Ex-Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder charged with willful neglect for Flint water crisis
cnn.com
cnn.com
But let’s look at this more seriously - this is a case of negligence being bought against a governor for harm caused by what amounts to failure to adequately maintain infrastructure.
Doesn’t that apply to pretty much every state in the US at the moment? There have been collapses of dams, bridges, road ways, ... in pretty much every state for decades. Due entirely to a policy of deferred maintenance (eg “I can make the budget look good today, even if tomorrow it costs 10x as much to correct”).
Officials were warned that the Flint River was not adequately treated for legionella, and they did nothing. Officials were warned that lead pipes were leaching into the water supply because of the more acidic water from the Flint River and they did nothing. Simply because they wanted to save money by switching off of Detroit's treated water.
This is negligence and the officials responsible deserve to be held accountable. The charges aren't even that steep; $1000 or up to 1 year in prison. Given that they are elected officials they'll probably get off with a slap on the wrist fine.
Sources:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/former-michigan-governor-rick-s...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flint_water_crisis
https://www.npr.org/2021/01/13/956592508/new-charges-in-flin...
It is a political issue. There are political factions that explicitly want complete negligence by government and/or want the government shut down. Small, but nevertheless valid, political actors.
Now the situations are very different, but that doesn't change the fact that bringing charges against politicians for negligence is crossing dangerous and uncivil lines. One persons negligence is literally another person's vote winner.
Furthermore, politicians can reasonably be incompetent in the face of crisis and should not be held accountable for that - they are at the end of the day just ordinary people. They don't know any more than we do what is going to happen in their term. It isn't fair to punish them for negligence if there isn't some formal standard of competence in appointing them (which is a totally silly idea and would be abused like mad in any political arena). "I don't understand water and chemistry and these experts looked untrustworthy" is a totally acceptable political defence, no matter how stupid that sounds or how damaging the outcomes. It is simply a matter of fact that politicians make decisions about things they don't understand and regularly make bad (read: horrible, horrific) decisions.
However, I think you would also agree that in the cases of flagrant criminal negligence, such prosecution is not just acceptable, but necessary and even mandatory.
At which point, I think this becomes an argument over whether or not the Flint water catastrophe is just such a case of flagrant criminal negligence.