A central authority is an important element in a country or a state. However, sometimes holding power over an entire community can be very dangerous. For example, every decision a president or governor makes can impact millions of lives. Therefore, a mistake could potentially cause severe harm towards the general population. An example of poor decision-making by the authority that led to a great damage would be the water crisis in Flint, Michigan. The state of  Michigan decided to stop buying water from Detroit and change to a different water system that involved getting their water for the Flint River. This decision led to a disaster because the water from the Flint River was contaminated with high levels of lead. Immediately, the civilians noticed a change in the water because it was brownish, had a bad odor, and caused illness to people as well as animals. The reason the state resorted to make this drastic change was because they wanted to save money on water for cost cutting measures. Essentially, the state of  Michigan was going through a financial crisis and they assembled emergency managers in order to find a solution. These managers believed it was very expensive to buy water from Detroit and therefore they chose to cut the connection with Detroit and save money by using the Flint River. This makes me question did the intentions proposed by the emergency managers justify the consequences caused from the Flint Water Crisis?

Changing the water supply from Detroit to the Flint River produced severe health issues. According to peditraition Mona Hanna-Attisha, “the percentage of children with high blood lead level increased from 2.4 percent to 4.9 percent” (Anna Maria Barry-Jester). This statistic is important because at time the state officials did not want to make this health problem known to the general public. Hanna-Attisha took it upon herself to make this problem by informing  several news journals. She made it clear that the government was hiding the water crisis. After reading “What Went Wrong In Flint” I learned that the state officials claimed they did not know about the lead poisoning in children until Hanna-Attisha released her analysis. However, I find this hard to believe because there were other issues revolving the water from Flint River such as the color and the bad odor. In my opinion, it is hard to not make at least the assumption that there is some sort of substance which could harm the welling being of people. Many civilians had already complained about the color or odor. This is important for answering my question because it demonstrates that neither the state officials or the emergency managers wanted to take responsibility for the harm caused by the Flint River water. Hanna-Attisha exposed the government when she told the community of Flint Michigan that this information was being released solely in press conferences when it should have been publicitized to the general public through the form of news journals. It was a severe problem that young children were being poisoned and the people who caused this problem did not take full responsibility. Therefore, my final answer is that there was no justification because innocent children suffered severe health issues and no action was made towards preventing the water crisis. Avoiding to address the water crisis proved that the people in power were not acting morally correct. Although the purpose of changing the water supply had right intentions it provoked consequences to the entire community in particular little children. If the government would have admitted their mistake and looked for new solutions to help the victims it would have been more likely to be  justified. However, this was not the case because the state chose to hide the issue and continue generating money leaving the public to suffer. Overall, the lesson to take upon is that while authority is essential in a country or state, holding power requires a great responsibility that one must be willing to assume in the best and worst scenarios.