You either have a problem with existing laws not being enforced or there not being laws to enforce concerning the issue. This happens in many other areas of concern too. It's going to require a citizenry that cares, though PR stunts always feel good on paper.
Not your parent but I took it seriously and I think "skin in the game" structures like this should be taken very seriously - they are likely the best mechanisms for aligning interests.
"This assumes everyone values personal health over financial health."
Very easy to solve this one - the elected official doesn't eat the fish and drink the water, their children do.
"This prevents anyone from wanting to get elected to fix an existing problem."
This is a good and important point - you would scare away potential candidates for office if existing systems are already broken/unsafe. I don't know how to arrange a neat solution to this.
One other point to add to rsync's comment:
One other point to mention is that rational choices cannot be made about things like pollution when measurement methods can be fudged and the health effects of specific pollutants are not necessarily well studied. Bottom line, putting it in one's own body is the best way to determine whether a sensible person would feel comfortable with the environmental exposure being forced upon citizens due to lax or imperfect regulation, or even imperfect science. Do I want to drink this discolored, foul smelling water just because it does not test positive for known carcinogens? Common sense is actually a surprisingly helpful guide here.
All that would happen is that regulations would begin to be enforced or modified to match the improved perception of reality informed by the tasting.
Think about it this way, climate change is a fairly abstract concept that is much easier to ignore than the fish dinner sitting in front of you that was caught in water your administration declared safe.
The article linked above describes a massive plume of cancer-causing pollution spreading through underground waterways. All we need to do to find and justify the budget is accurately quantify the human cost.
Are you trying to setup some breeding program for building a better psychopath? :)
"Here's this high-status high-paying job, that people with a sense of ethics aren't taking because of the Flint-like water that can't be fixed on budget in any reasonable amount of time. No problem, just adopt a few orphans, score political brownie points in the process by seeming caring, and have them drink all the pollution!"
Very easy to solve this one - the elected official doesn't eat the fish and drink the water, their children do."
Even that doesn't seem to work in a very large number of cases. Look at how many people choose to locate their families in polluted cities for the financial benefits when the deleterious effects on health are so well studied and documented. There's just not enough immediacy of the effects of breathing polluted air or eating a fish contaminated with carcinogens.
Any company whether private or partially county/municipality owned such as power plants that gets a license to dump into nearby bodies of water should be forced to follow the same rules. I personally find it unlikely that flint would not have happened if local and state level officials had been forced to drink the water. The outbreak of legionaries disease after the fact was especially egregious.
I live in a decent middle class suburb and still pay $100 per month to have spring water delivered because known carcinogens have been found in the water supply for years now. I spoke to the city commissionaire about it and his brief response was well they keep raising the requirements so its not really his fault. They have been out of compliance for at least the 4+ years I have been here, likely far longer. What are the consequences for the families that cannot afford $100 per month extra or don't take the time to read the water reports?
Yes, elected officials should also be required to spend 24 consecutive hours each month in the inmate population of the local jail, prison, etc. to ensure that it offers safe and humane conditions.
On a side note the concept of private prisons is also insane. That a private company can hold you for profit is not right.
You might add other modern suggestions in that spirit:
No Meat until you slaughter an animal yourself.
No pepper spray unless you try it yourself.
Spend a week living in the 'retirement community' before dumping those you claim to love there.
Etc. Basically dogfooding as gatekeeping.
https://waterwars.wordpress.com/2006/12/02/a-brief-history-o...
I think that the mayor of every city should be required to eat a fish caught in the most polluted stream that runs through the city, and state governors should be required to eat a fish caught from the most polluted stream in the state.
To wash it down, each should be required to drink a glass of water from the tap of the area of their jurisdiction with the dirtiest tap water.
This should happen weekly so that the toxins create a real health concern for the officials ingesting them.
We live in a world where most officials allow our natural resources and infrastructure to fail with impunity. This has to change. That we don't see local "watchdog" groups staging these sorts of tastings for television illustrates that the corruption spreads beyond the officials and into the media as well.