Graduate School Writings

ENST 595T: Environmental Inequity

Spring 2011

Final Exam

Elaine C. Long

 

1. Define environmental inequity. (5 pts)

 

   Environmental inequity is a term that is generally used to define unequal protection of people under laws that apply to their situation, more specifically, environmental policies, regulations and laws. It is frequently used when discussing cases of environmental racism, since in many cases[1], application of the law is unequal in regards to those of low socioeconomic or minority status, in comparison to Caucasians or other non-minority groups. One example of this idea was the government reaction and cleanup of the Love Canal in New York, which was declared a national emergency site, and had residents bought out or moved because of numerous health effects, but in another example during the same year in Houston, Texas, community residents were not bought out or compensated despite community resistance of a municipal landfill sited practically in their backyards[2].

   In contrast, in an area of Louisiana called “Cancer Alley,” there is little being done to evacuate residents, and a good portion of those who live closest to pollution hazards are minority groups. Because of the sheer size of the area, as well as the immense impact of cumulative pollution, there is little residents can do, other than try to get the companies within their immediate area to buy them out and move them, as can be seen in the film, “Fence line.”[3] Sometimes, even when they are bought out and move, the facility producing toxic exposure moves closer to them.

   This differing protection under the law is a classic case of inequity, which can also be held up as an example of why many poor minority communities (often of color) are now willing to use Title IV of the Civil Rights act, as well as the Fair Housing Act to prosecute polluters; under the robust non-application of the laws (NEPA, CWA, CAA, CERCLA, etc.) they have no other recourse to address inequalities when the rate of remediation for other non-minority and often white communities is much higher, as well as faster.[4] However, since the burden of proof is now placed on claimants of environmental racism, it would arguably be easier to closely scrutinize communities with high population densities (up to or above 870 per square kilometer) and poverty levels at or near 18.3% to start to determine if a facility is being equitably sited, or if it will cause a burden on the community in terms of housing costs, land values, and health effects.

 

1. Describe the forces (as discussed in class/articles/book) that may cause/contribute environmental inequity. (10 pts)

 

   One of the most frequently cited forces for contributing to environmental inequity is institutionalized racism. Real awareness of this as a problem in (expulsive) zoning and other environmental decision-making was not prominent within the national consciousness until studies like the United Church of Christ’s Toxic Wastes and Race, and books like Bullard’s Dumping In Dixie began to raise awareness (and more scholarship) on the issue. Also, studies like the one done by the Cerrell Associates group for the California Waste Management Board, which was widely circulated within the industry, were seen as codifying the inequities by advising that certain population groups (working class, conservative, less educated) be targeted for having “less resistance” to the siting of toxic waste dumps and facilities. During the Clinton Administration, national policy was realigned to try to deal with the disparity in equity for communities of color and low socioeconomic status by Executive Order 12,898. This sought to address existing disparities in the siting of toxic facilities, and require federal consideration of environmental justice in decision-making, but did not require until later court cases that decision-making for any project requiring the use of Federal funds must examine environmental inequity before making a decision or being approved.

   Another force that contributes to environmental inequity that relates to institutionalized racism is politics, which may be used by large companies to entice local governments into agreeing with siting waste facilities by providing non-monetary incentives that are deemed benefits by those who do not live immediately near the proposed facility. An example of this would be the effect of offering jobs or money to Native American tribes that would host toxic waste disposal facilities, or hiring tribal leader’s family members to smooth over or make easier the siting of toxic facilities, as was the case for the Navajo in Dilkon, Arizona.[5] Also, expulsive zoning, or zoning that is used to remove residents from an area in order to establish more businesses or waste facilities is another example of a political force that may be utilized by government agencies to purposely create inequity to advance an agenda that may not be shared by the community affected.

   Moreover, another force that may be acting upon a community where a waste facility may be sited is that of financial difficulty; if a property is immediately adjacent to a waste incinerator, for example, its monetary value decreases, and the property owner may be unable to sell it and move away. Also, those living nearest a facility or a proposed facility may be financially unable to move away; while others within the same community with more money can and will leave. In this case, market forces dictate that those left behind are most often the most disadvantaged; frequently minorities or poor.[6]

   Education, or lack of access to good educational opportunities may also be a force that can cause communities to stagnate; without a good education, it is harder to get jobs that are available but may require more than just a high school diploma. Furthermore, as education quality and standards decline, often the neighborhoods around them do as well, and vice versa. As cited in the Cerrell report, a conservative outlook might also be an vulnerability that would allow greater acceptance of a toxic waste facility, since it would dictate more accepting of the status quo, or “business as usual,” rather than resistance or questioning of TSDF establishment.[7] Additionally, the Cerrell Associates report also mentions length of residency as a determinant in acceptance of a waste facility; the longer the residency in an area, the less likely people are to resist siting of TSDFs, and more likely they will simply accept existing inequalities rather than protest against them.       An example of this was in the town of Ironbound, where quality of life was degraded by industry and waste facilities, so that it was seen as futile by residents to “fight City Hall” in order to improve their situation. Whether or not that perception was true, it did act upon public perception of the futility of trying to alter their environment or improve it.[8]

   Additionally, language may also be an actor in creating environmental inequity; when a community is not meaningfully involved in planning processes or siting due to a language barrier, it is easier for locally undesirable land uses to be put in place over community objection, as was the case with Buttonwillow residents.[9]

   Peripherally, public safety may also play a role in contributing to environmental inequity; in neighborhoods that are already burdened with toxic facilities and releases, it may be perceived as less desirable and safe to live, which creates a vicious cycle of dropping property values, less quality in housing standards and renting, and a corresponding rise in social unrest, vandalism (since the neighborhood is perceived as less valuable), crime, and mistrust and desperation among residents that are afraid to go outside for health and personal safety reasons. This ties in to discrimination in the real estate industry, which may inadvertently funnel minorities into certain neighborhoods where they would “fit in” better, rather than just presenting home values that could be afforded by a buyer in any neighborhood.

​

1. The report “Toxic Wastes and Race in the US” is considered a groundbreaking study by the environmental justice movement. What are the significant conclusions reached by its authors? What are the strengths and weaknesses of this study? (15 pts)

 

   One of the most significant conclusions from the report, and its follow-up report 20 years later in 2007, is that the single best predictor for the siting of toxic waste treatment, storage and disposal facilities (TSDFs) is race, rather than socioeconomic status. In further studies, despite the size of the area used to define communities, whether it was a zip code or a census tract, whether it was based on a measure of proximity (a mile, or three- also known as unit-hazard coincidence) or of a percentage proximity (50% within a circle of influence- also known as 50% areal containment, or areal apportionment), it has been demonstrated that for already sited facilities, despite whether or not the toxic facility was established, its net impact is a disproportionate exposure of minority communities to health risk from toxic wastes.[10] No matter how good the facility, there are still accidents, leakages and other problems that cause even a conscientious facility to have a large impact on the minority community around it.

   When examining the strengths and weaknesses of the initial study, the most evident weakness is the measures used to determine the size of the community surrounding the contested facility; area zip codes were used, which are large aggregate areas, that are not based on population homogeneity (as census tracts are) or size. This is problematic because area zip codes do tend to change over time as population changes lead to the defined areas of the zip codes being re-drawn or changed, causing problems in longitudinal effect studies for toxic waste and impact. Census tracts are a little more sensitive in terms of demographic analysis, and less likely to be altered, and thus more accurate when used in longitudinal studies.

   Also, the initial Toxic Wastes and Race report did not attempt to examine cumulative health impacts on minority communities for multiple types of toxic facilities—not just landfills, incinerators and other TSDFs. Factories and other onsite storage or disposal facilities that were privately owned were not addressed until later studies (Toxic Wastes and Race at Twenty), nor were the types of releases of toxic materials or their potential health effects or areas of contamination (via air, water, soil).

   Furthermore, no examination of overlapping cumulative health risk was examined; instead, the rationale behind the initial Toxic Wastes and Race study was to establish clearly that there was a disproportionate impact upon minority communities (especially African Americans and Hispanics) with regards to toxic wastes on a regional and non-urban/urban basis for a larger audience than just the social science research community; it was intended to start raising awareness and calling for policy to address racially-based inequities that were not covered by existing civil rights laws. However, it does not adequately address cumulative toxic affects on any community containing toxic facilities; that is left to later consideration and evaluation twenty years later.

   The strengths of the study are the suggestions made for policy alteration, as well as the other recommendations made at the end. Some of the recommendations, notably the mandate by the federal government of consideration of environmental justice in its major agencies, have been implemented. Most of the state and local level recommendations, however, were not implemented. Unfortunately, as less money is being given to agencies that are supposedly responsible for the testing and approval of environmentally sensitive projects (like the EPA), then less credence is being given to environmental justice concerns, except in cases of what is seen as overt racism in siting decisions or processes, as in the case of the Sierra Blanca nuclear waste disposal site, which was rejected by the Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission in 1998.[11] Hopefully, in the future this trend will be reversed, or at least more equity in siting will be instituted either on a policy level in both real estate, government, and within corporate culture for waste disposal companies.

 

4. Executive Order 12898 is hailed as a banner accomplishment by the environmental justice movement. Describe its significance, strength/weakness, and recommendations for improvement, if any. (10 pts)

 

   The primary significance of Executive Order 12898 is that it redirected policy and awareness on a national level towards an existing inequality that had been previously ignored in the status quo for the environment; it recognized the rights of citizens, especially minorities and the economically disadvantaged, to clean and equitable living—without undue and excessive exposure to health hazards posed by facilities and decisions made by the government. It codified government agencies as those belonging to the working group on environmental justice (all the major agencies) as well as those defined by the president—a precedent that could be changed every four years depending on the outlook and policies of the president in office.

   There are further numerous weaknesses and loopholes in the order; it only applies to federally recognized Native American tribes, which eliminates a good number, especially in California, that are constantly being denied recognized status despite proof of origin and longevity of existence as a tribal entity. Furthermore, independent government agencies are requested to comply with the order, but are not required, giving a big out for agencies related to national security, defense, or the armed forces. Additionally, provision is made for agencies to petition to be exempt from the order; which could allow some agencies to thoroughly disregard compliance if it did not fit their aims or their operating standards. The Army Corps of Engineers seems to be one of those groups that are exempt, historically, from compliance with any order other than national defense projects, and infrastructure related to national defense. Another weakness is that testing is not required for areas that may have toxic burdens as part of the siting consideration process; the executive order only mandates that research done will include more population segments that may be vulnerable, but doesn’t require that if a population is found to be burdened or vulnerable through health studies it must be mitigated or ameliorated by the agency that is trying to alter that environment. It simply holds the agency doing the research on health affects and other data responsible for making it available to the public. This is also a strength, since it provides more transparency in federal agency actions, but it is also a weakness, since agencies are not required to avoid actions that will cause further harm, just study and document it, and consider environmental justice in the siting process or in operation.

   It is positive to note, however, that the executive order does seek to make federal projects more available to vulnerable sections of the population; it asks federal agencies to translate documents into languages other than English, if necessary, as well as make sure that the public is easily able to access all parts of the process (hearings, documents, etc.) involved in whatever is being done with federal funds. This recommendation for transparency and equality in access to information is a powerful thing, since it means that projects using federal funding or federal agencies and their offshoots must seek to be more directly available to those that will be affected by them.

   One recommendation that I definitely would encourage in making this order less toothless and more effective as a policy statement would be to close some of the loopholes; health testing should be required in already polluted areas if the project proposed is one that will add to the cumulative negative effect on minority populations (as well as poor or other populations effected), and should be performed by the agency proposing the project, and subject to the approval and ratification of the local community that would be affected, rather than the agency. In addition, all government agencies should be required to comply with the requirement of having an environmental justice task force and implementation of policies pertaining to it; but they still should be allowed to petition the executive branch (with approval or ratification by the House of Representatives) for exemption. This would cause a greater portion of the government to comply with the order, as well as close two of the major loopholes that weaken the order. It would also provide some accountability in both cases toward those that would be directly affected by environmental inequity; the community members who live in the area affected, and the representatives of those communities. Requiring all government agencies to comply would also create more awareness throughout the nation of institutionalized racism, as well as create more pressure to give attention to “throw away” communities that are deemed less valuable because of land value, race or other cultural considerations.

 

[1] According to Bullard, in Dumping in Dixie (1990).

[2] Second National People of Color Summit. Environmental Justice Timeline-Milestones. Pg. 3 Retrieved from: http://www.ejrc.cau.edu/summit2/%20EJTimeline.pdf  ALSO, Johnson, Glen S. Environmental Justice Resource Center. Robert Bullard. Retrieved from: http://www.ejrc.cau.edu/RDBwriteup.html

[3] Grunberg, Slawomir. Fenceline: A Company Town Divided. 2002.

[4] Coyle, Marcia & Lovell, Marianne. A Special Investigation: Unequal Protection: The Racial Divide In Environmental Law. National Law Journal, September 21, 1992.

[5] Cole, Luke W. and Foster, Sheila R. From The Ground Up; Environmental Racism and the Rise of the Environmental Justice Movement. Chapter 6.

[6] Cole, Luke W. and Foster, Sheila R. From The Ground Up; Environmental Racism and the Rise of the Environmental Justice Movement. Page 59.

[7] Cerrell Associates, Inc. Political Difficulties Facing Waste-To-Energy Conversion Plant Siting. Pg. 15, 16

[8] Cole, Luke W. and Foster, Sheila R. From the Ground Up: Environmental Racism and the Rise of the Environmental Justice Movement. Pg. 156, 157.

[9] Cole, Luke W. and Foster, Sheila R. From the Ground Up: Environmental Racism and the Rise of the Environmental Justice Movement. Chapter 4.

[10] Toxic Wastes and Race at Twenty. Bullard et al. 2007.

[11] Environmental Justice Case Study: The Struggle for Sierra Blanca, Texas Against A Low-Level Nuclear Waste Site. Retrieved from: http://www.umich.edu/~snre492/blanca.html#Strategies%20Used