【文章标题】：You Don’t Have a Right to Safe Drinking Water, US Court Rules
【文章标题】：美国法院裁定：公民无权获得安全饮用水
【文章正文】：
On Friday, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of a lawsuit against the city of Jackson, Mississippi, which alleged the city knowingly let residents drink lead-contaminated water.
周五，美国第五巡回上诉法院维持了驳回针对密西西比州杰克逊市诉讼的裁决。该诉讼指控市政府明知故犯地让居民饮用铅污染水。
The lawsuit, first filed in 2022, says the contamination violated Jacksonians’ constitutional right to bodily integrity. Donald Trump-appointed judge Kurt Engelhardt disagreed.
这项2022年首次提起的诉讼称，污染行为侵犯了杰克逊市民宪法赋予的身体完整权。但由特朗普任命的法官库尔特·恩格尔哈特持反对意见。
“The Constitution does not provide redress for every governmental wrongdoing,” Engelhardt said. “Defendants’ actions allegedly deprived Plaintiffs of clean water and guileless information. These deprivations, while grievous, do not infringe upon any deeply rooted constitutional right.”
”宪法并非为所有政府不当行为提供救济，“恩格尔哈特表示，“被告行为据称剥夺了原告获得清洁水和真实信息的权利。这些剥夺行为虽严重，但并未侵犯任何根深蒂固的宪法权利。”
That may be true in Mississippi—but on the state level in at least nine US states, and in more than a dozen other countries, clean drinking water is in fact a protected right.
这在密西西比州或许成立——但在美国至少九个州的州宪法层面，以及全球十余个国家，清洁饮用水实际上是一项受保护的权利。
In countries including Uruguay and South Africa, a right to clean water is enshrined in the constitution. New York’s state constitution, as of a 2021 amendment, states that “each person shall have a right to clean air and water, and a healthful environment.” So too in Massachusetts, where “the right to clean air and water” has been constitutionally protected since 1972.
乌拉圭和南非等国将清洁水权写入宪法。纽约州宪法经2021年修订后声明”人人享有清洁空气、水源及健康环境的权利”。马萨诸塞州自1972年起就将”清洁空气与水权”纳入宪法保护。
But according to the Fifth Circuit ruling, the US constitution is too narrow for such a claim.
但第五巡回法院裁定认为，美国宪法对此类主张的覆盖范围过于狭窄。
The Jackson plaintiffs alleged that their city government deliberately withheld information about the water’s toxicity, and exacerbated the problem through a series of boil-water notices—a practice that can eliminate some bacterial contamination, but also concentrates lead in water.
杰克逊原告指控市政府故意隐瞒水质毒性信息，并通过一系列煮沸水通知加剧问题——这种做法虽能消除部分细菌污染，却会导致水中铅浓度升高。
Engelhardt stated there is no “constitutional right to truthful information from officials during a public health crisis.”
恩格尔哈特宣称”在公共卫生危机期间获得官员真实信息并非宪法权利”。
Jackson is more than 80 percent Black and has a poverty rate that is more than double the national average. The city’s water system has long been in dire need of upgrades.
杰克逊市超80%为非裔居民，贫困率达全国平均水平两倍多。该市供水系统长期亟待升级。
In 2015, officials from the Mississippi State Department of Health found elevated lead levels in the water supply. Instead of immediately informing citizens, they remained silent about the issue for six months, according to reporting from Grist, while residents continued drinking toxic water.
2015年密西西比州卫生部门官员发现供水铅含量超标。据Grist报道，当局未立即告知公众，反而隐瞒问题达六个月之久，居民在此期间持续饮用有毒水源。
EPA officials ran a series of tests in 2020 and found “persistent and concerning violations” of water safety policy, including leaks, corrosion, and high lead levels throughout the system.
2020年环保局官员检测发现”持续且令人担忧的”水安全政策违规情况，包括系统内普遍存在的渗漏、腐蚀及高铅含量问题。
But no city, state, or federal agencies fixed the problem. Meanwhile, people including Jackson plaintiff Priscilla Sterling continued drinking water with unsafe levels of lead.
但市、州及联邦机构均未解决问题。原告普莉希拉·斯特林等市民持续饮用铅超标水源。
According to the 2022 lawsuit, several of Sterling’s children have since been diagnosed with lead poisoning, which can cause permanent brain damage. A quarter of Jackson’s residents are children, who are particularly vulnerable to the life-long effects of lead poisoning.
2022年诉讼文件显示，斯特林数名子女后被确诊铅中毒——这种病症可造成永久性脑损伤。杰克逊市四分之一居民为儿童，他们尤其易受铅中毒终身影响。
The Fifth Circuit ruling comes as the Trump administration moves to weaken clean-water-related protections. Also on Friday, Trump’s EPA released a supplemental rule to further dilute the Clean Water Act, quickly condemned by environmental watchdogs.
第五巡回法院裁决出台之际，特朗普政府正试图削弱清洁水保护政策。其环保局同日发布补充规定进一步弱化《清洁水法》，立即遭到环保组织谴责。
“The administration is clearly struggling to craft a rule that will hold up in court while satisfying their donors’ desire to effectively scrap these protections wherever possible,” said Jim Murphy of the National Wildlife Federation.
”政府显然在艰难平衡：既要制定经得起法庭检验的规则，又要满足金主尽可能废除这些保护的诉求，“美国国家野生动物联合会的吉姆·墨菲指出。
“One thing is clear: If we don’t protect our streams and wetlands, the cost of dirtier drinking water and increased flooding will flow downstream to households at a time when most Americans are living paycheck to paycheck.”
”有一点很明确：若不保护溪流湿地，更肮脏的饮用水和更频繁的洪水代价，最终将转嫁给本就捉襟见肘的美国家庭。”