        Ms. Hedman. Physically right now?
        Ms. Watson Coleman. Working? Where is he working? Where is
    he located? Where is he working?
        Ms. Hedman. Well, he works out of the Region 5 office. I
    know that recently he has spent a great deal of time in Flint,
    so he may very well be there working right now.
        Ms. Watson Coleman. So let me ask you this question. For 50
    years, Flint, Michigan was receiving its water from the Detroit
    system. Is that correct?
        Ms. Hedman. [Nonverbal response.]
        Ms. Watson Coleman. So for that 50 years, the water
    treatment system in Flint was dormant? Is that fair?
        Ms. Hedman. [Nonverbal response.]
        Ms. Watson Coleman. Okay. Was there any requirement that
    before you reactivate a dormant system that you do certain
    precautionary testing and preparation?
        Ms. Hedman. I know that there are requirements, but I
    cannot speak to the specifics.
        Ms. Watson Coleman. Are there any EPA requirements?
        Ms. Hedman. Again, I cannot speak to the specifics of that.
        Ms. Watson Coleman. Mr. Edwards, can you answer that
    question?
        Mr. Edwards. The law requires that when you switch to a new
    water source that you do corrosion control studies in advance
    of the switch to make sure that you have effective corrosion
    control in place. And in the absence of doing a study, the
    simplest thing, the minimum that would have been allowed under
    the law would have been to continue the corrosion control that
    was used in Detroit water, which would have been dosing of
    orthophosphates.
        So had they done the minimum under the law, adding that
    orthophosphate to the Flint River water, which had been done
    for 50 years under Detroit, the vast majority of these
    problems, including the leaking pipes, the Legionella, the
    lead, would not have occurred.
        Ms. Watson Coleman. So tell me, give the timeframe because
    I am confused somewhat about the timeframe when this should
    have happened. Should that have happened in April of 2014?
        Mr. Edwards. This should have been done months before the
    switch.
        Ms. Watson Coleman. The switch was April of 2014?
        Mr. Edwards. Yes.
        Ms. Watson Coleman. And who was the emergency manager
    during that period of time?
        Mr. Edwards. I do not know at all.
        Ms. Watson Coleman. Do you know, Mr. Earley?
        Mr. Earley. Yes. In April of 2014, I was the emergency
    manager.
        Ms. Watson Coleman. So then why did you not as the
    emergency manager ensure that before this switch was going to
    take place that all of the safety and security measures were in
    place?
        Mr. Earley. I did, and I was assured that all that were
    required had taken place. We had been monitoring this switch.
    Again, as I said, the project started before I got there, and
    once I got there, we continued to monitor, and I received
    updates from ----
        Ms. Watson Coleman. Well, Mr. Earley, who told you? Who
    assured you that these safety and security measures were in
    place before actually turning on the switch?
        Mr. Earley. The director of the Department of Public Works,
    which is also the director of the Flint Water Treatment Supply
    or Water Treatment Department. It was his responsibility to
    make sure that all of those things were in place, and he had
    staff working with him. And they in turn worked directly with
    MDEQ and the EPA to make sure we were meeting all of the
    requirements. Those were the requirements for being licensed.
        Ms. Watson Coleman. So now we have introduced another
    level, the local sanitation department or water department
    manager?
        Mr. Earley. The treatment people at the water plant.
        Ms. Watson Coleman. The treatment people?
        Mr. Earley. Yes.
        Ms. Watson Coleman. So now it is was his responsibility to
    ensure that these measures were in place, and he is the one
    that informed you that these measures were in place. He
    misrepresented?
        Mr. Earley. That we were meeting the requirements ----
        Ms. Watson Coleman. Did he misrepresent? Did he tell you
    the truth?
        Mr. Earley. Well, we all know now that the information that
    we all got was somewhat misinformed based on ----
        Ms. Watson Coleman. Where did the lie start?
        Mr. Earley. Well, the information that we got was from MDEQ
    which governed our switch from the Detroit Water and Sewer
    Department to the Flint River. We relied on the information we
    received from the State regulatory agencies.
        Ms. Watson Coleman. I cannot believe my 5 minutes is up so
    quickly ----
        [Laughter.]
        Ms. Watson Coleman.--because God knows we have not gotten
    to the bottom of this yet. But thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield
    back. This is incredibly upsetting.
        Chairman Chaffetz. I thank the gentlewoman. I will now
    recognize the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Carter, for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Hedman, I am
    correct when I say that EPA has the authority to intervene when
    there is contamination in drinking water that poses a threat to
    humans. Is that correct? Yes.
        Ms. Hedman. When there is a threat and the State has failed
    to ----
        Mr. Carter. When there is a threat to human, EPA has the
    authority to intervene, correct.
        Ms. Hedman. And the State has failed to take action.
        Mr. Carter. Come on, Ms. Hedman. EPA has responsibility to
    the citizens. You have to intervene not when the State does not
    do it. When you see that it happens, you have to do it then.
    No, no. I will ask the questions, okay?
        You are aware of the memo that came in June of 2015 from
    Miguel del Toral, right? You are aware of that memo. In June of
    2015, Mr. del Toral's title was regulations manager,
    Groundwater and Drinking Water Branch. He is a Drinking Water
    specialist.
        Ms. Hedman. Yes.
        Mr. Carter. In fact, I believe that he was one of the key
    members of your Safe Drinking Water team.
        Ms. Hedman. Yes.
        Mr. Carter. In fact, I believe that you have said he is one
    of the top experts in his field.
        Ms. Hedman. He is.
        Mr. Carter. He is. Yet when Mr. del Toral reported the high
    levels of lead in Flint's drinking water, not only did you
    silence him, but you sat around idly and did nothing. Why would
    you do that?
        Ms. Hedman. I did not do that.
        Mr. Carter. If he is an expert as you have acknowledged,
    why did you not listen to him?
        Ms. Hedman. I did, and I did not sit silently. I did not --
    --
        Mr. Carter. I beg to differ, Ms. Hedman. Instead of heeding
    the warning of one of your top experts, one of your top
    experts. Listen, all of us here, we depend on people. We depend
    on staff, but if we do not listen to them, they do us no good
    whatsoever. You surround yourself with good people, as you did.
    You surrounded yourself with a specialist. You got to listen to
    him, but you did not do that.
        Ms. Hedman. I did.
        Mr. Carter. Not only did you not listen to him, you tried
    to silence him.
        Ms. Hedman. I did not.
        Mr. Carter. You know, so what did you do? You sought a
    legal opinion. Is that correct?
        Ms. Hedman. Well, immediately ----
        Mr. Carter. Immediately.
        Ms. Hedman. Immediately in June, I offered technical
    assistance to the Flint mayor. That was July 1st. On July 10th,
    we issued our first statement urging Flint residents to get
    their water tested, and to take precautions to limit ----
        Mr. Carter. Here you have an expert who is telling you we
    have got a problem. We have got lead in our drinking water.
    Instead of protecting the citizens, that is what EPA is about,
    environmental protection. EPA, Environmental Protection Agency.
        Ms. Hedman. Yes.
        Mr. Carter. Protecting the public, and instead of saying we
    have got an expert here, one of my team members who is an
    expert in this field is telling us we have got lead in this
    water, stop drinking it. Stop drinking it right now. But you
    did not do that. You sought a legal opinion ----
        Ms. Hedman. No.
        Mr. Carter.--because you were wanting to follow the law?
        Ms. Hedman. No. Let us be clear. The data reported in Mr.
    del Toral's memo was data related to one residence, first of
    all. My first question about that was had the lead surface line
    been removed. It was, and the follow-up testing showed that the
    water was safe to drink. And then two neighboring houses, one
    of which did show high lead levels and one which did not.
        That data by itself indicated something about the tap water
    in those three residences, and ultimately Mr. del Toral's final
    version of the memo concluded that the residents with very high
    lead levels had high lead levels not due to lack of corrosion
    control, but because of physical disturbance of the lead
    surface line.
        Mr. Carter. Because a physical disturbance of the lead
    surface line.
        Ms. Hedman. Construction in the street.
        Mr. Carter. Construction in the street. You know, I ----
        Ms. Hedman. And so, the point being his memo also made the
    point that corrosion control had not been implemented in Flint.
    That was a point that previously other ----
        Mr. Carter. Dr. Hedman, I am sorry. Dr. Edwards, what do
    you make of this?
        Mr. Edwards. I am kind of wondering if she has read the
    memo to this day because there are three reports that the city
    had collected high lead in drinking from LeAnne's house, 100,
    300, 700 parts per billion before there was any disturbance.
    And moreover, her statement that she warned Flint residents to
    start flushing the water, no Flint residents got a warning that
    the water was unsafe to drink. What they got is Mr. Walling
    going on TV and saying that the water is safe to drink. That is
    what the message that was sent.
        No Flint resident got any warning about dangerous levels of
    lead in drinking water, the fact that corrosion control laws
    were not being followed in Flint. No one knew that.
        Mr. Carter. You know, let me tell you. Ms. Hedman, I am
    sorry, there is a special place in hell for actions like this.
    Madam Chair, I yield.
        [Applause.]
        Chairman Chaffetz. The gentleman yields back. I recognize
    the gentleman from California, Mr. Lieu, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Lieu. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to start
    with the national issues and then come down to Flint. We know
    that in addition to Flint, we have had lead-tainted water in
    Washington, D.C., in Sebring, Ohio, and now in Newark, New
    Jersey, where schoolchildren have been poisoned. Ms. Hedman,
    this really is a national issue as well, is it not?
        Ms. Hedman. Given that I am no longer at the Agency, I do
    not want to speak for EPA. But indeed lead is an issue of
    concern throughout the country.
        Mr. Lieu. I have two articles here. One is a report from
    the NRDC that says, ``Study Finds Safe Drinking Water in U.S.
    Cities At Risk: NRDC Reports On Drinking Water Systems of 19
    Cities and Finds That Pollution, Old Pipes, and Outdated
    Treatment Threaten Tap Water Quality.'' And then I have a
    second article in Salon. It says, ``It's Not Just A Flint
    Problem: Other U.S. Cities Are Suffering From Toxic Water.''
    And, Mr. Chairman, if I could enter these into the record.
        Chairman Chaffetz. Without objection, so ordered.
        Mr. Lieu. Ms. Hedman, I am going to read you a couple of
    sentences from the Salon article. The author writes, ``The Safe
    Drinking Water Act, enacted in 1986, required the EPA to set
    standards for the concentration of lead in public pipes with a
    push for lead free. This stirred the country on a road towards
    replacing old water pipes with plastic pipes as an ecofriendly
    alternative. However, many poor municipalities instead turn to
    anti-corrosive agents as a cheaper and faster solution.''
        If Flint had plastic pipes, none of us would be here today,
    correct?
        Ms. Hedman. That is true.
        Mr. Lieu. In fact, if Sebring, Newark, and Washington, D.C.
    had plastic pipes, none of that lead contamination would have
    happened, correct?
        Ms. Hedman. That is true, although if there were lead in
    fixtures, it would still be a concern.
        Mr. Lieu. I understand. Thank you. Now, let us talk about
    Flint. Mr. Earley, I read your testimony, and I heard it today
    as well. You essentially say everything was fine, and everyone
    told you everything was fine. And you had regular meetings with
    the water treatment officials. Did you know that the water
    treatment plant operator, Michael Glasgow, wrote an email
    saying, ``I have people above me making plans to distribute
    water ASAP. If water is distributed from this plant in the next
    couple of weeks, it will be against my direction.'' So it was
    not fine for Michael Glasgow. Were you aware of that?
        Ms. Hedman. I was--oh, I am sorry.
        Mr. Lieu. Mr. Earley, yes.
        Mr. Earley. I was made aware of that email when I sat
    before the governor's task force. It was the first time I had
    seen that email. So I am not sure what he is referring to when
    he talks about people above him because there were at least two
    other layers, possibly two other layers of supervision before
    it got to me.
        Mr. Lieu. So even though you regularly, as you said,
    regularly met with water treatment plant officials, you had no
    idea that the water treatment plant operator had said I am not
    ready to go on this. You had no idea.
        Mr. Earley. No, there was no discussion on that in our
    regular meetings. What was going on ----
        Mr. Lieu. All right, stop. Stop right there. You also
    testified that this was not a leadership issue. This was purely
    a water treatment issue. I suggest that this was a leadership
    issue if you had no idea, even though you had regular meetings,
    that this water treatment plant operator was making these
    statements that he was not ready to go.
        I am curious. You know, Mr. Walling, I commend him for
    saying I am sorry and for apologizing. That took courage. Mr.
    Earley, I do not see anywhere in your testimony. Are you ready
    to say you are sorry?
        Mr. Earley. What I said and will say again is that, you
    know, I was responsible. It happened on my watch.
        Mr. Lieu. Are you sorry?
        Mr. Earley. I feel very badly about that, and, yes, I am
    sorry that the people of the City of Flint have had to go
    through--I said that earlier--this crisis. It tears me up
    inside. I am very regretful and remorseful for what has
    happened.
        Mr. Lieu. All right. Ms. Hedman, the EPA knew in April that
    corrosive agents were not being put in. Why did it take so long
    for them to let you know at the end of the June that that was
    not happening?
        Ms. Hedman. I think from the review of the emails that I
    have seen during that time period that the first reaction was
    if we simply tell MDEQ they need to do this, they will do it.
        Mr. Lieu. When were corrosive agents actually put in?
        Ms. Hedman. December 9th is when corrosion control began.
        Mr. Lieu. Okay. So April, May, June, July, August,
    September, October, November, children of Flint were drinking
    lead-contaminated water. Why in July or August did you not just
    stand up and yell and scream, stop this? Give them bottled
    water. Why did it take so long? To me, this is negligence
    bordering on deliberate indifference.
        You knew. EPA knew in April corrosive agents not done. In
    June you were notified of that, and then you were given a
    report that said lots of lead in this drinking water. And then
    nothing is done until December. There is no excuse for that.
    Someone needed to have yelled and screamed and said stop this.
    People are being poisoned. It should have been done in at least
    July or August, maybe September, at least by October.
        That was so wrong. This was a crime of epic proportions
    that could have been prevented. I yield back.
        Chairman Chaffetz. I thank the gentleman. I will now
    recognize the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Mulvaney, for
    5 minutes.
        Mr. Mulvaney. I thank the chairman. I thank the committee.
    I will try and, I guess, start as simply as I know how, which
    is, Mr. Edwards, I think at the end of Mr. Carter's testimony,
    he asked a question of Ms. Hedman, and I will go ahead and ask
    it. He asked, did you warn Flint residents to flush their
    water?
        Ms. Hedman. On July 10th, 10 days after I first learned
    about this, EPA Region 5 issued the first statement advising
    Flint residents to get their water tested by their water
    utility, and referring them to EPA information on the Web about
    limiting exposure to lead in drinking water.
        Mr. Mulvaney. So is that your testimony when you said you
    gave them warning to flush their water? That is what you are
    referring to?
        Ms. Hedman. Right. That was the first time that we did
    that.
        Mr. Mulvaney. Okay. That was in July.
        Ms. Hedman. July 10th.
        Mr. Mulvaney. I am looking at an email that has been
    mentioned a couple of times, and to the extent it has not been
    entered into the record, Mr. Chairman, it is an email of Miguel
    del Toral dated September 22nd, 2015. I ask it to be added to
    the record.
        Chairman Chaffetz. Without objection, so ordered.
        Mr. Mulvaney. Are you familiar with this email, Ms. Hedman?
        Ms. Hedman. I am not sure what the email is.
        Mr. Mulvaney. That begins, it is to Thomas Ploy, Rita Bair,
    Nicholas D'Amato, Joanna Glowacki, and Andrea Porter amongst
    others from Miguel del Toral, September 22nd, 2015. It begins,
    ``This is no surprise. Lead lines plus no treatment equals high
    lead in water, equals lead poisoned children.'' Are you
    familiar with that email?
        Ms. Hedman. Only hearing it from you.
        Mr. Mulvaney. Okay. If you read down the email, and by the
    way I think the email is an email that you sent Mr. Edwards
    that was then forwarded. I will get to that in a second I hope.
    It says, ``Even worse, absent anything from EPA, MDEQ, and the
    city other than they are in full compliance, other folks have
    to alert the public to the risk.'' Do you get the impression
    from the email that Mr. del Toral thinks that the EPA warned
    the folks in Flint in September to flush their water?
        Ms. Hedman. We had been told on August 31st by MDEQ, it was
    MCH, the old acronym for the Michigan Department of Health and
    Human Services, was, in fact, implementing a public information
    campaign. On September 15th, I held calls with both the mayor
    and with the director of MDEQ urging expedited implementation
    of corrosion control and expanded public information campaigns.
    And the mayor and the county did issue a health advisory with
    that kind of information 10 days later.
        Mr. Mulvaney. All right. I wish I could go into every
    single of those. I know Dr. Edwards is probably eager to do
    that. You said something earlier today, which I think took a
    lot of us off guard, surprised a lot of people sitting here
    when you did not think the EPA had done anything wrong through
    this entire process. And my guess is if I asked you for
    evidence of that, you would lay out what you have just laid
    out. We did this on this date, this on this date.
        Let me ask you this. Is that the standard to which you held
    yourself at the EPA just not to do anything wrong?
        Ms. Hedman. No.
        Mr. Mulvaney. What was the standard to which you held
    yourself when you were with EPA?
        Ms. Hedman. To do the best job possible.
        Mr. Mulvaney. Did you do the best job possible?
        Ms. Hedman. In retrospect knowing what I know now, I wish
    we had issued more frequent and more urgent statements about --
    --
        Mr. Mulvaney. But it is still your belief and your
    testimony that the EPA and you did not do anything wrong in
    handling the Flint situation.
        Ms. Hedman. As I said, I wish we had done more. I wish when
    MDEQ represented facts to us we had verified those facts.
        Mr. Mulvaney. Let me ask you about that because that is
    another thing you said that, again, caught me a little bit off
    guard. It says the EPA, yes, in answer to questions from
    someone--I apologize, forgetting who --is supposed to step in
    to protect safety, but only if there is a threat, which clearly
    there was, and the State has failed to act. Do you remember
    that testimony?
        Ms. Hedman. Yes. Yes.
        Mr. Mulvaney. Is it your testimony then the State had not
    failed to act?
        Ms. Hedman. At which point in time?
        Mr. Mulvaney. At any point in time. Pick one. I do not
    care. Mr. del Toral's email of September 22nd, had the State
    failed to act by that time?
        Ms. Hedman. By that time, the State had issued an order to
    Flint directing Flint to implement corrosion control, and he
    mayor had announced that he was going to take that action.
        Mr. Mulvaney. Not my question. My question is had the State
    failed to act?
        Ms. Hedman. The State had taken some actions, and let me --
    --
        Mr. Mulvaney. Not the standard. You said the EPA is not
    really supposed to get involved unless there is a threat,
    number one, and the State has failed to act, number two. So I
    am asking you as of September, had the State failed to act.
        Ms. Hedman. We were involved, and the legal advice that I
    received at that time ----
        Mr. Mulvaney. You were involved, but people were still
    drinking lead-contaminated water. How is that possible?
        Ms. Hedman. There are two things that we tried every day to
    make happen. One is implementation of corrosion control.
        Mr. Mulvaney. Okay.
        Ms. Hedman. And two is a public information campaign to
    make sure that Flint residents knew what they needed to do to
    reduce risk until corrosion control worked.
        Mr. Mulvaney. I am not going to have nearly enough time to
    do any of this. I do want to ask Dr. Edwards one question. You
    said something, sir, earlier that interested me as well, which
    you said that in a different environment this would be
    criminal. What did you mean when you said that? I apologize if
    that is not the exact words, but you did use the words
    ``criminal.''
        Mr. Edwards. I think in any environment it is criminal when
    you know children are being harmed and not being protected by
    Federal law, and you sit there silent.
        Mr. Mulvaney. And if I ----
        Mr. Edwards. I would point out Virginia Tech issued the
    first warning to not to drink the water in August 2015. MDEQ
    invoked the authority of EPA in its response to the press to
    our warning about the dangers of Flint water to say the water
    was safe to drink. EPA sat there silent at a minimum as the
    State attacked us for saying Flint water was not safe to drink.
        Mr. Mulvaney. If I had done this as a terrorist to the
    children of Flint and I got caught, would I be in jail?
        Mr. Edwards. I have already said if a landlord did this, he
    would be in jail.
        Mr. Mulvaney. Or a builder, a homebuilder, which is what I
    used to do. If I built a house that poisoned my residents the
    same way the City of Flint has done it, I would be in jail,
    would I not? Which leads to my last question. Ms. Hedman,
    should the government be held to a different standard than its
    citizens?
        Ms. Hedman. Everyone should be required to follow the law.
        Mr. Mulvaney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Chaffetz. Thank you. I will now recognize the
    gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands, Ms. Plaskett, for 5
    minutes.
        Ms. Plaskett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member.
    Witnesses, thank you for being here this morning.
        Mr. Earley, on February 2nd, the governor of Michigan, Rick
    Snyder, issued a State informing the public of your resignation
    that was going to be effective on February 29th. Have you seen
    that press release?
        Mr. Earley. Yes.
        Ms. Plaskett. Okay. And in it, it states, and I am going to
    quote here, ``Governor Snyder and I agreed that our goal was
    for me to be the last emergency manager appointed to DPS. I
    have completed the comprehensive restructuring necessary to
    downsizing the central office.'' That is your quote, correct?
        Mr. Earley. That is.
        Ms. Plaskett. And do you remember giving the quote to the
    governor for the press release for that?
        Mr. Earley. Excuse me?
        Ms. Plaskett. Do you remember giving the governor that
    quote for his press release?
        Mr. Earley. Yes, I remember. Not directly to him, but I
    discussed it with his communications people, yes.
        Ms. Plaskett. Okay. And that press release and your
    resignation came a day before, less than 24 hours before this
    committee was having a hearing on Flint, Michigan on February
    3rd. Chairman Chaffetz and Ranking Member Cummings sent a
    letter in January for you to testify at that time, but you
    refused to come.
        When you were giving the quote to the governor's office for
    the press release the day before the hearing took place, did
    you have a conversation with the governor or with those
    individuals in his office about testifying before this
    committee?
        Mr. Earley. No, my conversations regarding the letter that
    you refer to took place before that. They were only drafted on
    the first of February because we had pretty much done all in
    Detroit Public Schools as an emergency manager that I would be
    able to do.
        Ms. Plaskett. So you discussed with him around February 1st
    your resignation on February 2nd and what the quote was going
    to be. But you knew that you had a pending request to testify
    before this committee at that time. Is that not correct?
        Mr. Earley. The exact ----
        Ms. Plaskett. Did you know that you had to testify, that
    there was a request for you to testify on February 3rd when you
    were having discussions with the governor and his staff about
    your resignation on February 1st or 2nd?
        Mr. Earley. We had that discussion prior to the 2nd.
        Ms. Plaskett. You just said the 1st.
        Mr. Earley. Well, the 1st. The press release came out after
    the ----
        Ms. Plaskett. The press release came out on February 2nd,
    less than 24 hours before this hearing. In your discussions
    with the governor about that press release, did you discuss
    with him your request, the request for you to testify before
    this committee?
        Mr. Earley. It had nothing to do with the ----
        Ms. Plaskett. It is a yes or a no. Yes or no, did you
    discuss it with him?
        Mr. Earley. Yes.
        Ms. Plaskett. You did discuss testifying before this
    committee?
        Mr. Earley. I did discuss that I had received the
    invitation, yes.
        Ms. Plaskett. And what was said during that discussion?
        Mr. Earley. That I had received an invitation.
        Ms. Plaskett. And the governor, did he direct you to comply
    with that?
        Mr. Earley. No.
        Ms. Plaskett. And you did not at that time, so clearly you
    had a discussion with the governor, a governor who has said he
    wants transparent and accountability for the individuals that
    are working, and you worked for the pleasure of the governor.
    He did not direct you to testify when the request had been by
    the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform about
    this.
        So on February 2nd when Chairman Chaffetz's staff informed
    your lawyer that the chairman was considering issuing a
    subpoena to compel you to testify before the committee on that
    day, did you discuss that with the governor?
        Mr. Earley. No, I had that discussion with the attorney
    because I had to seek out some advice as to respond to the
    initial invite because I did not have time to prepare for a
    hearing. I was more than willing and certainly wanted to come
    forward and discuss the facts of this. That had nothing to do
    with my appointment at Detroit Public Schools.
        Ms. Plaskett. But your appointment was made by this same
    governor, and you have within you to discuss it with him, and
    you are serving at his direction. And even though that
    discussion has taken place, your attorney that you said you
    sought out about the subpoena, you told the attorney and asked
    him to refuse to accept the service of the chairman's subpoena
    because you said you did not have time to coordinate your
    testimony, but you had time to coordinate on October 26th your
    op-ed in which you said do not blame the emergency manager for
    the Flint water disaster, and outlined reasons why that was
    your position at that time.
        Mr. Earley. No, I did not discuss the subpoena in terms of
    not coming to this hearing. That was never a discussion that I
    had. I sought counsel because I wanted to understand the
    process. The invitation was what I said that I was not prepared
    to attend, not the subpoena.
        Ms. Plaskett. So you did not tell your attorney to refuse
    service of the subpoena ----
        Mr. Earley. No.
        Ms. Plaskett.--that was potentially being ----
        Mr. Earley. No.
        Ms. Plaskett. Okay. That is important for us to note for
    the record. We have an email that says that you were being told
    that a subpoena was going to be issued to you at that time. You
    are aware of that?
        Mr. Earley. I do not recall ----
        Ms. Plaskett. We have the email, Mr. Earley. Do you want me
    to put it on the screen?
        Mr. Earley. Yes, if you would, please.
        Ms. Plaskett. Okay. Could we do that? And at that time,
    while they are putting that up, that email exchange with your
    attorney, so now you are saying that the attorney did not tell
    you that you were supposed to potentially be subpoenaed to
    testify before this committee?
        Mr. Earley. I sought advice of counsel on the issue
    regarding the invitation, and then declined the invitation
    because I did not have an opportunity to ----
        Ms. Plaskett. I have moved on from the invitation. I am now
    talking about the subpoena.
        Mr. Earley. Okay.
        Ms. Plaskett. Did you have a discussion with your attorney
    about service and acceptance of the potential subpoena?
        Mr. Earley. That is an attorney-client issue that I would
    like to refer to my attorney to answer if that is possible.
        Ms. Plaskett. I am glad he is not a potted plant in this
    one and he is going to give you some advice about that. That
    was very good.
        So did you inform the governor that you were going to
    refuse to testify even after a potential subpoena was going to
    be issued?
        Mr. Earley. No, I did not.
        Ms. Plaskett. And did the governor ever instruct you to
    cooperate with this committee, and did they encourage you to
    comply with the request when it was an invitation?
        Mr. Earley. No, it was strictly my decision based on my
    conversation with my counsel about preparation for a very
    important hearing. And that was pretty much the extent of it.
        Ms. Plaskett. And so, the governor did not tell you yes or
    no whether he thought it was a good reason that you should or
    should not testify.
        Mr. Earley. The governor did not advise me on that because
    I sought legal advice on that.
        Ms. Plaskett. No, no, no. We went by earlier, in your
    testimony you said that you let the governor know that you had
    an invitation to testify. Did he respond to that particular
    comment that you made to him?
        Mr. Earley. I think the response was, as I recall it, was,
    you know, it is your decision, do what you have to do. Do what
    you, you know, you feel most comfortable doing.
        Ms. Plaskett. Do we have the email? No? Okay, thank you.
    Thank you very much. And actually, Mr. Chairman, I know it is
    unusual, but the gentlewoman from Michigan wanted me to yield
    time to her. But, you know, in getting a witness to actually
    answer a question, it was a little difficult. Would you give us
    the indulgence of allowing her?
        Chairman Chaffetz. Under House rules you can do a second
    round, but we need to go through everybody first.
        Ms. Plaskett. Thank you. Okay, thank you, sir.
        Chairman Chaffetz. So we are going to actually now
    recognize gentlewoman from New Mexico, Ms. Lujan Grisham.
        Ms. Plaskett. Thank you, sir.
        Ms. Lujan Grisham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Then I will be
    happy to provide a minute to my colleague, Ms. Lawrence, and
    yield to her.
        Ms. Lawrence. I have a question for each of them. Mr.
    Edwards, in your communications on this issue, do you feel that
    governor knew what was happening?
        Mr. Edwards. I have not seen emails that showed that he
    knew about ----
        Ms. Lawrence. Do you feel he should have known?
        Mr. Edwards. I feel that the governor should have listened
    more to the people of Flint and been less trusting of EPA and
    MDEQ.
        Ms. Lawrence. Mr. Walling, in your role, would the governor
    or should the governor have known, or are you aware that he
    knew? You said you contacted his office. Did he know?
        Mr. Walling. He knew of the issues we had in January of
    2015 because we did have a follow-up phone call. From the
    emails that I have seen, it appears that all of his senior
    aides were aware of extensive issues with MDEQ and DHHS.
        Ms. Lawrence. Okay, thank you. Mr. Early, you were his
    direct appointee. Did you communicate with the governor? Was
    the governor aware of this water situation in Flint?
        Mr. Earley. The situation that I communicated to the
    governor involved, as I have said, the contamination issues
    that we were trying to manage when I was there. I had no
    discussions with the governor regarding lead corrosion or lead
    contamination.
        Ms. Lawrence. But you communicated with him that there was
    a water issue in the City of Flint.
        Mr. Earley. Yes, when we switched.
        Ms. Lawrence. Ms. Hedman, did you communicate directly with
    the governor's staff, the governor, to inform him of the
    situation that was happening with EPA and the water situation
    in Flint?
        Ms. Hedman. My only communication with the governor's staff
    occurred in the days leading up to the announcement of the
    Flint action plan, which I think occurred on October 2nd.
        Ms. Lawrence. Thank you. I yield back the rest of my time.
        Ms. Lujan Grisham. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. So I
    am going to try to dig a little deeper in that context because
    what we all want is good and effective government. And for me
    it is irrelevant whether that good and effective protective
    government is at the Federal level, at the State level, or the
    local level. It should all be working to serve and protect its
    citizens.
        And, Ms. Hedman, I appreciate your recognition that you
    could have been more vigorous, but in the context of is the
    State's primary responsibility, and that when a State fails, as
    was the case in Michigan, we have a terrible end result. We
    have people drinking unsafe water. And I think people want to
    know if the State of Michigan's failures are typical of other
    State governments, which it should cause all of Congress to
    think about the role of Federal government, EPA, and what we do
    about State accountability in this regard.
        Now, Ms. Hedman, in a footnote in your written testimony,
    you mentioned a drinking water crisis that occurred in Toledo,
    Ohio in 2014. Was the danger to human health in that crisis,
    was there danger?
        Ms. Hedman. There was. It was the toxin microcystin.
        Ms. Lujan Grisham. And how long did it take the mayor of
    Toledo, based on that message from you, to issue a do not drink
    notice?
        Ms. Hedman. He immediately issued a do not drink order.
        Ms. Lujan Grisham. So he immediately reacts. Did the Ohio
    EPA resist the sampling protocol EPA was recommending as MDEQ
    did in the case of Flint?
        Ms. Hedman. No, not at all. They took on board all of the
    sampling advice and worked very closely with our Cincinnati
    labs ----
        Ms. Lujan Grisham. And, in fact, in your written testimony
    you commend Governor Kasich for his handling of that particular
    crisis. In fact, you note that he called on the National Guard
    immediately.
        Ms. Hedman. Immediately. Governor Kasich said he would call
    out the National Guard to deliver bottled water, and he did it.
        Ms. Lujan Grisham. So I take it that you believe that there
    is a serious critical difference between the response of
    Governor Snyder and the response of Governor Kasich.
        Ms. Hedman. Yes.
        Ms. Lujan Grisham. In in our investigation of the Michigan
    crisis, the committee received startling testimony from the
    former head of the Michigan Department of Environmental
    Quality. He told us that the topic of the Flint water crisis
    never even made it to the agenda of Governor Snyder's cabinet
    meetings. Never, not once.
        In your experience working with Ohio, did Governor Kasich
    make Toledo's drinking water a priority of his entire
    administration?
        Ms. Hedman. Well, I can tell you that he not only responded
    quickly in terms of calling out the National Guard to get the
    water out. After the entire scenario had ended, I believe that
    he actually reached out and thanked ----
        Ms. Lujan Grisham. So we can see a stark and dramatic
    difference between the responsibility of these two States. And
    I think it is the job of this committee to make sure that the
    Federal government, the State government, and the local
    government are doing all it can, and should, and is requested
    to do to protect its citizens, correct?
        Ms. Hedman. I agree.
        Ms. Lujan Grisham. Thank you. So one last thing. I am about
    out of time. But, quite frankly, given this testimony, if
    Governor Snyder had reacted the Flint water crisis in the same
    in which Governor Kasich reacted to the Toledo water crisis, do
    you believe it would have made a significant difference to
    human health and safety in regards to the drinking water
    situation in Flint, Michigan?
        Ms. Hedman. I do.
        Ms. Lujan Grisham. Thank you. I yield back.
        Chairman Chaffetz. I thank the gentlelady. I have a few
    more questions I would like to go through.
        Ms. Hedman, you have cited repeatedly how urgent it was and
    how important it is. We spent over the course of 3 days a
    transcribed interview with Mr. Dan Wyant. Do you know who he
    is?
        Ms. Hedman. Yes. He was the director of MDEQ.
        Chairman Chaffetz. When did you have the first conversation
    with him about the concerns of what is going on in Flint,
    Michigan?
        Ms. Hedman. I know from checking my records that I
    definitely had a conversation with him on September 15th right
    before I had a conversation with the mayor. I believe I also
    had a shorter conversation with him on September 1st as part of
    a commissioners roundtable.
        Chairman Chaffetz. At least according to Mr. Wyant, and it
    is a little while ago, his first conversation with you was
    September 27th. Now, whether it is the 15th or the 27th, can
    you see the concern that it took that long before you actually
    talked to the person who is in charge of the Michigan
    Department of Environmental Quality? What the heck are you
    doing if you are not calling him?
        Ms. Hedman. So, again, I believe I also talked with him on
    the 1st. But the point ----
        Chairman Chaffetz. Okay, September 1st. Okay. So I am going
    to go ahead and give you a little latitude there. I do not
    believe you because I do not see any reason to trust you. But
    let us assume that that is true for a second. Why did it take
    so long?
        Ms. Hedman. My staff was reporting ----
        Chairman Chaffetz. So it was your staff's fault.
        Ms. Hedman. No, no. No, no, no, that Michigan was taking
    the required action, that Michigan was reporting that there was
    going to be a public information campaign. And if Michigan
    staff had said we will not issue the order that EPA has
    required, then I would have gone directly to the director.
        Chairman Chaffetz. But they did not, did they?
        Ms. Hedman. They did on August 17th.
        Chairman Chaffetz. So this is the fundamental problem with
    government and big government. It is, oh, well, we will
    delegate this instead of just picking up the phone and talking
    to somebody and having a discussion with them. They have these
    emails here. For instance, this one is dated October 1st where
    he was led to believe that you actually supported what they
    were doing. And this is the communication back and forth that
    Mr. Edwards talks about that.
        Where they are then led to believe that they are actually
    in compliance. In fact, it is later on even in November when
    the EPA admits that the Lead and Copper Rule is ambiguous.
    There is not clarity there. They admit that. It is your own
    internal email.
        Mr. Edwards, can you comment on this? You have been so good
    at giving a perspective on all this, but for those that do not
    how to read these reports, what is your analysis of that?
        Mr. Edwards. Well, I think that EPA was embarrassed by how
    long it took them to actually act, that it became a national
    and international embarrassment by that point. And then what
    are they going to do, say that they knew there was no confusion
    right from the start?
        When I read that memo, it was essentially a get out of jail
    free card for both EPA and MDEQ. We not understand our own law
    is essentially what that memo said. So I just thought it was
    absurd.
        Chairman Chaffetz. Ms. Hedman, are you familiar with the,
    we had a hearing here in July of last year about you and your
    region. Are you familiar with that?
        Ms. Hedman. I did hear about it. I was actually visiting
    some Indian tribes in northern Minnesota when that occurred.
        Chairman Chaffetz. So did you get a follow up? Did you read
    about? Tell me what you know about that.
        Ms. Hedman. I did, and I was very, very concerned about
    some of the allegations that were made. And let me say as
    someone who has been an intern here on Capitol Hill in the
    1970s, and someone who early in my career experienced both
    sexual harassment and sexual discrimination, I have zero
    tolerance for that in the workplace.
        Chairman Chaffetz. Then why did we have three of your
    employees do a very brave and courageous thing, and step
    forward, and testify to Congress that you tried to retaliate
    against them for talking about this, that some of them were
    asked to remove the investigators. I mean, it is one thing when
    I get one person, but when we get three people testifying
    before Congress, putting their lives, and their livelihood, and
    their careers on the line, there is some smoke there, is there
    not? Are you telling me you did nothing wrong?
        Ms. Hedman. I can tell you that I asked for a follow-up to
    look into those allegations, and ----
        Chairman Chaffetz. And what was the conclusion?
        Ms. Hedman. At no point did anyone ever present any
    evidence that those allegations were, in fact, true.
        Chairman Chaffetz. We sat here for a couple of hours and
    heard testimony. There is some evidence there. I just wish you
    were at the EPA so I could call on you to be fired because you
    should have never been in this position. It is so frustrating.
    This is what happens.
        99 percent of the people, good Federal employees. They are
    patriotic. They are hardworking, and they do the right thing.
    And then we get somebody who comes along who spoils it. They
    are bad apples, and they just say, oh, I will just retire, full
    benefits, full everything. That was absolutely fundamentally,
    totally wrong.
        Ms. Hedman. Mr. Chairman, I do want you to know that I
    appointed a new assistant regional administrator who has
    aggressively dealt with these kinds of situations. And I
    personally recall a case where we removed someone for sexual
    harassment, and another case, which the inspector general gave
    us very high marks for where we removed an individual who
    viewed child pornography on a Federal computer. And he is in
    Federal prison.
        Chairman Chaffetz. Well, and there are ongoing
    investigations right now by the inspector general, and this
    should have been dealt with at a much higher level.
        Let me go on to Mr. Walling. I need help, Mayor, for some
    clarification. You became the mayor in 2009 in a special
    election. Elected, reelected, in 2011. But I honestly do not
    know what this means, but I want to understand.
        In your bio, you were the chairman of the Karegnondi Water
    Authority from 2010 to 2015. Were you paid or compensated in
    any way, shape, or form for being the chairman of the KWA?
        Mr. Walling. I was not. I served as a function of being
    mayor. The mayor of an incorporating community in that
    authority serves as does the current mayor serves in that role
    now.
        Chairman Chaffetz. So when you become the mayor, you then
    get to be the head of that, you know, because one of the
    concerns is are there conflicts of interest because essentially
    the KWA gets $200 million or so to start building this
    pipeline, and that puts you in a pretty powerful position to
    direct dollars, and locations, and knowledge ahead of time. It
    gives you essentially insider information, does it not?
        Mr. Walling. It is a major project. It was a major
    responsibility. The chairmanship came to me through an election
    of the members of that authority. That happens on an annual
    basis the officers of that authority are elected.
        Chairman Chaffetz. Are you here to testify, again, I just
    want to be clear. I do not want to disparage you unfairly in
    any way, shape, or form, but I need to know from you personally
    here. Did you benefit personally in any way, shape, or form
    from that assignment and that knowledge?
        Mr. Walling. No, I did not, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Chaffetz. Okay. Mr. Edwards, tell me what DEQ, in
    your opinion, Michigan Department of Environmental Quality,
    what did they do right and what did they do wrong? Did they do
    anything right?
        Mr. Edwards. No.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Edwards. Honestly as I sit here, I cannot thing of a
    single thing they did right.
        Chairman Chaffetz. Did the EPA do anything right?
        Mr. Edwards. Mr. del Toral did everything every EPA
    employee should aspire to do. His memo could have made EPA the
    heroes here in this particular case. Even despite the 10 years
    of allowing utilities to cheat on the Lead and Copper Rule
    prior to that time, he realized the danger that puts children
    in.
        Chairman Chaffetz. And what is your personal assessment of
    what the governor has done or is doing now?
        Mr. Edwards. Well, unlike EPA, the governor has taken
    responsibility for what occurred. Certainly he was guilty of
    not listening to Flint residents. Certainly he was guilty of
    being overly trusting of MDEQ and EPA. But at present he says
    that he wants to be part of the solution, and he is actively
    engaged in this. And so, I am willing to work with anyone who
    wants to be part of the solution, and I think he is sincere
    about trying to help Flint get back on its feet.
        Chairman Chaffetz. We are about to have a vote called on
    the floor. If the Ranking Member has another--yes.
        Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr.
    Earley, I am little stunned by what you told Representative
    Plaskett. You said that you talked to the governor's office
    about our request for you to testify on February 3rd. And by
    the way, that was a joint request, Democrats and Republicans.
        And you said that the governor never directed you to
    cooperate with us, the House Committee on Oversight and
    Government Reform, and that they just told you to do whatever
    you had to do. Is that correct?
        Mr. Earley. Well, basically it was, you know, to make my
    own decision about going. And because it was, as I said, an
    invitation and I was not prepared to sit before this committee,
    I declined the invitation, and that was the extent of the
    conversation I had with the governor. But the subpoena that you
    are referring to or that has been referred to was issued a
    night before. I could not have gotten here physically to do
    that. So, you know, and it was never served on me. So my
    announcement basically that, you know, I was declining the
    invitation was in hopes that I could enough time to prepare,
    and to get here, and to meet with this committee.
        Mr. Cummings. Now, you also had said that you had had some
    discussions with the governor. Did you have discussions with
    Mr. Muchmore? Do you know who he is?
        Mr. Earley. Yes, I know Mr. Muchmore.
        Mr. Cummings. And did you have discussions with him about
    what was going on in Flint with regard to the water?
        Mr. Earley. Not specifically. He was a part of some of the
    meetings that we had as we were briefing them on the progress.
    But, again, this was all on the contamination issues prior to
    the lead leeching issues that we now deal with.
        But they were apprised of the progress we were making and
    converting from DWSD to the use of the Flint River during the
    interim while the KWA was being completed. Yes, we had those
    discussions.
        Mr. Cummings. Okay. Did it surprise you that Mr. Wyant had
    told us that it was never brought up in the governor's cabinet
    meetings?
        Mr. Earley. That is a surprise.
        Mr. Cummings. Why do you say that?
        Mr. Earley. Well ----
        Chairman Chaffetz. This was a major thing, right? I mean,
    this was not ----
        Mr. Earley. Yes. Yes. That is a surprise. I was not a part
    of the governor's cabinet, yeah.
        Mr. Cummings. I understand that.
        Mr. Earley. So I did not know what was being discussed in
    those meetings, and I can only take that as, you know, a
    comment from a former employee.
        Mr. Cummings. Mr. Walling, did you have discussions with
    Mr. Muchmore?
        Mr. Walling. I did on a few occasions, a phone call.
        Mr. Cummings. And was he aware of what was going on, I
    mean, in Flint ----
        Mr. Walling. Yes.
        Mr. Cummings.--with regard to the water?
        Mr. Walling. Yes.
        Mr. Cummings. And so, is it fair that you would have had
    more conversations with him than you would have had with the
    governor?
        Mr. Walling. Yes, I did. I would call the chief of staff
    and also one of his direct reports, Harvey Hollins, who is his
    urban initiatives director, was in, you know, regular
    communication with us even as elected officials during the
    emergency manager.
        Mr. Cummings. One of the things that we concluded is that
    the governor probably did not do a lot of communicating in
    writing with regard to this event, this whole water thing and
    crisis. So, therefore, in order for us to get any kind of
    information we needed, we needed to talk to folks. And that is
    the 15 people we were trying to get to including Mr. Muchmore
    and I think the other gentleman you just mentioned. And, again,
    they refused to talk to us, so hopefully they will have a
    change of heart.
        I yield back.
        Chairman Chaffetz. Thank you. I recognize Ms. Plaskett for
    a moment.
        Ms. Plaskett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We were concerned
    about this email, and I do have the redacted version of for you
    and for your attorney if you would like at some point to have a
    look at this. And you may want to make an amendment to your
    testimony after such a review. The chairman and the staff can
    make this available for the both of you.
        Chairman Chaffetz. We will allow 72 hours for such
    clarification.
        Ms. Plaskett. Thank you.
        Chairman Chaffetz. Thank you. We have a vote on the floor.
    I want to thank the four of you for your time. This is very
    illuminating. Again, our hearts, and prayers, and thoughts go
    to the people who actually live in Flint who were affected by
    this and are going to continue to be affected by this.
        We look forward to part three of our hearing with Governor
    Synder as well as the EPA administrator. And that will take
    place in this room on Thursday at 9:00 a.m.
        We stand adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 1:37 p.m., the sub/committee was adjourned.]

                                    APPENDIX

                                  ----------

                   Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     [all]