ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ISSUES PRESENTED TO CONGRESSIONAL LEADERS
First-Ever Congressional Environmental Justice Symposium
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ISSUES PRESENTED TO CONGRESSIONAL LEADERS
First-Ever Congressional Environmental Justice Symposium
To view individual statements click on the name of the statement provider: Rep. John Conyers Jr., Rep. Nancy Pelosi, Rep. Lucille Royal-Allard, Rep. John Lewis, Rep. Maurice Hinchey, Danny Glover,Dr. Robert D. Bullard, St.James Citizens for Jobs and the Environment, Ross Richard-Crow, Jerome Balter, Preston G.Galarneau Jr., Julie H. Hurwitz, Paul Mohai, Jessica G. Nembhard, Nathalie Walker, Mathy V. Stanislaus, and Vernice Miller-TravisCONGRESSIONAL LEADERS STATEMENTS
May 25, 1999
John Conyers, Jr., Congressman, Fourteenth District, MichiganConyers Co-Sponsors First-Ever Congressional Environmental Justice Symposium "I am pleased to announce the first-ever National Congressional Symposium on Environmental Justice which is being sponsored today by 14 individual members of the Congressional Black, Hispanic and Progressive Caucuses. At today's symposium we will hear from environmental justice experts from across the country with the common concern that minority communities are disproportionately burdened by environmental pollution."
"Environmental racism is the disproportionate placement of hazardous industrial operations to minority communities. Minority communities across the country have become dumping grounds for chemical plants, waste dumps, and other toxic waste. The systematic and disparate impact of hazardous sites on minority communities represents an intolerable vestige of discrimination."
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 specifically prohibits intentional discrimination by an agency that receives federal funds. Since state departments of environmental quality receive federal funds to implement federal envirorunental laws, through permitting, they must follow the mandates of Title VI.
The EPA and other agencies have adopted regulations for the enforcement of Title VI which establish a discriminatory effect standard, rather than a discriminatory intent standard. Thus, upon accepting a complaint, the EPA must conduct an investigation into whether the permit at issue will create a disparate impact on a racial or ethnic population. In addition, President Clinton's Executive Order 12898, "Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations" directs 0 federal agencies, including the EPA, to implement environmental justice in all policies, programs, and activities.
"It is important for communities, businesses and organizations to find new ways to balance economic, environmental and social goals. Economic expansion does not have to be at the expense of the health of citizens. We hope that today's Symposium will raise awareness of the need to enforce Civil Rights laws in the environmental context and to bring national attention to environmental justice issues."
"Finally, our goal for the Symposium is to spark the development of environmental justice policy recommendations by today's experts that Congress and other federal and state governmental agencies can use to ensure the guarantee of environmental justice for all citizens."
May 24,1999
Nancy Pelosi
Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi, Washington, D.C.Environmental Justice for All It is already clear that environmental justice will become a pivotal human rights issue in the next century. The basic reason is also clear: viewed through the lens of social progress, the history of our time is essentially the saga of the expansion of civil rights. However halting and problematic at times, the march of humanity toward the frontiers of equality and justice has been inexorable.
Thus, the barriers that have protected the inequalities and injustices of environmental assaults must also fall. Indeed, this Environmental Justice Symposium would not be necessary if the world's deadly pollutants were distributed equally. They are not. Yet everyone here knows that environmental protection should be the birthright of every human being.
In 1999, it is simply intolerable that pollution tends to prey most heavily upon the most vulnerable Americans - on the poor, the helpless, the minorities, the immigrants, and the children. Our ultimate goal should be, of course, the total elimination of dangerous pollutants; but while waiting for that blessed day to arrive, we cannot fall silent, smugly accepting the inevitability that those Americans already on the edge of survival should also shoulder the greatest burdens of pollution. In a wealthy society, the poor are vulnerable, almost by definition. To be poor and a member of a minority group intensifies that vulnerability. To be poor, a minority, and a child constitutes the ultimate in vulnerability.
Of all children, those from lower-income families face the greatest environmental health risks. One in five children live in poverty. African-American, Hispanic and Native American children are overly represented among the 3-4 million who live within a mile of an EPA-designated hazardous waste site.
The childhood plagues of the past have been largely tamed and domesticated Today, our children are beset with more chronic and debilitating conditions, such as cancer and asthma. Something is terribly wrong when statistics show that cancer, formerly a disease associated with the elderly, is now the second leading cause of death in children and that asthma has increased by 40% since 1980. Even with progress in reducing environmental lead in the environment, there are still one million children with elevated levels in their blood.
Over 2.2 billion pounds of pesticides are used each year on crops, lawns, and public spaces. This year, Consumers Union reported that fruits and vegetables in child diets have unsafe levels of pesticide residues. Even one serving of some produce can exceed the safe daily limits for children. Every individual has the right to live in an environment free of deadly pollutants and toxic waste, and every child has a right to be born free of exposure to toxic chemicals.
The burden of protection should not rest solely on parents. The science is far too complex for all but the most sophisticated specialists. This is a task for government, and our government should do its job. Thomas Jefferson wrote, as long ago as 1809, that "the care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only object of good government."
Environmental protection should be as blind as Justice. It should know no cost or color. Anchored in these principles, I requested, along with other members here today, a General Accounting (GAO) study to review the federal data on environmental health. We asked the GAO study to focus on the disproportionate environmental health impacts on lower income communities and communities of color and to make recommendations to improve the collection, analysis, and accessibility of information.
Some of my colleagues joined me, also, in sending a letter to Vice President Gore asking the Administration to increase the budget for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in order to employ trained staff with a background in civil rights. This action would signal minority communities plagued by the pollution that undermines the health of their children and their hopes for economic opportunity that the federal government works to ensure that all civil rights are respected. A nation that preserves its environmental health lays the foundation for a healthy, stable society that will enjoy the confidence of all its members.
At the beginning of my remarks, I predicted that environmental justice will be the central human rights issue of the next century. We should not wait, however, until the next century to find out whether I am correct. We need to act now, and that is why this symposium today -- this crystallizing moment in the history of an irresistible political movement -- is of such paramount importance.
May 26,1999
Lucille Roybal-Allard, Chair, Congressional Hispanic CaucusHispanic Caucus Participates in "Environmental Justice For All" National Symposium Washington, D.C. - Today, Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard, Chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus (CHC), along with Reps. Xavier Becerra, Ciro Rodriguez and Nydia Velazquez participated in the "Environmental Justice For All" national symposium. The all day event, organized by the Environmental Justice Working Group, a coalition of Hispanic, Black and Progressive Caucus members, addressed the importance of social equity in the discussion of environmental concerns and preservation issues.
CHC members were present at the Symposium to highlight specific environmental problems their districts have been facing. "The Latino community has traditionally been excluded from the discussion and decision making process on environmental justice issues. However, poor and minority communities like the ones many CHC members represent have fought for years to protect where they live from environmental degradation. Today's symposium will teach others what Latino and low-income communities already know about fighting for environmental justice -- it can be a lonely struggle fought by the most vulnerable groups of our society," said CHC Chair Roybal-Allard.
The issue of environmental justice arises from the concern that low-income communities are exposed to greater environmental risk than the general population. Consequently, these communities suffer a disproportionate share of the health risks associated with high levels of noise and air pollution and water contamination linked to these dump sites. These risks, in combination with other social inequities, such as high poverty rates, deteriorating housing and infrastructure and inaccessible medical services make environmental justice a priority for the Latino community.
"Poor and minority communities have been at the forefront of the fight for environmental justice for generations but their cries for justice fell on deaf ears," stated Rep. Roybal-Allard. "Now that environmental problems are growing beyond the confines of low-income neighborhoods does the issue of environmental justice move from a regional matter to a national concern. The health and future of our children is at stake, that should have made this a national concern long ago," concluded the CHC Chair.
The Symposium covered topics such as: communities fighting for environmental justice, economic development and the environment, legal tools to achieve environmental justice. The final panel entitled, "Where do we go from here?" allowed Members to discuss solutions and methods to further empower low-income and minority communities to fight pollution and congestion.
May 25, 1999
Congressman John Lewis, Fifth District, GeorgiaStatement for Environmental Justice Symposium Press Conference Thank you, Mr. Conyers. It is good to see so many of my Colleagues standing up for environmental justice. As you can see from the Members before you -- men and women -- black, white and Hispanic -- Environmental justice is an issue that touches us all.
As many of you know, back in 1992, then Senator Al Gore and I introduced the Environmental Justice Act. Even back then we knew about the dangers of toxins and other forms of pollution. We heard the stories of Love Canal, Cancer Alley and Chicago's Toxic Donut. We knew that poor and minority families -- and children in particular -- were getting sick -- very sick. Children were getting cancer. Parents were dying of rare diseases. Something was going on.
So Senator Gore and I introduced a bill that would try to establish the link between environmental pollution and the communities that were riddled with cancer and other diseases. The Environmental Justice Act also would provide help to these communities, restricting the siting of new polluting facilities and providing basic health services to residents.
As I have always said, people have the right to know what is in the air they breathe, the water they drink, the food they eat. We have the right to know if the chemical plant down the street -- or that incinerator around the comer -- is poisoning our families. Each and every one of us has that right.
And if that chemical plant, or incinerator, or toxic waste dump is killing our neighbors, our children, and our communities then it is time for the killing to stop. Protecting the health and well-being of our families is a matter of justice. It is a fundamental human right -- just like freedom of speech -- just like freedom of press -- just like the right to vote.
Today, I look forward to hearing from the communities that are fighting for environmental justice each and every day. I look forward to hearing how federal agencies, especially the EPA, are working to address environmental justice concerns. I am hopeful that this hearing will provide the momentum we need to ensure that every child -- rich or poor, urban or rural, black white, red, yellow or brown -- can grow up in a clean, healthy environment. Our children deserve no less.
May 25, 1999
Congressman Maurice Hinchey, 26th District, New YorkCongressman Maurice Hinchey's
Opening Remarks for the Environmental Justice Symposium
Panel IV. Where Do We Go From Here?"The simple goal of all environmental quality protection laws, such as the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts, was to let all of our people live in a clean, healthy environment. The simple goal of environmental justice is to emphasize that the clean, healthy environment should truly be for all our people. The environmdangers of toxins and other forms of pollution. We heard the stories of Love Canal, Cancer Alley and Chicago's Toxic Donut. We knew that poor and minority families -- and children in particular -- were getting sick -- very sick. Children were getting cancer. Parents were dying of rare diseases. Something was going on. So Senator Gore and I introduced a bill that would try to establish the link between environmental pollution and the communities that were riddled with cancer and other diseases. The Environmeled "Where do we go from here," and there's no question that the "we" can and must involve members of Congress. Let me just say a few words about where I believe we should be going to.
"We have made enormous advances in protecting the environment and restoring it to health in the past 30 years, but we are nowhere near where we should be. The first road we need to take is the road away from complacency, from the belief that the job is done.
"The second road we need to take is a road with no end: the road to knowledge. We have to face the facts that we still don't know anywhere near what we need to know about what makes an environment healthy. We don't know much about the effects, long-term and short- term, of thousands of chemical compounds, about how they interact with each other, about how they affect different individuals. We need to learn more.
"The third road we need to take, the most important, is the road to action. We can't wait until we reach the end of the endless road to knowledge. We need to act now, to help those who have already been harmed, and to prevent further harm from being done. I know our panelists will be offering ideas on the specific actions we need to take to achieve those goals."
STATEMENTS FROM SYMPOSIUM PARTICIPANTS STATEMENT BY DANNY GLOVER ON THE OCCASION OF THE MAY 25, 1999 NATIONAL CONGRESSIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE FORUM, WASHINGTON, D.C.
I want to first thank the individual members of the Congressional Black Caucus, Hispanic Congressional Caucus, and Progressive Congressional Caucus sponsoring this very important national forum on environmental justice. Due to my business and travel schedule I regret that I am not able to attend today's important but critical gathering.
The contamination of our air, water, soil, food, and natural resources in our communities by pollution of all kinds is a national and international crisis requiring on-going and urgent attention by government policy-makers, industry and citizens from all walks of life. Despite the existence of state and federal environmental laws, our environment continues to be contaminated by excessive levels of toxic chemicals, threatened by global warming, and devastated by unwise management of our natural resources. The poisoning of our environment is a threat to the health of our nation, our children and future generations.
In recent years African American, Native American, Latino American, Asian American and low income, working class white communities have - played a prominent role in addressing the problem of environmental racism and the issue of environmental justice. Several studies have documented the fact that racial discrimination in the application and enforcement of our nation's environmental, health, and safety laws has resulted in communities and workers of color being disproportionately exposed to sources of pollution. This is environmental racism.
I am encouraged by the fact that demands for environmental justice by communities of color have resulted in President Clinton issuing a presidential executive order on environmental justice in February 1994. The order directs federal agencies to formulate their policies and programs in a manner that prevents environmental racism and brings environmental justice for low-income populations.
It is important that our federal and state civil rights and environmental laws, such as Title 6 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, be vigorously enforced and used to end policies of environmental racism. No community should be forced to live with pollution, and certainly no sector of our population should be forced to bear a disproportionate burden of our nation's waste and toxic emissions.
I want to announce the fact that I have agreed to narrate a new documentary film currently under production and direriorating housing and infrastructure and inaccessible medical services make environmental justice a priority for the Latino community."Poor and minority communities have been at the forefront of the fight for environmental justice for generations but their cries for justice fell on deaf ears," stated Rep. Roybal-Allard. "Now that environmental problems are growing beyond the confines of low-income neighborhoods does the issue of environmental justice move from a regional matter to a national concern. The heced to breathe from nearby chemical plants. They also link illnesses they have to the pollution they breathe.
The Shintech case was a classic example of how environmental racism sickens and destroys communities. Several fellow artists, including Wynton and Bradford Marsalis, Bonnie Raitt, Michelle Shocked, Aaron Neville, Dave Matthews, Harry Connick Jr. and others, backed the people of Convent in their struggle for justice and a clean and healthy environment. In a letter to President Clinton, they asked his administration to block a permit for the proposed plant. In doing so they joined Members of the Congressional Black Caucus, Rev. Jesse Jackson, Rev. Joseph Lowery, and other prominent Americans who also wrote letters opposing the plant. Today I too want to lend my voice of concern to the growing chorus of members of Congress, civil rights and church leaders, and everyday citizens demanding environmental justice now for all communities who are victims of environmental hazards.
Thank You
STATEMENT PREPARED FOR THE NATIONAL CONGRESSIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DCMay 25, 1999
Robert D. Bullard, Ph.D.
Environmental Justice Resource Center
Clark Atlanta University
Atlanta, GAMy name is Robert D. Bullard. I am the Ware Professor of Sociology and Director of the Environmental Justice Resource Center at Clark Atlanta University. After visiting several hundred communities and talking to thousands of people all across the United States, the message is plain and simple: the environmental protection apparatus is broken and needs to be fixed now. Too many of these stories told at this symposium and other recent forums sound too much like those I wrote about two decades ago in Warren County, North Carolina, Northeast Houston, West Dallas, Texas, Alsen, Louisiana's "cancer Alley," Institute, West Virginia, and Emelle, Alabama. Dumping in Dixie is alive and well. The problem is that the whole country is "Dixie" when it comes to people of color. The following recommendations are offered:
1. Executive Order 12898. It has been over five years since President Clinton signed Executive Order 12898 on February 11, 1994. We need the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) to provide a comprehensive report on what the federal agencies have done over these past five years. This "report card" would allow us to assess, evaluate, and grade the federal agencies' efforts toward achieving the principles of environmental justice that are outlined in the Executive Order.
2. Environmental Emergency. Given the extreme environmental stressors and disaster-like conditions that exist in many communities in the United States, we urge President Clinton to declare an "emergency" and advise EPA administrator Browner to respond with an "emergency plan" that is commensurate with the problem at hand.
3. Siting Moratorium. Criteria for a siting moratorium of "risky technologies" need to be developed by the federal EPA in collaboration with communities to protect the health of sick people and communities overburdened with polluting industries.
4. Community Ownership of Revitalization Initiatives. Urban core neighborhoods need to be revitalized. We need a coordinated plan for community-based organizations to lead and take ownership of federal initiatives undertaken under Empowerment and Enterprises Zones (HUD), brownfields redevelopment (EPA), livable communities (DOT), and Healthy People 2000 (HHS).
5. Smart Growth and Anti-Urban Sprawl Initiatives. Sprawl is making some of us sick and is literally sucking the life out of many urban core areas. Pollution from cars, trucks, and buses is placing some communities at risk. We need "Smart Growth" strategies that are sustainable, economically viable, and just.
6. Asthma Epidemic. African Americans and Latino Americans are two to three times more likely than whites to be hospitalize or die from asthma. More funds need to be made available for community-based asthma prevention-intervention programs.
7. Fair Housing, Economic Justice, and Community Development. Racial redlining by banks and insurance companies, not the presence of environmental contamination or brownfields sites, is sucking the economic life out of many urban neighborhoods. We need stringent enforcement of federal fair housing laws, use of the Community Reinvestment Act and creative application of locational efficient mortgages to revitalize in urban neighborhoods.
8. Access to Jobs. We need the U.S. DOT to work with grassroots environmental justice groups, community based organizations, historically black colleges and universities/minority academic institutions (HBCUs/MAIs) to improve mobility and enhance access to jobs for all Americans.
9. Transportation Equity. U.S. DOT needs to require an equity analysis to determine the impacts (costs and benefits) of transportation investments on people of color and low-income communities. Environmental justice groups need to develop collaboratives with people of color business enterprises to ensure that adequate resources flow from the USDOT, especially the multi-billion dollar TEA-21 program (i.e., Disadvantaged Business Enterprises Program).
10. Civil Rights Enforcement. The U.S. Department of Justice needs to take a more aggressive role in assuring that citizens' rights are not being violated under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. _______________
For more information contact:
Dr. Robert D. Bullard, Environmental Justice Resource Center
Clark Atlanta University
223 James P. Brawley Drive
Atlanta, GA 30314
Phone: (404) 880-6911
Fax: (404) 880-6909
Website: www.ejrc.cau.eduMay 25, 1999
INFORMATION ON CONVENT, LOUISIANA
Prepared by St. James Citizens for Jobs and the EnvironmentConvent is an unincorporated community in St. James Parish (A parish is similar to a county in other states. Presently, there are 64 parishes in Louisiana. Ten parishes arc located in Cancer Alley). More than 80% of Convent residents are African American and over 2,000 people live in Convent. Convent gets its name from the Convent of Sacred Heart, a catholic school for the daughters of plantation owners that existed in the 1800's.
St. James Parish was established on March 31, 1807 and was one of the first nineteen parishes in the state. During this time, the chief economic source in St. James was agriculture that was developed by slave labor. Today, there are just a few sugar cane fields and the sites of many of the old plantations are now occupied by industrial facilities. The plantation system has been replaced with industrial plants.
St. James Parish is in the center of Cancer Alley, an area of the Mississippi River from Baton Rouge to New Orleans, where more than 130 petrochemical facilities release over 70% of all the toxic pollution in the state. St. James Parish has the third highest release of toxic pollution in the state, which totals 17,585,979 pounds annually. There are seventeen industrial facilities in St. James that are responsible for this high pollution level. On the northern border of St. James is Ascension Parish, which is number one in the state for the highest release of toxic pollution (51,508,315 pounds annually) and is next to Convent. Nearly half of the 17 million pounds of toxic pollution in St. James Parish comes from four facilities. These facilities are the biggest polluters in the parish and all operate within three miles of Convent residents: IMC-Agrico-Faustina, IMC-Agrico-Uncle Sam, Star Enterprise (now Motiva), and Chevron Chemical. (See Louisiana Toxics Release Inventory Report 1996)
Local governmental decisions on Convent are made at the parish level by a parish president and parish council of seven members. Each officer is elected by residents in the parish. If we have an issue that only affects us in Convent, it will be decided by these elected officials.
Before industrial polluters came to Convent, residents enjoyed gardening in fertile soil, hunting and fishing in surrounding wetlands and the Mississippi River. People were able to farm sugar cane, tobacco, soybeans, and grow fruit trees and other plants. People could sustain themselves by selling homegrown fruits, vegetables, and seafood caught from the Mississippi River. The natural environment in the Convent area allowed people to provide for themselves and their families by living off the land.
Today, the Mississippi River is so polluted that no one fishes from it. Although our drinking water comes from the Mississippi River, residents who can afford to buy bottled water and install filters do so. Trees are rotting and dying in Convent. We can no longer farm the same fruits and vegetables. These losses have created more poverty because we are now forced to rely solely on wage income in a community with high unemployment. Sixty-two percent of us live below poverty level.
Our way of life has been dramatically changed by the seventeen industrial facilities in our parish, where the biggest polluters are clustered in close proximity to the 2,711 people living in the Convent area. Plant operations at these facilities go on 24 hours a day and seven days a week in our community. Oil refinery operations, petrochemical production, grain elevators, fertilizer plants, pipelines and conveyors, rail cars and trucks transporting hazardous materials surround us. We are constantly being bombarded by chemical odors from these facilities. These odors irritate our sinuses, give us headaches, and upset our stomachs. We spend much of our time indoors to escape the noxious fumes and other contaminants, such as grain dust, that move off plant sites into our communities and our bodies. Some of us have been treated for cancers, respiratory ailments, and other health problems that have been scientifically linked to exposure to hazardous substances produced at these plants, such as chlorine, ammonia, benzene, styrene, toluene, ethylene dichloride, ethyl benzene, and sulfur dioxide.
In addition to toxic pollution released every day, we have no protection against chemical accidents. There are 36 residential streets within three miles of six industrial plants. All of these streets are dead end streets. Evacuation is a problem because there is only one way in and one way out of these streets that are poorly paved and not much wider than a vehicle. Because the streets are so narrow, several trailer homes have burned because the fire trucks were, too big for the streets and could not be driven to the trailer homes. We have a volunteer fire department, which means that people have to leave their jobs in order to respond to an emergency.
We are very concerned about the two elementary schools, Romeville Elementary School on the east bank and Fifth Ward Elementary School on the west bank. Romeville is less than a mile away from Zen Noh grain elevator, and both schools are within three miles of most of the biggest industrial polluters in the parish. Each school has more than 300 students, who are predominantly African American. School buses pass by several plants twice a day. Our children, who live and go to school in Convent, are exposed to the industrial pollution on a daily basis and threatened by the risk of a chemical accident.
May 25, 1999
Ross Richard-Crow, M.O.S.E.S.Why the Time for Environmental Justice is Now Much of the inattention to environmental justice can be attributed to what has been characterized as shallow coverage of race and racial issues. Farai Chideya in her new book, The Color of Our Future states, "Much of the coverage of race is shallow and sensationalistic, driven only by racial incidents and flashpoints, not by the need for a greater understanding of where we're headed as a nation." Environmental justice issues are complex and the slow degradation of health and communities of color are not necessarily flashpoint issues which lend themselves to sensational media coverage. The result is, one of the most critical racial and social justice issues of our time, with far reaching implications and deserving of top priority status, has been virtually ignored and unreported.
"A necessary evil is one we like so well we do not care about abolishing it. "There is indeed a lack of understanding of where we are heading as a nation when we continue to destroy the health and the social fabric of communities of color across our nation. We are weaker and more ineffective by far as a nation when an important and growing sector of our population is denied basic civil rights and the opportunity to live in a safe, healthy environment. The result of environmental injustice is the further disenfranchisement of an already disenfranchised sector of our society and our society as a whole suffers. Our society as a whole suffers due to the loss of many great contributions from our communities of color. The increased barriers to economic opportunities in these polluted communities is no doubt one reason why unemployment remains higher among African-Americans and Hispanics than whites. The economy of our nation as a whole suffers the lost productivity and wasted human resources.
The issue of environmental injustice most certainly needs to be confronted now. Currently, our population is three-quarters white and one-quarter minority; by the middle of the century, it is estimated that our nation will be 53 percent white and 47 percent minority. How can we as a nation possible expect to function with a healthy and prosperous economy, should that large of a sector of our society continue to be crippled by environmental racism in the heart of their communities? Let's show our wisdom and foresight now as a nation and not allow our greatness to unnecessarily deteriorate due to environmental injustice.
The Title VI complaint filed by Mothers Organized to Stop Environmental Sins (M.O.S.E.S.) for the community of Winona, Texas serves as a critical test case of what has been identified as a tremendously harmful form of environmental injustice the unequal enforcement of environmental laws. As of March 1999, the M.O.S.E.S. complaint, is one of just three Title VI complaints accepted for investigation that involve lack of enforcement and the only one where discriminatory lack of enforcement is the central aspect of the complaint. The problem however is widespread, as statistics from across the nation demonstrate and the facts from Winona, Texas confirm.
In the book, Unequal Protection: Environmental Justice and Communities of Color, edited by Robert Bullard, Bullard enumerates the findings of the National Law Journal report: After examining census data, civil court dockets, and the EPA's own record of performance at 1,177 Superfund toxic waste sites, the National Law Journal report revealed the following:
1. Penalties under hazardous waste laws at sites having the greatest white population were 500 percent higher than penalties with the greatest minority population, averaging $335,566 for white areas, compared to $55,318 for minority areas.
2. The disparity under the toxic waste law occurs by race alone, not income. The average penalty in areas with the lowest income is $113,491, three percent more than the average penalty in areas with the highest median incomes.
3. For all the federal environmental laws aimed at protecting citizens from air, water, and waste pollution, penalties in white communities were 46 percent higher than in minority communities.
4. Under the giant Superfund cleanup program, abandoned hazardous waste sites in minority areas take 20 percent longer to be placed on the national priority list than those in white areas.
5. In more than half of the 10 autonomous regions that administer EPA programs around the country, action on cleanup at Superfund sites begins from 12 percent to 42 percent later at minority sites than at white sites.
6. At minority sites, the EPA chooses "containment," the capping or walling off of a hazardous waste dump site, 7 percent more frequently than the cleanup method preferred under the law, permanent "treatment," to eliminate the waste or rid it of its toxins. At white sites, the EPA orders treatment 22 percent more often than containment.
Lax or non-existent enforcement efforts by state environmental agencies at the commercial hazardous waste injection well facility in Winona,Texas tell a similar story. Years and years of odor nuisance complaints accompanied by reports of acute health effects including burning eyes, nose and throat; nausea; vomiting; hair loss; dizziness; disorientation; and loss of breath elicited inadequate or no response from agency officials. For more than a decade, the state failed to require any air monitoring devices at the facility that would record community exposures and company violations. Over the years, state inspections at the facility discovered numerous violations. Small fines or the lack of any fines for violations appear to have only to have encouraged the facility to continue violating the law. Many in the Winona community, with a disproportionately large African-American population, associate the large number of serious health problems experienced by community members with the facility and the lax enforcement of laws and regulations on its operations.
These statistics and facts confirm why the Winona case is a significant test case, and more importantly why it is critical for this community to win. Winona however will not win if the unfair treatment of Title VI complaints by USEPA is allowed to continue. Where is our fundamental right to due process--to present all the evidence, to review all the evidence presented by the opposing party, an opportunity to rebut andthe ability to appeal the decision? Moreover, if the political climate which has been dominating Title VI policy and decisions at EPA, is allowed to persist, the injustices borne by the citizens of Winona due to the state agency's extreme negligence will never get their fair day in court.
There are disturbing facts as well regarding both the state and federal environmental agency's behavior toward the black community in Winona, Texas. Despite objections that were raised by the black community numerous times and letters sent to the agencies by black ministers from Winona, these agencies for many years held public hearings and meetings during black revivals when blacks could not attend. Black revivals are a strong tradition in east Texas and these events have been observed on certain dates by the black community for more than 100 years. Thoughboth EPA and the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission wereinformed well in advance of the dates the black community could not attend, these agencies managed for many years to schedule public hearings specifically during the times that excluded the black community.
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act prohibits any form of discrimination by an agency receiving federal funding. EPA regulations make it clear that it is the disparate impact and not the intent of the agency that is at issue. EPA in its internal guidance on how to address Title VI complaints, however, does not appear to recognize many types of disparate impacts such as the discriminatory behavior by a community's own state agency or that region's EPA. Ongoing direction and oversight of EPA from Congressional leaders is urgently needed on Title VI especially as EPA redrafts its guidance document. The revised guidance document is due out this summer. Congressional leaders will want to assure that EPA broadly defines disparate impacts in the environmental justice context.
This is vital to avoiding gross injustices where communities are denied the basic protections intended by Title VI because EPA too narrowly defines disparate impact. "Governments exist to protect the rights of minorities. The loved and the rich need no protection: they have many friends and few enemies." Wendell Phillips We need the leaders in Congress, the leaders of civil rights and environmental organizations, to stand with the small, disenfranchised minority communities like Winona to ensure, that the utmost is done to assure justice. Witnessing the current process, which is chronicled in the Joint Petition to Re-Open Select Steel Investigation to which M.O.S.E.S. signed on to, we have absolutely no confidence that the process will approach anything that is fair. Despite all the evidence, EPA appears willing to conclude that there is no real instances of environmental injustice, or none that they have been able to identify. This flies in the face of numerous major studies and practical observation of communities all over our nation. We question EPA and the political forces driving the agency. We ask that our leaders make the eradication of environmental injustice the top priority that it deserves to be and should have been many years ago.
STATEMENT OF JEROME BALTER My name is Jerome Balter. I am an attorney with the Public Interest Law Center of Philadelphia, specializing in environmental law. I wish to thank you for the opportunity to testify before this Environmental Justice Symposium.
For the past six (6) years I have served as attorney for Chester Residents Concerned for Quality Living ("CRCQL") in their minority community's struggle for environmental justice. Chester Residents, under the leadership of Ms. Zulene Mayfield, have struggled to stop pollution fromexisting facilities and have struggled to stop Pennsylvania from granting permits to more and more waste processing and disposal plants in their community. Though they have been successful in some of their struggles the fact is that in the 10 years from 1987 - 1996, Pennsylvania has granted permits for waste facilities in Chester with more than 2,000,000 tons of waste per year, while issuing permits for the rest of Delaware County, Pennsylvania of less than 1,500 tons per year.
The City of Chester is twenty (20) miles South of Philadelphia. It has the poorest public health in the county and state with a mortality rate, a cancer mortality rate, an infant mortality rate and a low baby birth weight rate 40 to 100% higher than the rest of Delaware County, Pennsylvania.
Chester Residents, in 1996 brought the first environmental justice lawsuit against a State environmental protection agency alleging that the Pennsylvania environmental permit application review system had the effect of discriminating against a minority community. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals confirmed Chester Residents right to enforce the EPA civil rights regulations though that regulation does not require proof of discriminatory intent. The Supreme Court, however, mooted the lawsuit because the permit that had given rise to the action was revoked before the case was heard by that Court.
Thirty five (35) years after Title VI was enacted and five (5) years after the President's Executive Order on Environmental Justice, the Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") has yet to develop a Guidance to determine whether a facility permit granted by a state is a violation of Title VI or a violation of Environmental Justice. This failure, we believe, stems from EPA's insistence that the Guidance be based on "cumulative impact risk" analysis even though the EPA and its various advisory committees all recognize that such analysis will require much more research and a large improvement in the country's environmental monitoring system. The Guidance, therefore, might take years to develop and even then, will be subject to endless legal controversy similar to that of the Superfund System.
The EPA's Interim Protocol is unfair to all stakeholders now, and the Final Protocol, if based on cumulative impact risk analysis, will be unfair to all stakeholders whenever it ultimately is announced.
In contrast to the EPA's Guidance which seeks to predict public health effects from future emissions, the Law Center has proposed a Protocol based on a comparative analysis of existing community public health. This protocol would utilize health statistics from state Departments of Health, from which it is now possible to determine the mortality rates, cancer mortality rates, infant mortality rates and low baby birth weight rates of any geographical area and compare it with public health of the entire state or any geographical part of the state. This would be a true test of public health disparity.
Such a protocol would be fair to all stakes holders: it is predictable, accessible and workable. It does not depend on the myriad controversial factors that are involved in the EPA's cumulative impact risk analysis.
Such a protocol is now under consideration by the Philadelphia Air Pollution Control Board. A copy of the proposed Philadelphia Environmental Justice Protocol (5/4/99) is attached.
Thank you.
Proposal of the Public Interest Law Center of Philadelphia
Revised: May 4, 1999
Environmental Justice Standard of the City of PhiladelphiaIntroduction
The Public Interest Law Center of Philadelphia ("Law Center") herein presents a Draft for an Environmental Justice Standard for use by Air Management Services ("AMS") of the City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, to determine whether proposed permit applications are in compliance with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VI and with the goals of environmental justice.
This is a Draft. It is recognized that adjustments will be needed in response to comments and suggestions, all of which are welcome.
1. Air Management Services ("AMS") shall not grant a pollution control permit to construct or operate a new facility or an enlarged existing facility in an affected area which is deemed to be a Protected area except that a permit may be granted if the residents of the Protected area agree to grant such permit in a referendum of the residents of the Protected area.
2. The Affected area of a new facility or of an enlarged facility shall be the area within a circle of one mile diameter, the center of the circle shall be at the centroid of property owned or leased by the permit applicant for the operation of the proposed facility, except that the
diameter of the circle shall be enlarged so that the Affected area contains at least 1000 residents.
3. The public health of the residents of an Affected area shall be determined from records of the Pennsylvania Department of Health and the Philadelphia Department of Health for the published five (5) years preceding the time of the permit application.
4. The public health of residents of an Affected area and of any other geographical area in the City of Philadelphia shall be based on the following health indicators:
(a) Age - adjusted mortality rate (per 100,000 population);
(b) Age - adjusted cancer mortality rate (per 100,000 population);
(c) Infant mortality rate (per 1000 live births);
(d) Low Baby Birth Weight rate (under 2500 grams)
(per 1000 live births).
5. The Environmental Justice Standard for the City of Philadelphia shall be determined from the median levels of the health indicators for the entire residential population of the City of Philadelphia.
6. The Affected area of a proposed facility shall be deemed to be a Protected Area when its health indicators are at least ______% higher than the median level indicators for the entire city of Philadelphia.
7. Residents of a Protected Area shall have its right to override the permit prohibition in a referendum paid for by the permit applicnt.
Environmental Justice: The Way Things Were and the Way Things Should Be I knew about environmental justice a couple of years before I learned there was a Presidential Executive order on the subject. Shortly after moving to Chelsea an oil storage facility 45 feet away from my neighborhood applied for a permit to convert several of their large tanks to store liquid asphalt. I was horrified. I could already smell it when ships offloaded the oil to fill the tanks, and asphalt, I learned, would smell much worse. That's when I decided to get involved. I reanimated a long forgotten neighborhood association and led the fight to stop asphalt from coming to my neighborhood. That was in 1997. Last month, as a result of a lot of hard work by many people and organizations, the City of Chelsea signed an agreement with the company that killed the company's plan for asphalt and required the company to install odor elimination equipment on the existing tanks!
Along the way I learned a lot about Chelsea and was elected to serve the residents of my District as City Councillor. Since the industrial revolution Chelsea has been a melting pot, a city of immigrants. The first wave came in the early 1900's. Tens of thousands of Irish, Italian and Polish immigrants moved in looking for work in factories and found themselves a short ferry ride from Boston. Much has changed in the past century, but Chelsea remains a City of immigrants. The last few decades have brought largely Hispanic and Asian waves of people looking to build a new life in America. For 30 thousand or so, Chelsea has become home. I learned that Chelsea, which is a mere 1.8 square miles, is home to 44 toxic waste (21E) sites. A November 1996 survey on industrial pollution in Chelsea, funded by the EPA, suggests that "higher levels of pollution appear to be present in neighborhoods with a higher percentage of low income residents - particularly in low-income communities of color." It doesn't take a genius to reach the conclusion that the levels of pollution are directly related to the percentage of low income and minority populations of the community. I call it the path of least resistance.
When someone wants to build something that is unpalatable, where do they look to build it? Wherever they get the least resistance. We seldom see plants that emit noxious odors, for example, in wealthy communities. The people in those communities simply wouldn't stand for it. They are educated, know how to work the media, have lawyers, give political contributions, and in general understand the system. The path of least resistance is usually places like Chelsea, MA. Executive Office of Community Development 1995 data reveals the diversity of my community. As of 1995 we were 59% white, 0.2% American Indian, 4% black, 4.8% Asian and 31.4% Hispanic. Quite the melting pot. The industrial areas are near densely populated, low income neighborhoods with the highest levels of minority concentration. It is just such a place that will bear the burden of a recent proposal by MassPort (the operator of Logan Airport) to build a new runway. Environmental Justice, as I see it, was meant to level the playing field between power players like Massport and a culturally diverse community like Chelsea. I wrote the following letter to Congressman Michael Capuano as a brief on why the Logan Airport Proposal does not meet EJ standards.
Executive Order 12898 issued by President Clinton on February 11, 1994 was designed to focus Federal attention on the environmental and human health conditions in minority and low-income communities with the goal of achieving environmental justice. In a separate memorandum the President writes, "each Federal agency shall ensure that all programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance that affect human health or the environment do not directly, or through contractual or other arrangements, use criteria, methods, or practices that discriminate on the basis of race, color, or national origin." The 5 page environmental justice analysis contained within the "Logan Airside Improvements Planning Project Environmental Impact Statement/Report" (EIR) does not adequately analyze the environmental effects, including human health, economic and social effects, of the proposed airport expansion. I would suggest the analysis is a yet another clever obfuscation of the truth.
In a presentation to the Chelsea City Council on March 3, 1999 MassPort representatives made a prediction. The expansion, if allowed, will increase Runway 33 departures from 4.8% to 12% of total departures. Runway 15 arrivals will increase from 1.5% to 7.7%. In recognition of the dramatic increase in noise over Chelsea 1100 homes will be offered soundproofing. Further, page 8-9 in Volume 1 of the EIR admits "Alternatives 1 and 1A increase the population in Chelsea and to a lesser degree, portions of East Boston and South Boston (West of D Street)... as a result of of a greater reliance on Runway 15R/33L and Runway 27 departures. It also states on page 8-10 that the new runway will "provide relief to noise-impacted communities to the north and south of the airport."
On environmental justice the EIR concludes, "Given the reduction in the highest noise exposed population and this mitigation (soundproofing), the low income and minority population will not experience disproportionately high adverse impacts" in comparison to the affected population as a whole. It then states that "the percentage of low income and minority population within the 65dB DNL contour ranges from 2.85 percent to 18.31 percent for all 1999 and 2010 fleet scenarios."
Before I get to the effects of the current proposal I would like to describe the present and past noise related injustice MassPort is guilty of. When considering Massport impacts, specifically noise related, consider that they submitted a noise exposure map based on "forecast operations at the airport" and "reasonable assumptions concerning future type and frequency of aircraft operations, number of night-time operations, flight patterns, airport layout including any planned airport development, planned land use changes, and demographic changes in the surrounding areas." This is the all too familiar DNL noise contour map that has been used for years to deny Chelsea soundproofing. This map is a prediction, not reality. In fact, Massport "Measured Day-Night Equivalent Sound Levels" (DNL) have exceeded the 65dB threshold every year since the prediction was made. A letter I wrote to Senator John Kerry yielded a response from the FAA, stating the FAA "would suggest Massport update its noise exposure map sooner rather than later in order to account for actual rather than predicted conditions." MassPort has had, at the very least, an annual opportunity to update the noise contour to accurately reflect the noise impact of runways 33 and 15 on Chelsea, yet has chosen not to. When asked about this at a public hearing on aircraft noise in 1998, Massport noise abatement officials said it was too close to the time (1999 year end) when the FAA requires them to create a new noise exposure map to bother to offer an update.
Now, Massport is selling the new runway as a way to improve airfield efficiency and provide a more equitable distribution of operations. While Chelsea experiences a startling and dramatic increase in overflights, arrivals on runway 4L/R will decrease from 34.8% to 24.6%. This configuration affects South Boston (Farragut St.), Dorchester, Quincy, Milton, and Braintree. Similar short term decreases in overflights have been promised to Winthrop and Revere as well.
When you examine the enclosed maps of population density per square mile, percent people of color, and percent people with income below poverty level obtained from the EPA using 1990 Census data, a disturbing fact comes to light. The areas that are most negatively impacted by the new runway are the densely packed, poor, minority communities of parts of East Boston and Chelsea. When put in the proper context, this wreaks of Environmental Injustice. Superimpose the new predicted noise contours over the dark green and dark blue areas of these two communities and try to tell me that low income and minority populations will not experience disproportionately high adverse impacts.
MassPort's conscious decision to allow the FAA to believe that Chelsea is not within the 65dB noise contour, year after year, along with the age old excuse "your home is not eligible for Massport's Residential Sound Insulation Program. It is outside the target area for Massport's current program. The target area for the program, pursuant to FAA regulations is based on the 65 Ldn noise contour." is reason enough to doubt the credibility of the EIR. Massport admits the communities depicted in the census maps will absorb the brunt of the impact of this project while other communities benefit, and quietly characterizes the noise impacts as an act of environmental justice. Everyone who has closely examined this proposal for airport expansion should see it for what it really is - another example of environmental injustice.
Respectfully Submitted,
Preston G. Galarneau, Jr.
Director, CARE
District 8 City Councillor, Chelsea, MA
WRITTEN STATEMENT OF JULIE H. HURWITZ, NLG/SUGAR LAW CENTER
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE SYMPOSIUM - TUESDAY MAY 25, 1999My name is Julie Hurwitz, and I am the Executive Director of the National Lawyers Guild/Maurice & Jane Sugar Law Center for Economic and Social Justice (Guild Law Center). Since 1994, the Guild Law Center has been deeply involved in representing and assisting low income people and communities of color seeking redress for their disproportionate exposure1 to environmental stressors, caused by the lack of corporate accountability and the dismal failure of our regulatory agencies and courts to enforce our nation=s civil rights laws. We also represented dislocated workers throughout the country who have lost their jobs due to plant closings and mass layoffs and since 1993, have sought corporate accountability on behalf of communities and working people who have been affected by uncontrolled corporate-government subsidies.
Based on my experience as a practicing civil rights attorney since 1982 and the collective experience of the Guild Law Center since 1994, it is clear that there are continuing violations of civil rights occurring on a daily basis in this nation. There has been an amazing amount of empty rhetoric and purported commitment to environmental justice from regulatory agencies, including EPA, and the Administration.2 However, the interminable delays in adjudicating Title VI complaints within the EPA, coupled with nearly insurmountable burdens of proof imposed by courts in Title VI/civil rights litigation3, have virtually nullified the Civil Rights Act as it applies to environmental justice issues. The harm suffered by these communities is compounded by the blatant refusal by state regulatory agencies to incorporate environmental justice or meaningful public participation provisions into their permitting processes. Thus, left unimpeded, private corporations remain free to continue siting their most polluting industrial activities in those communities least empowered to resist.4
Regardless of intent, low income communities in general, and communities of color in particular, have been targeted for the most horrible environmental exposures5 in violation of their rights. The laws intended to redress those violations, such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (including Title VI), are poorly enforced at best. Our regulatory agencies and courts are shamefully shirking their duty to enforce the law and are being unduly influenced by political and corporate forces which have as their agenda the complete evisceration of environmental justice as a legitimate civil rights issue.
SELECT STEEL/GENESEE POWER STATION CASES: In Flint Michigan, a group of residents from a predominantly low income African American community have been battling environmental injustice in their neighborhood since 1992 That year, they first brought a civil rights Title VI challenge to the issuance of a permit by the MDNR6 to construct and operate an industrial wood waste incinerator in their backyards, directly across from a grade school. Now known as the Genesee Power Station Case, their Title VI civil rights claim is still pending before the EPA , and in the meantime, the facility was constructed and since 1996 has been up and running.
Unlike the Genesee Power Station case, the infamous Select Steel case, arising from the proposed siting of a steel recycling plant within a mile of Flint=s Genesee Power Station, moved like greased lightning through the administrative/ bureaucratic channels: 1. May 27, 1998: Permit approved by MDEQ (to be effective June 30, 1998); 2. June 9, 1998: Title VI claim/letter written to EPA by St.Francis Prayer Center (supplemented by August 1 letter written by United For Action, Justice and Environmental Safety); 3. August 17, 1998: Case accepted for investigation by EPA; 4. October 30, 1998: Less than 8 weeks after being accepted for investigation, EPA issued decision denying the Title VI claim.
This was the very first decision ever issued on the merits by the EPA on any Title VI case ever filed anywhere in the country, despite the pendency of more than 2 dozen other cases which have been languishing for upwards of 4-7 years B cases also challenging the permitting of highly toxic industrial/hazardous waste facilities, some of which are operating and spewing toxics into the affected communities. By pushing the Select Steel case to the "top of the heap," and by conducting a cursory, at best, investigation, the EPA decided this case not on environmental justice grounds, but rather in direct response to the massive level of political pressure exerted by various political/mass media forces to prove to its critics that it was not "anti-business." The Ainvestigation@ consisted of one interview with 4 community members, and no review of the thousands of pages of records, sworn testimony, demographic studies, pollution studies, etc., already provided to the EPA by the Genesee Power Station plaintiffs, members of the same community.7
When confronted in a phone conversation 3 days before the decision was issued, the head of the EPA Office of Civil Rights admitted that the decision to accelerate was due to the tremendous political pressure they were under, the threats to de-fund their office from the ultra-conservative wing of congress, and the need to "prove that EPA is not anti-business."
On March 1 the GLC, with the Center on Race, Poverty & the Environment, filed a comprehensive Petition with the EPA on behalf of 14 of the other pending Title VI claims from around the country. This Petition challenges the validity of the process and the potentially ominous precedent threatening the environmental civil rights of communities across the nation. The media and political opponents of environmental justice met this Petition with incredible hostility and credited it with the economic ruin of the Flint community. Yet, to date the EPA has neither responded to nor acknowledged the filing of the Petition.
On April 6, Select Steel announced its withdrawal from Flint as a site. What really happened with Select Steel? Why did Select Steel ultimately decide to relocate to Lansing? The State government leaders, with direct assistance from mass media8, have dishonestly characterized this relocation as a consequence of EPA=s environmental justice policies and the filing of the March 1 Petition, which has, according to them, destroyed the promise of economic development and job creation in Flint. The facts: Select Steel had experienced longstanding problems with securing sufficient financing to move forward; it was then offered a 12-year 50% industrial facilities tax abatement and a 40-year 100% personal property/equipment tax abatement, with no corresponding guarantee of jobs or clean production processes. In fact, the Genesee Township Treasurer stated that with all the tax abatements and cost of making the necessary infrastructure improvements, "...it would cost the township money for Select Steel to come here..." Moreover, the much ballyhooed 200 jobs @$16/hour would never have been offered to those community members! Select Steel itself stated on the record that one of the reasons it relocated, (in addition, of course, to the $72 million in government subsidies and the larger parcel of land) is the availability of a skilled labor force. These tax incentives, (tax abatements, job training and infrastructure improvements), will cost the public more than $100,000/job for each of the 200 jobs @$16/hour, assuming, of course, that there will in fact be 200 jobs created!
All of the noise about how the environmental justice movement destroys "economic development" and "job creation" is just that: uncorroborated noise! There is a desparate need for comprehensive studies on the precise relationship between toxic/hazardous permitting in these communities and the actual economic costs/benefits. The statistics which do exist suggest: the most capital intensive and highly polluting industries, which receive hundreds of millions in tax subsidies, in fact create only a fraction of the jobs they promise when seeking subsidies:9
1997: Genesee Power Station created only 16 of the 30+ jobs promised (and not one from the community)10
1990: McCain Foods, Othello, Washington after $5 million dollars in low interest government loans and $2 million in tax abatements, not only destroyed the wild fish population by contaminating the water supply with ammonia, but created only 14 of the 200 jobs promised.11
In sum, given the history and current reaction to the environmental justice movement and to those communities most impacted by environmental injustice, steps must be taken to ensure that our civil rights laws are enforced to protect those communities from environmental abuse. New laws are needed which explicitly prohibits this form of racism and which provides affirmative relief to those communities harmed. Our regulatory agencies must be adequately funded and compelled to do their job, to effectively enforce our civil rights laws. We commend Congressman Lewis and the co-sponsors of the proposed Environmental Justice Act, as a first step along this track. However, we feel much stronger measures are needed and encourage you to take more effective steps to protect citizens.
We recommend:
Environmental justice legislation which includes, but is not limited to: a private right of action, stronger enforcement provisions, provisions for much more meaningful public participation, a broader public health standard tied in with restrictions on further siting in communities and more examination of the economic link between the site and the community. We will gladly make ourselves available to any Congressperson and staff to assist in those efforts.
We also invite Congress to:
Take appropriate steps to commission a study, by the GAO or other appropriate government or academic group, on the real relationship between operation of these facilities in communities of color and the actual number of jobs created and the net costs and benefits to those communities. We offer our services to provide technical assistance and to help formulate the scope of such an inquiry.
1 In a recently released study sponsored by the US Dept of Energy, the EPA, Center for Disease Control, and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, it was affirmed that "...minority and low-income communities...have had disproportionately higher levels of exposure to environmental stressors compared with those for the general population...[AND THAT] those with impoverished social economic and political support were also least able to effect change and create solutions for the broad range of problems that they experience." Toward Environmental Justice, National Institute of Medicine, p. 6
2 Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, § § 1-101, 1-103, requires federal agencies to: "...make environmental justice part of its mission..., [and to]......develop an agency-wide environmental justice strategy..."
The EPA has further articulated its commitment to environmental justice as follows:
"We will develop strategies to bring justice to Americans who are suffering disproportionately.Y'Our Goals: No segment of the population, regardless of race, color, national origin, or income, as a result of EPA's policies, programs, and activities, suffers disproportionately from adverse human health or environmental effects, and all people live in clean, healthy and sustainable communities..."
Our strategy and further efforts on environmental justice will be based on the following guiding principles:
1. Environmental justice begins and ends in our communities....
2. EPA will help affected communities have access to information which will enable them to meaningfully participate in activities .
3. EPA will take a leadership and coordination role...as an advocate of environmental justice....
"Strong and effective enforcement of environmental and civil rights laws is fundamental to virtually every mission of EPA..." The Environmental Protection Agency=s Environmental Justice Strategy, pp. 2, 3, 13 (4/3/95) [emphasis added].
3 See, e.g., South Bronx Coalition For Clean Air, Inc., et al. v. Conroy, et al., 20 F.Supp.2d 565, 571-572 (S.D.N.Y., 1998).
4 See f.n.1, supra; See also, Bullard, Robert D., Ed., Confronting Environmental Racism: Voices From The Grassroots, Boston, MA: South End Press, 1993.
5 See, Goldman, Benjamin A., 1994, Not Just Prosperity: Achieving Sustainability With Environmental Justice, Washington D.C.: National Wildlife Federation; and Bryant, Bunyan and Mohai, Paul, 1992, Race and the Incidence of Environmental Hazards, Boulder, Co., Westview Press.
6 Michigan Department of Natural Resources, now called Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ).
7 For example, the EPA looked at only 16 other sources of pollution in the surrounding area for its assessment of cumulative effects, ignoring the sworn testamentary and statistical evidence of more than 200 additional sources of pollution which had been provided to the agency.
8 For example, David Mastio, from the Detroit News, who has direct affiliations with the ultra-conservative Washington Legal Foundation has taken on the environmental justice movement with an ideological vengeance in his regular coverage of this issue.
9 LeRoy, Greg, No More Candy Store: States and Cities Making Job Subsidies Accountable, Washington, D.C., Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, 1997.
10 NAACP et al v Engler et al, (Genesee County Circuit Ct 95-038228 CV) transcript 5/29/97 pp. 44-45.
11 Footnote 9, supra, p 96; Columbia Basin Institute testimony for Washington Compact, 1993