Four years to the day that the Flint water crisis began, there has been notable progress. Multiple tests, both independent and government-run, have shown average lead levels dropping back below the federal action level as a result of switching the city from the highly corrosive Flint River back to the safe and clean Detroit water system. In response to the testing, Gov. Rick Snyder recently announced that the state would no longer provide free bottled water to the city’s residents, but it would continue to provide water filters free of charge.

But many of the city’s residents don’t much believe the water’s safe. Who can blame them? Because of decisions made by state-appointed emergency managers and the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, they were forced to use water laced with dangerously high levels of lead, a potent neurotoxin, and contaminated by bacteria that cause Legionnaires’ disease, which claimed at least 12 lives during the 18 months the city used the Flint River as its municipal water source. Despite the concerns voiced by residents and mounting scientific evidence that a massive problem existed, those same officials repeatedly offered assurances that the water was safe and attacked the credibility of those attempting to reveal the truth.

Gov. Snyder’s termination of the free bottled water program has met intense resistance. Flint mayor Karen Weaver has threatened legal action. Dr. Mona Hanna-Attisha, the Flint pediatrician who proved blood lead levels in children dramatically increased after the switch to the river, tweeted that bottled water should continue to be provided until all the city’s lead service lines are replaced. Residents agree, with many expressing concerns that unfiltered tap water can still pose a significant risk.

They are right. Lead testing done by the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality in February found 28 water samples in elementary schools that registered above the federal lead limit of 15 parts per billion.

But even that minimizes the real problem affecting Flint and its water supply. Because of the Flint water crisis, it’s now generally acknowledged that the federal lead limit is dangerously outdated. Lead is especially harmful to pregnant women, infants, and young children. Even at very low levels, lead can cause kids to lose IQ points and to develop learning disabilities and behavioral problems.

So it isn’t surprising that Flint’s mayor and the rest of the community remain skeptical of the governor’s declaration that the water is safe again — assurances they heard before from state officials who knew it wasn’t fit for consumption. In March 2015, Flint’s emergency manager refused to allow a return to Detroit’s system, saying there was no need because the water was “safe.” Then, a few months later, a spokesman for the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality insisted the residents of Flint should just “relax” because extensive testing showed federal lead standards were being met, despite warnings from scientists that those tests were dangerously flawed.

For families who got sick believing official lies about the water, there are few reasons for faith in government now, especially when some of the very officials accused of playing a role in the crisis — including two health officials charged with involuntary manslaughter — remain on the job, while taxpayers finance their defense. In all, 15 state and local officials were hit with felony charges, with four having taken plea deals in return for their cooperation with prosecutors.

Perhaps one of the biggest reasons why Flint residents don’t trust their government is the fact that the law — which the governor’s own task force acknowledged led to this nightmare — still hasn’t been repealed, or even altered at all.

In 2012, the legislature passed an emergency manager law, which enabled the state to take complete control of Flint governance because of financial woes. The emergency manager immediately, and undemocratically, implemented austerity measures. Most significantly, in an effort to save the city $5 million over two years, Flint’s water supply was switched from the relatively clean Lake Huron to the filthy Flint River.

There is no acceptable explanation as to why such an undeniably dangerous law remains in place and unchanged. It is telling, though, that the targets of this law have been cities and school districts which, like Flint, have majority African-American populations and high poverty rates.

The state and federal governments have already committed $450 million to address the aftermath of this man-made disaster. But that is only a fraction of what the true cost will eventually be. Multiple class action lawsuits and dozens of individual actions have been filed in an attempt to win some compensation for the damage done to residents of a city that is about 57 percent Black and has a poverty rate that hovers around 40 percent.

When everything’s accounted for, the emergency manager’s decision to save $5 million could easily end up costing taxpayers well over $1 billion. Just one of the many class action lawsuits filed on behalf of victims is seeking $722 million in damages.

If you ask the residents of Flint, they will tell you the crisis continues, regardless of what the governor says. How could they say otherwise when the financial costs keep rising, the health impacts continue to unfold, and the broken trust remains unhealed?

Curt Guyette, an investigative reporter for the ACLU of Michigan, played a pivotal role in helping expose the lead contamination of Flint’s water supply.

On a pleasant May evening in 2016, Fred Karash and four friends were enjoying a boat trip on Lake Erie when, without warning, they were stopped by law enforcement officers and detained for more than an hour while the officers searched Fred’s 23-foot cabin cruiser.

The officers, who admitted they had no reason to suspect the boaters had violated any law or regulation, claimed authority under state law to search any boat at any time on any Pennsylvania waterway to conduct a “safety inspection.”

But that sort of unfettered discretion violates the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unwarranted and even vindictive government incursions upon our privacy by requiring that authorities have probable cause to search someone’s home or property. That safeguard, as the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has recognized, “is second to none in its importance in delineating the dignity of the individual living in a free society.”

After an hour of tearing through Fred’s boat to check that he had all the required safety equipment on board, the officers discovered that he was short one required life jacket and issued him a $75 fine.

Rather than simply paying the citation, Fred challenged the search of his boat as unconstitutional and argued that the evidence of the missing life jacket should be suppressed. Fred represented himself through three levels of court proceedings until he finally won in front of the Pennsylvania Superior Court.

But the fight didn’t end there.

The Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission, alarmed that the Superior Court decision would curtail their unfettered discretion to search any boat on Pennsylvania’s waterways at any time, asked the entire Superior Court to hear the case. The court agreed, meaning that the original decision of the three-judge panel was vacated and a nine-judge panel of the court would hear the case.

When the nine-judge panel heard argument in Fred’s case on Wednesday, he was represented by the ACLU. We argued that the random, suspicionless search of Fred’s boat violated his rights under the U.S. and Pennsylvania Constitutions because it did not meet any of the recognized exceptions to the requirement that police have a warrant signed by a judge before conducting a search of a person, their home, or their property.

We pointed out that the Supreme Courts of the United States and Pennsylvania have long held that random, suspicionless stops of cars are unconstitutional, unless they have a public-safety purpose and are carried out in a systematic manner with pre-established guidelines. That is why drunk-driving checkpoints in which police stop all cars to check for evidence of impairment are constitutional but randomly pulling over drivers is not.

Although the Fish and Boat Commission argued that the power to conduct random, suspicionless searches is necessary to achieve its interest in boater safety, it failed to offer any evidence that it could not meet its safety interests using means that are less intrusive on boaters’ privacy, such as checkpoints.

The authority being asserted by the Fish and Boat Commission to search any boat, any time on any Pennsylvania waterway is unprecedented in its scope and undoubtedly arbitrary in its application. But it had also gone unchallenged until Fred came along.

As one judge noted during the argument, few people are going to hire a lawyer to fight a $75 fine. Fred’s case conveys an important message: Protecting individual privacy against arbitrary intrusions by the state is important no matter the amount of money at stake. It is essential to liberty itself.

A couple of weeks ago, Trump designated April as Second Chance Month. He declared that our nation must “provide opportunities for people with criminal records to earn an honest second chance.” Just before that declaration, on March 7, Trump established a Federal Interagency Council on Crime Prevention and Improving Reentry. In doing so, Trump said that we need “to provide those who have engaged in criminal activity with greater opportunities to lead productive lives.”

All this talk sounds great, but unfortunately, that’s all it is.

In action, this White House and Department of Justice have made clear that they are not interested in second chances. When it comes to policies that eliminate barriers and encourage success for those reentering society after prison, rhetoric and action do not match up. For example, the Department of Agriculture is considering cuts to its Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) — a critical food and income supplement for those reentering society — to which the ACLU objected. SNAP can serve as a lifeline for those whose past mistakes prevent immediate employment due to the stigma of having a criminal record, limited work experience, or occupational licensing bans. Thanks to a recent executive order, cuts to federal assistance programs are now even more likely to come to fruition.

Then there is the Department of Education. Secretary Betsy DeVos has yet to announce whether it will continue to make federal grants for higher education available to those incarcerated, which has been proven to reduce recidivism. These grants, known as Pell grants, have benefited approximately 4,000 incarcerated persons since 2015 under an Obama administration program. But college classes and vocational training for those in prison will end this year if this administration doesn’t act. So far, DeVos has said the program is an “interesting possibility” but that “the department is not really involved with criminal justice reform issues.” The Department of Education, however, has been assigned to the Federal Interagency Council on Crime Prevention and Improving Reentry, so let’s hope they get up to speed quickly.

More telling is what the administration has failed to do: Get behind policies that would ease reentry for the more than 600,000 people released from prison each year. There has been no support for federal legislation like the REDEEM Act, which would ensure criminal records are not a bar to employment, or the Fair Chance Act, which would give those returning to society a fair shot at being hired by the federal government. Let’s be honest, the Trump administration is more committed to investing in prisons — particularly private prisons — than it is to investing in people.

Should the Trump administration get serious about giving people second chances, there is no shortage of reentry policies for them to support. The collateral consequences of incarceration can persist long after someone has served his or her sentence: 75 percent of formerly incarcerated persons are still unemployed one year after release; one in five people who leave prison will become homeless due to housing barriers; and 6.1 million Americans with felonies are denied the right to vote.

These startling statistics are why the ACLU and coalition partners are advocating for mentoring, housing, education, employment, and voting opportunities for those reentering society. Our work will continue until the rhetoric of second chances becomes a reality — with or without the Trump administration behind us.